Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 146, Issue 3, pp 619–624 | Cite as

Short-term effects of data-loggers on Cory’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea)

  • J. M. IgualEmail author
  • M. G. Forero
  • G. Tavecchia
  • J. González-Solis
  • A. Martínez-Abraín
  • K. A. Hobson
  • X. Ruiz
  • D. Oro
Research Article

Abstract

We investigated the possible effects of a 12-g data-logger attached to a darvic ring on the performance of Cory’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea, 600–850 g) from two different colonies in the western Mediterranean Sea. We compared return rates, current breeding success and body condition between equipped and unequipped birds. Effects on feeding ecology during winter and breeding period was also evaluated through the measurement of stable isotopes of carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) in one of the colonies. We found no evidence of negative effects of loggers on demographic parameters analysed or in feeding ecology. Power analyses suggested a high power to detect medium effect size, but a low power to detect small changes. Despite the non-significant results we could only exclude medium to strong effects of the devices on one of these parameters. We detected some short-term negative effects on body condition for the equipped birds, but these were unlikely to have had important consequences. Results suggest that the use of loggers is an adequate methodology to obtain information from seabirds at sea, but data should be carefully interpreted with regard to potential biases during severe environmental conditions.

Keywords

Stable Isotope Body Condition Return Rate Breeding Success Stable Isotope Ratio 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to GENA (especially to T. Gomez and I. Afán) and to J. Zapata (Director of Chafarinas Islands Hunting National Refugee) for their help. At Pantaleu, M. Mayol and the wardens of Dragonera gently provided logistic support. We also thank the people who helped during the field work, especially M. Genovart and the wardens of the Columbretes (R. Berenguer and V. Ferrís). We also thank J.P. Croxall, V. Afanasyev and D. Briggs for making available geolocators for this study. P. Healy assisted with preparation of samples for stable isotope analysis, which were analysed at the Department of Soil Science, University of Saskatchewan, Canada. M.G.F. and J.G.S. were supported by a contract of the Program Ramon y Cajal of the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (MCyT). Additional support was provided by the grants REN2002–00450/GLO and BOS2003–01960 from MCyT. We are also grateful to three anonymous referees for improving a previous draft of the manuscript, and to R. Pradel for his help and comments on power analyses.

References

  1. Afanasyev V (2004) A miniature daylight level and activity data recorder for tracking animals over long periods. Mem Natl Inst Polar Res 58[Spec Issue ]:227–233Google Scholar
  2. Bakken GS, Reynolds PS, Kenow KP, Korschgen CE, Boysen AF (1996) Thermoregulatory effects of radiotelemetry transmitters on mallard ducklings. J Wildl Manag 60:669–678Google Scholar
  3. Ballard G, Ainley DG, Ribic CA, Barton KR (2001) Effect of instrument attachment and other factors on foraging trip duration and nesting success of Adelié penguins. Condor 103:481–490Google Scholar
  4. Bannasch R, Wilson RP, Culik B (1994) Hydrodynamic aspects of design and attachment of a back-mounted device in penguins. J Exp Biol 194:83–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bro E, Clobert J, Reitz F (1999) Effects of radiotransmitters on survival and reproductive success of gray patridge. J Wildl Manag 63:1044–1051Google Scholar
  6. Caccamise DF, Hedin RS (1985) An aerodynamic basis for selecting transmitter loads in birds. Wilson Bull 97:306–318Google Scholar
  7. Calvo B, Furness RW (1992) A review of the use and the effects of marks and devices on birds. Ringing Migr 13:129–151Google Scholar
  8. DeNiro MJ, Epstein S (1978) Influence of diet on the distribution of carbon isotopes in animals. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 45:495–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeNiro MJ, Epstein S (1981) Influence of diet on the distribution of nitrogen isotopes in animals. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 45:341–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ekstrom PA (2004) An advance in geolocation by light. Mem Natl Inst Polar Res (Jpn) 58[Spec Issue]:210–226Google Scholar
  11. Erdfelder E, Faul F, Buchner A (1996) G*Power: a general power analysis program. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 28:1–11Google Scholar
  12. Forero MG, Hobson KA (2003) Using stable isotopes of nitrogen and carbon to study seabird ecology: applications in the Mediterranean seabird community. Sci Mar 67:23–32Google Scholar
  13. Garthe S, Grémillet D, Furness RW (1999) At-sea-activity and foraging efficiency in chick-rearing northern gannets Sula bassana: a case study in Shetland. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 185:93–99Google Scholar
  14. Genovart M (2001) Seguiment de la colònia de cria de virot (Calonectris diomedea) a l’illot d’Es Pantaleu. An Ornithol Bal 16:23–27Google Scholar
  15. Gessaman JA, Fuller MR, Pekinsand PJ, Duke GE (1991) Resting metabolic rate of golden eagles, bald eagles, and barred owls with a tracking transmitter or a equivalent load. Wilson Bull 103:261–265Google Scholar
  16. González-Solís J, Croxall JP, Wood A (2000) Foraging partitioning between giant petrels Macronectes spp. and its relationship with breeding population changes at Bird Island, South Georgia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 204:279–288Google Scholar
  17. Hamer KC, Phillips RA, Hill JK, Wanless S, Wood AG (2001) Contrasting foraging strategies of gannets Morus bassanus at two North Atlantic colonies: foraging trip duration and foraging area fidelity. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 224:283–290Google Scholar
  18. Hawkins P (2004) Bio-logging and animal welfare: practical refinements. Mem Natl Inst Polar Res (Jpn) 58[Spec Issue]:58–68Google Scholar
  19. Hedd A, Gales R, Brothers N (2001) Foraging strategies of shy albatross Thalassarche cauta breeding at Albatross Island, Tasmania, Australia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 224:267–282Google Scholar
  20. Hedin RS, Caccamise DF (1982) A method for selecting transmitter weights based on energetic cost of flight. Trans Northeast Fish Wildl Conf 39:115Google Scholar
  21. Hill RD (1994) Theory of geolocation by light levels. In: Le Boeuf BJ, Laws RM (eds) Elephant seals: population ecology, behavior, and physiology. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 227–236Google Scholar
  22. Hobson KA (1993) Trophic relationships among high Arctic seabirds: insights from tissue-dependent stable-isotope models. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 95:7–18Google Scholar
  23. Hobson KA, Clark RG (1992) Assessing avian diets using stable isotopes. I. Turnover of carbon-13. Condor 94:181–188Google Scholar
  24. Hobson KA, Piatt JF, Pitocchelli J (1994) Using stable isotopes to determine seabird trophic relationships. J Anim Ecol 63:786–798Google Scholar
  25. Hull CL (1997) The effect of carrying devices on breeding royal penguins. Condor 99:530–534Google Scholar
  26. Igual JM, Gómez T (2000) Seguimiento de la productividad de la pardela cenicienta (Calonectris diomedea) en las islas Chafarinas. In: Control y seguimiento de los ecosistemas en el Refugio Nacional de caza de las islas Chafarinas, vol II. Organismo Autónomo de Parques Nacionales, pp 124–151Google Scholar
  27. Jennions DM, Møller AP (2003) A survey of the statistical power of research in behavioural ecology and animal behavior. Behav Ecol 14:438–445Google Scholar
  28. Michener RH, Schell DM (1994) Stable isotope ratios as tracers in marine and aquatic food webs. In: Lajtha K, Michener RH (eds) Stable isotopes in ecology and environmental science. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 139–157Google Scholar
  29. Monteiro LR, Furness RW (1996) Moult of Cory’s shearwater during the breeding season. Condor 98:216–221Google Scholar
  30. Murray DL, Fuller MR (2000) A critical review of the effects of marking on the biology of vertebrates. In: Boitani L, Fuller TK (eds) Research techniques in animal ecology. Controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 15–64Google Scholar
  31. Phillips RA, Xavier JC, Croxall JP (2003) Effects of satellite transmitters on albatrosses and petrels. Auk 120:1082–1090Google Scholar
  32. Phillips RA, Silk JRD, Croxall JP, Briggs DR, Afanasyev V (2004) Accuracy of geolocation estimates for flying seabirds. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 266:265–272Google Scholar
  33. Sedinger JR, White RG, Harer WE (1990) Effects of carrying radio transmitters on energy expenditure of Pacific black blant. J Wildl Manag 54:42–45Google Scholar
  34. Söhle IS (2004) Effects of satellite telemetry on sooty shearwater, Puffinus griseus, adults and chicks. Emu 103:373–379Google Scholar
  35. Taylor SS, Leonard ML, Boness DJ, Majluf P (2001) Foraging trip duration increases for Humbolt penguins tagged with recording devices. J Avian Biol 32:369–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tuck GN, Polacheck T, Croxall JP, Weimerskirch H, Prince PA, Wotherspoon S (1999) The potential of archival tags to provide long-term movements and behaviour data for seabirds: first results from wandering albatross Diomedea exulans of South Georgia and Crozet Islands. Emu 99: 60–68Google Scholar
  37. Wanless S, Morris JA, Harris MP (1988a) Diving behaviour of guillemots Uria aalge, puffin Fratercula arctica, and razorbill Alca torda as shown by radio-telemetry. J Zool 216:73–81Google Scholar
  38. Wanless S, Harris MP, Morris JA (1988b) The effect of radio transmitters on the behaviour of common murres and razorbills during chick rearing. Condor 90:816–823Google Scholar
  39. Warham J (1990) The petrels. Their ecology and breeding systems. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilson RP, Culik BM (1992) Packages of penguins and device-induced data. In: Priede GI, Swift SM (eds) Wildlife telemetry: remote monitoring and tracking of animals. . Ellis Horwood, New York, pp 573–580Google Scholar
  41. Wilson RP, Weimerskirch H, Lys P (1995) A device for measuring seabird activity at sea. Avian Biol 26:172–175Google Scholar
  42. Wilson RP, Pütz K, Peters G, Culik BM, Scolaro JA, Charrassin JB, Ropert-Coudert Y (1997) Long term attachment of transmitting and recording devices to penguins and other seabirds. Wildl Soc Bull 25:101–106Google Scholar
  43. Wilson RP, Gremillet D, Syder J, Kierspel AM, Garthe S, Weimerskirch H, Schäfer-Neth C, Scolaro JA, Bost Ch-A, Plötz J, Nel D (2002) Remote-sensing systems and seabirds: their use, abuse and potential for measuring marine environmental variables. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 228:241–261Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. M. Igual
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. G. Forero
    • 2
  • G. Tavecchia
    • 1
  • J. González-Solis
    • 3
    • 4
  • A. Martínez-Abraín
    • 1
  • K. A. Hobson
    • 5
  • X. Ruiz
    • 3
  • D. Oro
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto Mediterráneo de Estudios AvanzadosIMEDEA (CSIC-UIB)EsporlesSpain
  2. 2.Department of Applied BiologyEstación Biológica de DoñanaSevillaSpain
  3. 3.Dep. Biologia Animal (Vertebrates)Universidad de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.British Antarctic SurveyNatural Environment Research CouncilCambridgeUnited Kingdom
  5. 5.Canadian Wildlife ServiceSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations