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

Abstract 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-ra...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Ornithology
Language:English
Published: Springer-Verlag 2011
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/2262/49115
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-009-0491-2
id fttrinitycoll:oai:tara.tcd.ie:2262/49115
record_format openpolar
spelling fttrinitycoll:oai:tara.tcd.ie:2262/49115 2023-05-15T18:03:50+02:00 Is abdominal implantation of devices a good alternative to external attachment? A comparative study in Adelie penguins 2011-01-13T02:51:22Z http://hdl.handle.net/2262/49115 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-009-0491-2 en eng Springer-Verlag Berlin/Heidelberg 0021-8375 (pISSN) 1439-0361 (eISSN) 0021-8375 (ISSN) 10336 (JournalID) s10336-009-0491-2 (publisherID) 491 (ArticleID) http://hdl.handle.net/2262/49115 Journal of Ornithology 151 3 579 586 doi:10.1007/s10336-009-0491-2 Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V., 2010 12 months Bio-logging Diving behaviour Implantation Penguins 2011 fttrinitycoll https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-009-0491-2 2020-02-16T13:50:55Z Abstract 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 Adelie 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 Adelie 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. phone: +33-3-88106912 (Beaulieu, Michael) michael.beaulieu@c-strasbourg.fr (Beaulieu, Michael) Departement Ecologie, Physiologie et Ethologie (DEPE), Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), UMR 7178 CNRS-UDS - 23 rue Becquerel - 67087 - Strasbourg Cedex 2 - FRANCE (Beaulieu, Michael) Departement Ecologie, Physiologie et Ethologie (DEPE), Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), UMR 7178 CNRS-UDS - 23 rue Becquerel - 67087 - Strasbourg Cedex 2 - FRANCE (Ropert-Coudert, Yan) Departement Ecologie, Physiologie et Ethologie (DEPE), Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), UMR 7178 CNRS-UDS - 23 rue Becquerel - 67087 - Strasbourg Cedex 2 - FRANCE (Maho, Yvon) Departement Ecologie, Physiologie et Ethologie (DEPE), Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), UMR 7178 CNRS-UDS - 23 rue Becquerel - 67087 - Strasbourg Cedex 2 - FRANCE (Ancel, Andre) FRANCE Registration: 2009-12-21 Received: 2009-06-03 Revised: 2009-10-20 Accepted: 2009-12-21 ePublished: 2010-01-13 Other/Unknown Material Pygoscelis adeliae The University of Dublin, Trinity College: TARA (Trinity's Access to Research Archive) Yvon ENVELOPE(70.283,70.283,-49.350,-49.350) Journal of Ornithology 151 3 579 586
institution Open Polar
collection The University of Dublin, Trinity College: TARA (Trinity's Access to Research Archive)
op_collection_id fttrinitycoll
language English
topic Bio-logging
Diving behaviour
Implantation
Penguins
spellingShingle Bio-logging
Diving behaviour
Implantation
Penguins
Is abdominal implantation of devices a good alternative to external attachment? A comparative study in Adelie penguins
topic_facet Bio-logging
Diving behaviour
Implantation
Penguins
description Abstract 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 Adelie 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 Adelie 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. phone: +33-3-88106912 (Beaulieu, Michael) michael.beaulieu@c-strasbourg.fr (Beaulieu, Michael) Departement Ecologie, Physiologie et Ethologie (DEPE), Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), UMR 7178 CNRS-UDS - 23 rue Becquerel - 67087 - Strasbourg Cedex 2 - FRANCE (Beaulieu, Michael) Departement Ecologie, Physiologie et Ethologie (DEPE), Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), UMR 7178 CNRS-UDS - 23 rue Becquerel - 67087 - Strasbourg Cedex 2 - FRANCE (Ropert-Coudert, Yan) Departement Ecologie, Physiologie et Ethologie (DEPE), Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), UMR 7178 CNRS-UDS - 23 rue Becquerel - 67087 - Strasbourg Cedex 2 - FRANCE (Maho, Yvon) Departement Ecologie, Physiologie et Ethologie (DEPE), Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC), UMR 7178 CNRS-UDS - 23 rue Becquerel - 67087 - Strasbourg Cedex 2 - FRANCE (Ancel, Andre) FRANCE Registration: 2009-12-21 Received: 2009-06-03 Revised: 2009-10-20 Accepted: 2009-12-21 ePublished: 2010-01-13
title Is abdominal implantation of devices a good alternative to external attachment? A comparative study in Adelie penguins
title_short Is abdominal implantation of devices a good alternative to external attachment? A comparative study in Adelie penguins
title_full Is abdominal implantation of devices a good alternative to external attachment? A comparative study in Adelie penguins
title_fullStr Is abdominal implantation of devices a good alternative to external attachment? A comparative study in Adelie penguins
title_full_unstemmed Is abdominal implantation of devices a good alternative to external attachment? A comparative study in Adelie penguins
title_sort is abdominal implantation of devices a good alternative to external attachment? a comparative study in adelie penguins
publisher Springer-Verlag
publishDate 2011
url http://hdl.handle.net/2262/49115
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-009-0491-2
long_lat ENVELOPE(70.283,70.283,-49.350,-49.350)
geographic Yvon
geographic_facet Yvon
genre Pygoscelis adeliae
genre_facet Pygoscelis adeliae
op_relation 0021-8375 (pISSN)
1439-0361 (eISSN)
0021-8375 (ISSN)
10336 (JournalID)
s10336-009-0491-2 (publisherID)
491 (ArticleID)
http://hdl.handle.net/2262/49115
Journal of Ornithology
151
3
579
586
doi:10.1007/s10336-009-0491-2
op_rights Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V., 2010
12 months
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-009-0491-2
container_title Journal of Ornithology
container_volume 151
container_issue 3
container_start_page 579
op_container_end_page 586
_version_ 1766174859038031872