"Common vole (Microtus arvalis) population sex ratio: biases and process variation." . . . "Nesvadbov\u00E1, Ji\u0159ina" . "Los\u00EDk, Jan" . . "1"^^ . "Canadian Journal of Zoology" . "Tkadlec, Emil" . . . . "capture-recapture; Cormack-Jolly-Seber models; demography"@en . . . . "Heroldov\u00E1, Marta" . "7"^^ . "9"^^ . "515747" . "RIV/61989592:15310/05:00010475!RIV10-MSM-15310___" . . "0008-4301" . "83" . . "Vole population sex ratio varies seasonally. However, population sex ratios have usually been estimated using na\u00EFve estimators that do not allow for biases owing to the sex difference in capture probabilities and movement distances (i.e., effective areas sampled). Here we aimed to advance the methodological approach, recognizing that there are two different classes of contributing mechanisms to the pattern which are best addressed separately: (1) those mechanisms imposing a systematic error (bias) in population estimates and (2) those generating the true process variation. Analyzing 7-year capture/recapture data in the common vole (Microtus arvalis (Pallas, 1778)), we quantified both types of biases and revealed that the bias owing to differential capture rates was often severe and less predictable, whereas that owing to differential effective areas was smaller and overestimated male numbers for most of the year. We demonstrated unambiguously that the unbiased population sex ratio indeed varies"@en . "RIV/61989592:15310/05:00010475" . "CA - Kanada" . "Common vole (Microtus arvalis) population sex ratio: biases and process variation."@en . "Vole population sex ratio varies seasonally. However, population sex ratios have usually been estimated using na\u00EFve estimators that do not allow for biases owing to the sex difference in capture probabilities and movement distances (i.e., effective areas sampled). Here we aimed to advance the methodological approach, recognizing that there are two different classes of contributing mechanisms to the pattern which are best addressed separately: (1) those mechanisms imposing a systematic error (bias) in population estimates and (2) those generating the true process variation. Analyzing 7-year capture/recapture data in the common vole (Microtus arvalis (Pallas, 1778)), we quantified both types of biases and revealed that the bias owing to differential capture rates was often severe and less predictable, whereas that owing to differential effective areas was smaller and overestimated male numbers for most of the year. We demonstrated unambiguously that the unbiased population sex ratio indeed varies" . "15310" . . "Trebatick\u00E1, Lenka" . "P(GA206/04/2003), P(GA524/01/1316), P(GP206/02/P068), S, Z(AV0Z60930519), Z(MSM 153100014), Z(MSM6198959212)" . "11" . . . . "Common vole (Microtus arvalis) population sex ratio: biases and process variation." . . . "Common vole (Microtus arvalis) population sex ratio: biases and process variation."@en . . . . "Bryja, Josef" . "J\u00E1nov\u00E1, Eva" . "[A8FB0635CB58]" . . .