Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:10:01.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking the time to assess the effects of remote sensing and tracking devices on animals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

CR McMahon ,
N Collier ,
JK Northfield  and
F Glen
CR McMahon*
Affiliation:
Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory 0909, Australia
N Collier
Affiliation:
Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory 0909, Australia
JK Northfield
Affiliation:
Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory 0909, Australia
F Glen
Affiliation:
16 Eshton Terrace, Clitheroe, Lancashire BB7 1BQ, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: clive.mcmahon@cdu.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The remote monitoring of animal behaviour using telemetry and bio-logging has become popular due to technological advances, falling costs of devices and the need to understand behaviour without causing disturbance to subjects. Over the past three decades thousands of animals have had their movements tracked by these devices; however, attaching devices to streamlined bodies raises concerns about energetic costs and effects on vital rates and the reliability of the data collected (eg survival probability). We encourage researchers to discuss concerns, quantify the possible effects that devices and attachment methods have on subjects and present this work for peer review.

Keywords

animal welfarebio-loggingconservationethicsremote sensingsatellite tracking
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , November 2011 , pp. 515 - 521
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ackerman, JT, Adams, J, Takekawa, Y, Carter, HR, Whitworth, DL, Newman SH Golightly, RT and Orthmeyer, DL 2004 Effects of radiotransmitters on the reproductive performance of Cassin's auklets. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 1229–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguirre, A and Lutz, P 2004 Marine turtles as sentinels of ecosystem health: is fibropapillomatosis an indicator? Ecohealth 1: 275–283Google Scholar
Ballard, G, Ainley, D, Ribic, C and Barton, K 2001 Effect of instrument attachment and other factors on foraging trip duration and nesting success of Adelie penguins. The Condor 103: 481–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannasch, R, Wilson, R 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
Beaulieu, M, Ropert-Coudert, Y, Le Maho, Y and Ancel, A 2010a Is abdominal implantation of devices a good alternative to external attachment? A comparative study in Adelie penguins. Journal of Ornithology 151: 579–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaulieu, M, Thierry, A, Handrich, Y, Massemin, S, Le Maho, Y and Ancel, A 2010b Adverse effects of instrumentation in incubating Adelie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae). Polar Biology 33: 485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, IL, McCafferty, DJ and Walker, TR 1997 Variation in foraging effort by lactating Antarctic fur seals: response to simulated increased foraging costs. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 40: 135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casper, R 2009 Guidelines for the instrumentation of wild birds and mammals. Animal behaviour 78: 1477–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croll, D, Jansen, J, Goebel, M, Boveng, P and Bengtson, J 1996 Foraging behavior and reproductive success in chinstrap penguins: the effects of transmitter attachment. Journal of Field Ornithology 67: 1–9Google Scholar
Croll, D, Osmek, S and Bengtson, J 1991 An effect of instrument attachment on foraging trip duration in chinstrap penguins. Condor 93: 777–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culik, B and Wilson, R 1991 Energetics of under-water swimming in Adelie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae). Journal of Comparative Physiology B: Biochemical, Systemic, and Environmental Physiology 161: 285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culik, B and Wilson, R 1992 Field metabolic rates of instrumented Adelie penguins using double-labelled water. Journal of Comparative Physiology B: Biochemical, Systemic, and Environmental Physiology 162: 567–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugger, K, Ballard, G, Ainley, D and Barton, K 2006 Effects of flipper bands on foraging behavior and survival of Adelie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae). The Auk 123: 858–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, KH, Davoren, GK and Gaston, AJ 2008 Increasing energy expenditure for a deep-diving bird alters time allocation during the dive cycle. Animal Behaviour 75: 1311–1317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraroli, SJ, Georges, Y, Gaspar, P and Le Maho, Y 2004 Where leatherback turtles meet fisheries. Nature 429: 521–522CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fossette, S, Corbel, H, Gaspar, P, Le Maho, Y and Georges, J 2008 An alternative technique for the long-term satellite tracking of leatherback turtles. Endangered Species Research 4: 33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, CC 1992 Survival and reproduction of radio-marked adult spotted owls. Journal Of Wildlife Management 56: 91–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gannon, WL and Sikes, RS 2007 Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. Journal of Mammalogy 88: 809–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, JD, Bryant, DM and Williams, MJ 2003 Radio-telemetry increases free-living energy costs in the endangered Takahe porphyrio mantelli. Biological Conservation 114: 35–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godley, B, Blumenthal, J, Broderick, J, Coyne, A, Godfrey, MM, Hawkes, L and Witt, M 2008 Satellite tracking of sea turtles: where have we been and where do we go next? Endangered Species Research 4: 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, RT, Roberts, CM and Smart, JCR 2006 Diving behaviour of whale sharks in relation to a predictable food pulse. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 3: 109–116CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, J and Bradshaw, C 2004 The ‘capacity to reason’ in conservation biology and policy: the southern elephant seal branding controversy. Journal for Nature Conservation 12: 25–39CrossRefGoogle 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, Houghton, JDR, Isaacs, C, King, RS, Lloyd, C and Lovell, P 2004 First records of oceanic dive profiles for leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, indicate behavioural plasticity associated with long-distance migration. Animal Behaviour 67: 733–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindell, MA 1991 Some life-history parameters of a declining population of southern elephant seals, Mirounga leonina. Journal of Animal Ecology 60: 119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jabour-Green, J and Bradshaw, CJA 2004 The ‘capacity to reason’ in conservation biology and policy: the southern elephant seal branding controversy. Journal for Nature Conservation 12: 25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S and Wilson, RP 2002 The potential costs of flipperbands to penguins. Functional Ecology 16: 141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, B, Keane, K and Boardman, C 1988 Adverse effects of radio transmitters on the behavior of nesting least terns. Condor 90: 945–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, CR, Bradshaw, CJA and Hays, G 2006 Branding can be justified in vital conservation research. Nature 439: 392CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMahon, CR, Bradshaw, CJA and Hays, GC 2007 Applying the heat to research techniques for species conservation. Conservation Biology 21: 271–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, CR, Field, IC, Bradshaw, CJA, White, GC and Hindell, MA 2008 Tracking and data-logging devices attached to elephant seals do not affect individual mass gain or survival. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 360: 71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, D and Fuller, M 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
Obrecht III, H, Pennycuick, C and Fuller, M 1998 Wind tunnel experiments to assess the effect of back-mounted radio transmitters on bird body drag. Journal Of Experimental Biology 135: 265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ropert-Coudert, Y, Baudat, J, Kurita, M, Bost, CA, Kato, A, Le Maho, Y and Naito, Y 2000 Validation of oesophagus temperature recording for detection of prey ingestion on captive Adelie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae). Marine Biology 137: 1105–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ropert-Coudert, Y, Beaulieu, M, Hanuise, N and Kato, A 2009 Diving into the world of biologging. Endangered Species Research doi 10.3354/esr00188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ropert-Coudert, Y, Knott, N, Chiaradia, A and Kato, A 2007 How do different data logger sizes and attachment positions affect the diving behaviour of little penguins? Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 54: 415–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, WR and Burch, C 1959 The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Slip, DJ, Hindell, MA and Burton, HR 1994 Diving behaviour of southern elephant seals from Macquarie Island: an overview. In: Le Boeuf, BJ and Laws, RM (eds) Elephant Seals: Population Ecology, Behaviour, and Physiology pp 253–270. University of California Press: Berkeley, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, BL, Burger, WP and Singer, FJ 1998 An expandable radiocollar for elk calves. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 113–117Google Scholar
Soderquist, T 1993 An expanding break-away radio-collar for small mammals. Wildlife Research 20: 383–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohle, IS, Moller, H, Fletcher, D and Robertson, CJR 2000 Telemetry reduces colony attendance by sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus). New Zealand Journal of Zoology 27: 357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strathearn, S, Lotimer, J, Kolenosky, G and Lintack, W 1984 An expanding break-away radio collar for black bear. The Journal of Wildlife Management 48: 939–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, PW Jr, Carpenter, JW, Holzman, S and Geissler, PH 1990 Evaluation of three miniature radio transmitter attachment methods for small passerines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18: 41–48Google Scholar
Taylor, AH and Gangopadhyay, A 2001 A simple model of interannual displacements of the Gulf Stream. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 106: 13849–13860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troëng, S, Solano, R, Díaz-Merry, A, Ordoñez, J, Taylor, DR, Evans, D, Godfrey, D, Bagley, D, Ehrhart, L and Eckert, SA 2006 Report on long-term transmitter harness retention by a leatherback turtle. Marine Turtle Newsletter 111: 6–7Google Scholar
Wanless, S, Harris, M and Morris, J 1988 The effect of radio transmitters on the behavior of common murres and razorbills during chick rearing. Condor 90: 816–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanuki, Y, Mori, Y and Naito, Y 1992 Adelie penguin parental activities and reproduction: effects of device size and timing of its attachment during chick rearing period. Polar Biology 12: 539–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whidden, S, Williams, C, Breton, A and Buck, C 2007 Effects of transmitters on the reproductive success of tufted puffins. Journal of Field Ornithology 78: 206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, RP, Grant, WS and Duffy, DC 1986 Recording devices on free-ranging marine animals: does measurement affect foraging performace. Ecology 67: 1091–1093CrossRefGoogle 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 and Wilson, M 1989 A peck activity record for birds fitted with devices. Journal of Field Ornithology 60: 104–108Google Scholar
Wilson, RP, Spairani, H, Coria, N, Culik, B and Adelung, D 1990 Packages for attachment to seabirds: what color do Adelie penguins dislike least? The Journal of Wildlife Management 54: 447–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Withey, JC, Bloxton, TD and Marzluff, JM 2001 Effects of tagging and location error in wildlife radiotelemetry studies. In: Joshua, JM and John, MM (eds) Radio Tracking and Animal Populations pp 43–75. Academic Press: San Diego, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar