Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T00:20:09.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tags on seabirds: how seriously are instrument-induced behaviours considered?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

SP Vandenabeele ,
RP Wilson  and
A Grogan
SP Vandenabeele*
Affiliation:
Swansea Moving Animal Research Team, Biosciences, College of Science, Swansea University, Singleton Park SA2 8PP, UK
RP Wilson
Affiliation:
Swansea Moving Animal Research Team, Biosciences, College of Science, Swansea University, Singleton Park SA2 8PP, UK
A Grogan
Affiliation:
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Wildlife Department, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: 574139@swansea.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Equipping birds with tags (defined as any item externally attached to birds, including transmitters, loggers and flipper bands, or implanted devices, such as transponders) gives particular insights into animal biology, although researchers may not give systematic consideration of tag impact. We examined 357 papers published between 1986 and 2009 where tags (excluding rings attached to birds’ legs) were used on seabirds, to examine the extent to which researchers considered deleterious effects. Fifty-one (14.3%) papers considered instrumentation effects in their abstract, 31 (60.8%) of which showed statistically significant effects on seabird biology. Of the total data set, 302 (84.6%) articles were classified as ‘indirect’ (with no stated aim to assess the influence of the equipment used) and although most of these (237; 76.5%) did discuss instrumentation effects, this accounted for less than a mean of 2% of the total length of the text. Despite a clear increase in the number of papers based on tagging technology for seabird study over the previous 24 years, there has been no corresponding increase in documentation of the effects of devices on their bearers. We suggest mechanisms by which this issue might be addressed.

Keywords

animal welfaredevice effectslogging technologyseabirdstagstracking
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , November 2011 , pp. 559 - 571
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bannasch, R, Wilson, RP and Culik, B 1994 Hydrodynamic aspects of design and attachment of a back-mounted device in penguins. Journal of Experimental Biology 194: 83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barron, D, Brawn, J and Weatherhead, P 2010 Meta-analysis of transmitter effects on avian behaviour and ecology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1: 180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bost, CA, Charrassin, JB, Clerquin, Y, Ropert-Coudert, Y and Le Maho, Y 2004 Exploitation of distant marginal ice zones by king penguins during winter. Marine Ecology Progress Series 283: 293–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, A, Deufel, T, Geilenkeuser, WJ, Neumaier, M, Röhle, G, Roscher, A and Wagener, C 1998 External quality assessment of molecular biology-based methods used in laboratories of clinical chemistry and human genetics. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 36: 231–234CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooke, ML 2004 The food consumption of the world's seabirds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 271: 246–248Google Scholar
Buehler, DA, Fraser, JD, Fuller, MR, McAllister, LS and Seegar, JKD 1995 Captive and field-tested radio transmitter attachments for bald eagles. Journal of Field Ornithology 66: 173–180Google Scholar
Burger, J and Gochfeld, M 2004 Marine birds as sentinels of environmental pollution. EcoHealth 1: 263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, DK 1987 Seabirds as indicators of marine food supplies. Biological Oceanography 5: 1–267Google Scholar
Calvo, B and Furness, RW 1992 A review of the use and the effects of marks and devices on birds. Ringing and Migration 13: 129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherel, Y, Hobson, KA and Weimerskirch, H 2000 Using stable-isotope analysis of feathers to distinguish moulting and breeding origins of seabirds. Oecologia 122: 155–162CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooke, SJ, Hinch, SG, Wikelski, M, Andrews, RD, Kuchel, LJ, Wolcott, TG and Butler, PJ 2004 Biotelemetry: a mechanistic approach to ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 334–343CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croll, DA and Tershy, BR 1998 Penguins, fur seals, and fishing: prey requirements and potential competition in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica. Polar Biology 19: 365–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croxall, JP 1987 The food and feeding ecology of penguins. In: Croxall, JP (ed) Seabirds: Feeding Ecology and Role in Marine Ecosystems pp 101–131. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Culik, B and Wilson, RP 1991 Swimming energetics and performance of instrumented Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae). Journal of Experimental Biology 158: 355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culik, BM, Bannasch, R and Wilson, RP 1994 External devices on penguins: how important is shape? Marine Biology 118: 353–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, RW 2008 Bio-logging as a method for understanding natural systems. Proceedings of the International Conference on Informatics Education and Research for Knowledge-Circulating Society pp 12–17. IEEE Computer Society: Washington, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boo, J and Knight, A 2005 ‘Concepts in animal welfare’: A syllabus in animal welfare science and ethics for veterinary schools. Journal Of Veterinary Medical Education 32: 451–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, DC and Schneider, DC 1994 Seabird-fishery interactions: a manager's guide. In: Nettleship, DN, Burger, J and Gochfeld, M (eds) Seabirds on Islands, Birdlife Conservation Series pp 26–38. Birdlife International: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Ellington, CP 1991 Limitations on animal flight performance. Journal of Experimental Biology 160: 71–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forero, MG and Hobson, KA 2003 Using stable isotopes of nitrogen and carbon to study seabird ecology: applications in the Mediterranean seabird community. Scientia Marina 67: 23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furness, RW and Camphuysen, KCJ 1997 Seabirds as monitors of the marine environment. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 726–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garthe, S, Benvenuti, S and Montevecchi, WA 2003 Temporal patterns of foraging activities of northern gannets, Morus bassanus, in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Canadian Journal Of Zoology-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie 81: 453–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, JD and Bryant, DM 2003 Effects of radio transmitters: Review of recent radio-tracking studies. Science for Conservation 214: 83–95Google Scholar
Goodman, RM, Knapp, CR, Bradley, KA, Gerber, GP and Alberts, AC 2009 Review of radio transmitter attachment methods for West Indian rock iguanas (genus Cyclura). Applied Herpetology 6: 151–170Google Scholar
Griffin, G and Gauthier, C 2004 Incorporation of the principles of the Three Rs in wildlife research. Atla-Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 32: 215–219Google ScholarPubMed
Hartung, R 1967 Energy metabolism in oil-covered ducks. The Journal of Wildlife Management 31: 798–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, BB and Rathbun, GB 1996 Evaluation of a flipper-mounted transmitter on sea otters. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24: 551–554Google Scholar
Hawkins, P 2004 Bio-logging and animal welfare: practical refinements. Memoirs of the National Institute for Polar Research 58: 58–68Google Scholar
Hays, GC, Forman, DW, Harrington, LA, Harrington, AL, Macdonald, DW and Righton, D 2007 Recording the free-living behaviour of small-bodied, shallow-diving animals with data loggers. Journal of Animal Ecology 76: 183–190CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunt, GLJ and Schneider, DC 1987 Scale-dependent processes in the physical and biological environment of marine birds. In: Croxall, JP (eds) The Feeding Ecology of Seabirds and their Role in Marine Ecosystems pp 7–41. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Igual, JM, Forero, MG, Tavecchia, G, Gonzalez-Solis, J, Martinez-Abrain, A, Hobson, KA, Ruiz, X and Oro, D 2005 Short-term effects of data-loggers on Cory's shearwater (Calonectris diomedea). Marine Biology 146: 619–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, SJ, Springer, AM and Kitaysky, AS 2008 Seabirds as indicators of food web structure and ecosystem variability: qualitative and quantitative diet analyses using fatty acids. Marine Ecology Progress Series 352: 235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ives, AR, Midford, PE and Garland, T Jr 2007 Within-species variation and measurement error in phylogenetic comparative methods. Systematic biology 56: 252–270CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenssen, BM 1994 Review article: effects of oil pollution, chemically treated oil, and cleaning on thermal balance of birds. Environmental Pollution 86: 207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenward, RE 2001 A Manual for Wildlife Radio Tagging. Academic Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Kooyman, GL 2004 Genesis and evolution of bio-logging devices: 1963-2002. Memoirs of National Institute of Polar Research 58: 15–22Google Scholar
Monaghan, P 1996 Relevance of the behaviour of seabirds to the conservation of marine environments. Oikos 77: 227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montevecchi, WA 1993 Birds as indicators of change in marine prey stocks. In: Furness, RW and Greenwood, JJD (eds) Birds as Monitors of Environmental Change pp 217–266. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, DL 2000 A critical review of the effects of marking on the biology of vertebrates. In: Boitani, L and Fuller, TK (eds) Research Techniques in Animal Ecology: Controversies and Consequences pp 15–64. Columbia University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Naito, Y 2004 New steps in bio-logging science. Memoirs of National Institute of Polar Research Special Issue 58: 50–57Google Scholar
Newman, SH, Chmura, A, Converse, K, Kilpatrick, AM, Patel, N, Lammers, E and Daszak, P 2007 Aquatic bird disease and mortality as an indicator of changing ecosystem health. Marine Ecology Progress Series 352: 299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nietfeld, MT, Barrett, MW and Silvy, N 1994 Wildlife marking techniques. In: Brookhout, TA (eds) Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats pp 140–168. The Wildlife Society: Bethesda, Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
Norberg, UM 1995 How a long tail and changes in mass and wing shape affect the cost for flight in animals. Functional Ecology 9: 48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycuick, CJ 1975 Mechanics of flight. Avian Biology 5: 1–75Google Scholar
Pennycuick, CJ, Fuller, MR and McAllister, L 1989 Climbing performance of Harris’ hawks (Parabuteo unicinctus) with added load: implications for muscle mechanics and for radiotracking. Journal of Experimental Biology 142: 17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piatt, JF, Sydeman, WJ and Wiese, F 2007 Introduction: a modern role for seabirds as indicators. Marine Ecology Progress Series 352: 199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quillfeldt, P, McGill, RAR and Furness, RW 2005 Diet and foraging areas of Southern Ocean seabirds and their prey inferred from stable isotopes: review and case study of Wilson's storm-petrel. Marine Ecology Progress Series 295: 295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, JMV 1995 Flight mechanics and constraints on flight performance. Israel Journal of Zoology 41: 321–342Google Scholar
Rayner, JMV 2009 Aerodynamic corrections for the flight of birds and bats in wind tunnels. Journal of Zoology 234: 537–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, JMV and Ward, S 1999 On the power curves of flying birds. Proceedings of the XXII International Ornithological Congress pp 1786–1809. Durban, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Rayner, MJ, Hauber, ME, Clout, MN, Seldon, DS, Van Dijken, S, Bury, S and Phillips, RA 2008 Foraging ecology of the Cook's petrel Pterodroma cookii during the austral breeding season: a comparison of its two populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 370: 271–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, J 2010 The Three Rs. In: Hubrecht, R and Kirkwood, JKK (eds) The UFAW Handbook on Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals pp 5–22. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Ropert-Coudert, Y and Wilson, RP 2004 Subjectivity in bio-logging science: do logged data mislead. Memoirs of National Institute of Polar Research Special 58: 23–33Google Scholar
Ropert-Coudert, Y, Beaulieu, M, Hanuise, N and Kato, A 2009 Diving into the world of biologging. Endangered Species Research 10: 21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saraux, C, Le Bohec, C, Durant, JM, Viblanc, VA, Gauthier-Clerc, M, Beaune, D, Park, YH, Yoccoz, NG, Stenseth, NC and Le Maho, Y 2011 Reliability of flipper-banded penguins as indicators of climate change. Nature 469: 203–206CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmid, D, Gremillet, DJH and Culik, BM 1995 Energetics of underwater swimming in the great cormorant (Phalacrocorax Carbo Sinensis). Marine Biology 123: 875–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tasker, ML and Furness, RW 2003 Seabirds as monitors of the marine environment. ICES Cooperative Research Report 258. ICES: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, Y and Cherel, Y 2005 Spatial and temporal variation in the provisioning behaviour of female rockhopper penguins Eudyptes chrysocome filholi. Journal of Avian Biology 36: 135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troëng, S, Solano, R, Díaz-Merry, A, Ordoñez, J, Taylor, J, Evans, DR, Godfrey, D, Bagley, D, Ehrhart, L and Eckert, S 2006 Report on long-term transmitter harness retention by a leatherback turtle. Marine Turtle Newsletter 111: 6–7Google Scholar
White, GC and Garrott, RA 1990 Analysis of Wildlife Radio-Tracking Data. Academic Press: San Diego, USAGoogle Scholar
Wilson, RP and McMahon, CR 2006 Measuring devices on wild animals: what constitutes acceptable practice? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4: 147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, RP, Grant, WS and Duffy, DC 1986 Recording devices on free-ranging marine animals: does measurement affect foraging performance? Ecology 67: 1091–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, RP, Kreye, JM, Lucke, K and Urquhart, H 2004 Antennae on transmitters on penguins: balancing energy budgets on the high wire. Journal of Experimental Biology 207: 2649–2662CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Withey, JC, Bloxton, TD and Marzluff, JM 2001 Effects of tagging and location error in wildlife radiotelemetry studies. In: Millspaugh, JJ and Marzluff, JM (eds) Radio Tracking and Animal Populations pp 43–75. Academic Press: San Diego, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Vandenabeele et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 93.3 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Download undefined(PDF)
PDF 93.3 KB