The remote measurement of data from free-ranging animals has been termed 'biologging' and in recent years this relatively small set of tools has been instrumental in addressing remarkably diverse questions -from 'how will tuna respond to climate change?' to 'why are whales big?'. While a single biologging dataset can have the potential to test hypotheses spanning physiology, ecology, evolution and theoretical physics, explicit illustrations of this flexibility are scarce and this has arguably hindered the full realization of the power of biologging tools. Here we present a small set of examples from studies that have collected data on two parameters widespread in biologging research (depth and acceleration), but that have interpreted their data in the context of extremely diverse phenomena: from tests of biomechanical and diving-optimality models to identifications of feeding events, Lévy flight foraging strategies and expanding oxygen minimum zones. We use these examples to highlight the remarkable flexibility of biologging tools, and identify several mechanisms that may enhance the scope and dissemination of future biologging research programs.KEY WORDS: Acoustic telemetry, Energetics, Hypoxia, Logger, Penguin, Scaling, Seal, Shark, Stroke frequency, Temperature
IntroductionThe collective term 'biologging' has been coined to describe a process by which researchers gain information (typically position, behavior, movement or physiological status) from an animal remotely (see Glossary). Its value with aquatic animals has been highlighted repeatedly (Cooke et al., 2004; Metcalfe et al., 2012;Rutz and Hays, 2009), and in recent years, the diversity of biologging applications has expanded dramatically. In contrast, the suite of parameters recorded by biologging devices has expanded at a much slower pace. While temperature, pressure (depth), heart rate, location and acceleration have been measured in aquatic animals for decades, recent studies have seen these few parameters address remarkably diverse phenomena (Fig. 1). The same type of device that is used to estimate an animal's daily energy budget [e.g. accelerometers (Halsey et al., 2009)] is also used to help explain why diving mammals attain larger sizes than fish (e.g. ). An instrument that reveals preferences for dissolved oxygen levels [e.g. a depth sensor (Stramma et al., 2012)] also provides evidence of Lévy flight foraging strategies (e.g. Humphries et al., 2010). The advantages and disadvantages of using a specific biologging sensor for addressing a particular problem have been thoroughly considered, and are reviewed elsewhere [e.g. in the context of ecology (Cooke et al., 2004), energy expenditure (Halsey et al., 2008) and conservation physiology (Metcalfe et al., 2012)]. Less well recognized, however (or perhaps simply less well documented), is how the collection of a dataset on a single biologging parameter can potentially facilitate insights spanning physiology, ecology, evolution and theoretical physics. While hypothesis-driven research is...