It should be recognised that for a complete correlation and assignments as made now, more than 40 (number of winter pairs)*34 (number of summer recording locations)*3 (average number of analyses)*3 (computer generated power spectrum and sonogram plus listening) = 12.240 comparison steps would have to be made - manually, visually, by ear. A good part of that, I made, so that this reliable assignment was possible.
Re: nest 0 / 00, which does not exist according to Tom - I have no other information what this may be on Brian's summer 2000 protocoll.
The following table lists
The table may provide evidence that either territory number (ANWR), nest number or CNA (WBNP) may not coincide with pair identification from call analysis. One line in this table means: this is with a very high probability the same pair; in most cases, we can be absolutely sure. In ANWR, my assignment of pairs to territories is mainly based on their early morning or evening calls, hence be the roost, whereby Tom's assignment is to their feeding area, which may or may not be the same territory as their roost is in. So, my "# 9" may or may not be identical with Tom's "# 9".
Except for one case, I did not try to find out if there were repairing cases (new male, new female). If the spectrum did not match by all peaks, I just said "different pair". The interpretation of repairing (to be started if one part of the spectrum matches, another does not) takes again long time which I did not spend yet (reason: in contrast to Common Cranes, male and female calls are very often overlapping in frequency, so spectrum and sonogram have to be looked at very carefully).