Effects of geolocators on hatching success, return rates, breeding movements, and change in body mass in 16 species of Arctic-breeding shorebirds.

• Published in: Movement Ecology
• Main Authors: Weiser, Emily L., Lanctot, Richard B., Brown, Stephen, Alves, José A., Battley, Phil F., Bentzen, Rebecca, Bêty, Joël, Bishop, Mary Anne, Boldenow, Megan, Bollache, Loïc, Casler, Bruce, Christie, Chris, Coleman, Jonathan T., Conklin, Jesse R., English, Willow B., Gates, H. River, Gilg, Olivier, Giroux, Marie-Andrée, Gosbell, Ken, Hassell, Chris, Helmericks, Jim, Johnson, Andrew, Katrínardóttir, Borgný, Koivula, Kari, Kwon, Eunbi, Lamarre, Jean-Francois, Lang, Johannes, Lank, David, Lecomte, Nicolas, Liebezeit, Joe, Loverti, Vanessa, McKinnon, Laura, Minton, Clive, mizrahi, david, Nol, Erica, Pakanen, Veli-Matti, Perz, Johanna, Porter, Ron, Rausch, Jennie, Reneerkens, Jeroen, Rönkä, Nelli, Saalfeld, Sarah, Senner, Nathan, Sittler, Benoît, Smith, Paul A., Sowl, Kristine, Taylor, Audrey, Ward, David H., Yezerinac, Stephen, Sandercock, Brett K.
• Other Authors: Division of Biology, Kansas State University, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, CESAM, Universidade de Aveiro, South Iceland Research Centre, University of Iceland Reykjavik, Ecology Group, Institute of Agriculture and Environment, Wildlife Conservation Society, Departement de Biologie, Chimie et Géographie, Université du Québec à Rimouski (UQAR), Centre d'Etudes Nordiques (CEN), Université Laval Québec (ULaval), Prince William Sound Science Center, Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), Laboratoire Chrono-environnement - CNRS - UBFC (UMR 6249) (LCE), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université de Franche-Comté (UFC), Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté COMUE (UBFC)-Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté COMUE (UBFC), Victorian Wader Study Group, Queensland Wader Study Group, Chair in Global Flyway Ecology - Conservation Ecology Group, University of Groningen Groningen -Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES), Department of Biological Sciences Burnaby, Simon Fraser University (SFU.ca), ABR, Inc. - Environmental Research and Services, Biogéosciences UMR 6282 Dijon (BGS), Université de Bourgogne (UB)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Canada Research Chair in Polar and Boreal Ecology, Université de Moncton, Australasian Wader Studies Group, Global Flyway Network, Helmericks Homestead, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University New York, Ecology Department, Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Department of Ecology, University of Oulu, Institute of Animal Ecology and Nature Education, Centre for Wildlife Ecology, Audubon Society of Portland, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Biology, Trent University, Department of Multidisciplinary Studies, York University Toronto, New Jersey Audubon Society
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: HAL CCSD 2016
• Subjects: Return rates; Tracking methods; Waders; Breeding success; Geologger; Global location sensor (GLS); Research impacts; envir; psy; Arctic; Dunlin
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-016-0077-6; https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01403340

International audience BackgroundGeolocators are useful for tracking movements of long-distance migrants, but potential negative effects on birds have not been well studied. We tested for effects of geolocators (0.8–2.0 g total, representing 0.1–3.9 % of mean body mass) on 16 species of migratory shorebirds, including five species with 2–4 subspecies each for a total of 23 study taxa. Study species spanned a range of body sizes (26–1091 g) and eight genera, and were tagged at 23 breeding and eight nonbreeding sites. We compared breeding performance and return rates of birds with geolocators to control groups while controlling for potential confounding variables.ResultsWe detected negative effects of tags for three small-bodied species. Geolocators reduced annual return rates for two of 23 taxa: by 63 % for semipalmated sandpipers and by 43 % for the arcticola subspecies of dunlin. High resighting effort for geolocator birds could have masked additional negative effects. Geolocators were more likely to negatively affect return rates if the total mass of geolocators and color markers was 2.5–5.8 % of body mass than if tags were 0.3–2.3 % of body mass. Carrying a geolocator reduced nest success by 42 % for semipalmated sandpipers and tripled the probability of partial clutch failure in semipalmated and western sandpipers. Geolocators mounted perpendicular to the leg on a flag had stronger negative effects on nest success than geolocators mounted parallel to the leg on a band. However, parallel-band geolocators were more likely to reduce return rates and cause injuries to the leg. No effects of geolocators were found on breeding movements or changes in body mass. Among-site variation in geolocator effect size was high, suggesting that local factors were important.ConclusionsNegative effects of geolocators occurred only for three of the smallest species in our dataset, but were substantial when present. Future studies could mitigate impacts of tags by reducing protruding parts and minimizing use of additional ...