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

• Published in: Journal of Ornithology
• Main Authors: Beaulieu, Michaël, Ropert‐coudert, Yan, Le Maho, Yvon, Ancel, André
• Other Authors: Département Ecologie, Physiologie et Ethologie (DEPE-IPHC), Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), Université de Strasbourg (UNISTRA)-Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) Mulhouse - Colmar (Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA))-Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules du CNRS (IN2P3)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université de Strasbourg (UNISTRA)-Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) Mulhouse - Colmar (Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA))-Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules du CNRS (IN2P3)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), IPEV, TAAF
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: HAL CCSD 2010
• Subjects: Bio-logging; Diving behaviour; Implantation; Penguins; [SDE]Environmental Sciences; Pygoscelis adeliae
• Online Access: https://hal.science/hal-00503074; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-009-0491-2

International audience 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 Ade´lie 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 Ade´lie 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.