An Effect of Instrument Attachment on Foraging Trip Duration in Chinstrap Penguins

Croll, Donald A.; Osmek, Steven; Bengtson, John L.

doi:10.2307/1368216

Cited by 54 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The principle of telemetry studies implies that the tagged animals behave normally and that the instrumentation used does not alter the behaviour of the animals studied. However, various studies demonstrated that attaching or even implanting telemetry devices to animals have an impact on physiology or behaviour, and this can be significant Croll et al 1991;Culik and Wilson 1991;RopertCoudert et al 2000;Whidden et al 2007). These effects should not be neglected when analysing data retrieved from these devices; otherwise, the value of the information obtained from the devices will be poor.…”

Section: Biased Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…foraging locations, diving depths). However, attaching external devices to or even implanting devices in animals may influence their hydrodynamics or physiology and alter behaviour and energy expenditure Croll et al 1991;Wilson et al 1986). A wide range of hydrodynamical and behavioural effects of carrying devices have been documented, for example in diving birds (Hamel et al 2004;Igual et al 2005;Paredes et al 2005;Whidden et al 2007), penguins Taylor et al 2001;Wilson et al 1986Wilson et al , 2004 and fish (Koed and Thorstad 2001;Thorstad et al 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The consequences of a reduction in the ability to forage may not be significant in laboratory animals, but could prove to be severely debilitating or even fatal for free-ranging wild animals (Hawkins 2004). In some studies, the behaviour of freeranging animals with and without devices has been compared (Croll et al 1991;Whidden et al 2007;McMahon et al 2008). The most common approach to study the hydrodynamic effects of external devices on swimming animals is to experimentally investigate the generated forces on models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Flow simulation along a seal: the impact of an external device

Hazekamp

Mayer²,

Osinga

2009

Eur J Wildl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increasing number of marine mammal studies on physiology, behaviour and ecology rely on data, which have been collected from back-mounted devices, such as bio-logging tags and satellite transmitters. However, external devices may influence an animal's hydrodynamics, behaviour and energy expenditure and, therefore, can impede the individual animal. To investigate the influence of external devices on seals, the water flow along a grey seal was simulated using computational fluid dynamics calculations. The simulations revealed several changes in forces and moments and thus balance, due to this device. The investigated satellite transmitter creates an average 12% increase of the drag coefficient. Additionally, there are significant relative transmitter-induced increases in pitching moment (32%) and lift (240%). The simulations also showed that the transmitter generates areas of decreased wall shear stress on the seal's back. The results of this study demonstrate that external devices can change the hydrodynamics of the seal, which is expected to alter the seal's physiology and behaviour and its use of the ecosystem. Long-term attachment may have adverse effects on the animal's welfare. It is important to take these effects into consideration when studying tagged seals; otherwise, the value of the data obtained will be poor. Therefore, interpretations and extrapolations regarding 'natural behaviour' of animals in their 'natural environment' should only be made with great caution.

show abstract

Section: Biased Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Flow simulation along a seal: the impact of an external device

Hazekamp

Mayer²,

Osinga

2009

Eur J Wildl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, fitting an instrument onto the streamlined body of a swimming/diving animal could potentially cause discomfort and create drag that could increase the energetic costs of locomotion, introducing bias to all collected data. It is therefore crucial to ensure that the results and conclusions inferred from biologging and telemetry data are valid by assessing the potential effects of instruments on animal behaviour, energetics and fitness whenever possible (Wilson et al 1986;Croll et al 1991;Walker & Boveng 1995;McMahon et al 2008;Walker et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instrumentation and handling effects on Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella)

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of biologging instruments has greatly improved our understanding of the behaviour, physiology and ecology of free-ranging marine mammals. However, handling wild animals and attaching instruments to streamlined bodies can cause stress and potentially influence behaviour and swimming/ diving energetics. The goals of this study, undertaken on Bouvetøya, were (1) to determine if the first trip to sea after instrumentation is representative of subsequent trips in lactating Antarctic fur seals, to explore potential handling effects and assess possible biases in having multiple short-duration deployments (inflating N, using a limited number of tags) and (2) to evaluate potential effects of two different instrument combinations (SMRU satellite data relay loggers and very high frequency radio transmitters versus Wildlife Computers timeÁdepth recorders and very high frequency radio transmitters) on trip durations, dive parameters, female body condition and pup growth. Handling did not appear to have any effects on the parameters studied; data from the first and second trips did not differ significantly. This implies that multiple short-term deployments are unlikely to result in biased data in this species. Instrument type did have measurable effects; time-at-sea was greater and pup growth was lower for pairs in which mothers carried bulkier instruments. This suggests that instrument streamlining is important to avoid negative impacts and that bulkier equipment should be deployed on lactating females with caution and only for short periods. The study highlights that instrument effects should be taken into account when comparing data from experiments collected using different equipment packages.

show abstract

“…However, attaching instruments to wild animals can sometimes have unexpected adverse effects. For instance, in diving animals, some studies indicated that instrumentation may affect foraging trip duration (Wanless et al 1988;Croll et al 1991;Hull 1997;Taylor et al 2001), body mass loss (Elliott et al 2007), provisioning rate, offspring growth and breeding success (Watanuki et al 1992;Croll et al 1996;Ackerman et al 2004). However, researchers rarely consider the actual impact of instrumentation on the performances of free-ranging animals and usually presume that handling effects are minor (Hawkins 2004;Wilson and McMahon 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is abdominal implantation of devices a good alternative to external attachment? A comparative study in Adélie penguins

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bio-logging studies suffer from the lack of real controls. However, it is still possible to compare indirect parameters between control and equipped animals to assess the level of global disturbance due to instrumentation. In addition, it is also possible to compare the behaviour of free-ranging animals between individuals equipped with different techniques or instruments to determine the less deleterious approach. We instrumented Adélie Penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) with internal or external time-depth recorders and monitored them in parallel with a control group during the first foraging trip following instrumentation. Foraging trip duration was significantly longer in the internally-equipped group. This difference was due to a larger number of dives, reflecting a lower foraging ability or a higher food demand, and longer periods of recovery at the surface. These longer recovery periods were likely to be due to a reduced efficiency to ventilate at the surface, probably because the implanted devices pressurised adjacent organs such as air sacs. Moreover, descent and ascent rates were slightly lower in externally-equipped penguins, presumably because external instrumentation increased the bird drag. Looking at our results, implantation appears more disadvantageous-at least for short-term deployment-than external equipment in Adélie Penguins, while this method has been described to induce no negative effects in long-term studies. This underlines the need to control for potential effects due to methodological aspects in any study using data loggers in free-ranging animals, to minimise disturbance and collect reliable data.

show abstract

An Effect of Instrument Attachment on Foraging Trip Duration in Chinstrap Penguins

Cited by 54 publications

References 9 publications

Flow simulation along a seal: the impact of an external device

Flow simulation along a seal: the impact of an external device

Instrumentation and handling effects on Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella)

Is abdominal implantation of devices a good alternative to external attachment? A comparative study in Adélie penguins

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About