Polar Biology

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 221–226 | Cite as

Strange lights in the night: using abnormal peaks of light in geolocator data to infer interaction of seabirds with nocturnal fishing vessels

  • Lucas Krüger
  • Vitor H. Paiva
  • Maria V. Petry
  • Jaime A. Ramos
Short Note


Many seabird species forage at night and potentially interact with nocturnal fishing activities. Jigging fisheries use powerful lights to attract squid, and such high intensity lights can be recorded using global location-sensing loggers (geolocators) attached to seabirds. We use this potential source of information as evidence for interaction of southern giant petrels Macronectes giganteus with night fisheries during the non-breeding season. We compared the number of light spikes at night between sexes and evaluated whether the intensity of the light on those geolocator records matched periods of water immersion (wet–dry) of geolocators, as a measure of foraging activity. Females had more night light spikes than males, and although the activity on water was higher during nights with light spikes than nights without light spikes for both sexes, females had a higher probability to be resting on the water when peaks of light were higher. Females moved further north than males and used areas of higher squid fishery activities within Patagonian waters. This type of information is useful to record potential interactions with night fisheries and proposes that future studies should relate the accurate distribution of individuals (from GPS loggers) with light information (geolocators data) to highlight this undocumented interaction. Southern giant petrels are recognized as interacting intensively with fisheries off Patagonia waters with consequences for population dynamics (e.g. mortality through bycatch events).


Antarctica Light sensor data Remote sensing Seabird ecology Spatial ecology Squid fisheries 



LK acknowledges the National Council of Technological and Scientific Development CNPq for his Ph.D. scholarship (Programa Ciência sem Fronteiras processo 245540/2012-1). VHP acknowledges the postdoctoral grant given by ‘Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia’ (SFRH/BPD/85024/2012). We acknowledge the Brazilian Navy for field research support in Antarctica. The project received funding from the National Institute of Science and Technology Antarctic Environmental Research (INCT-APA) that receives scientific and financial support from the National Council for Research and Development (CNPq Process: No. 574018/2008-5) and Carlos Chagas Research Support Foundation of the State of Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ No. E-16/170.023/2008). The authors also acknowledge the support of the Brazilian Ministries of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), of Environment (MMA) and Inter-Ministry Commission for Sea Resources (CIRM). This study benefited from the strategic program of MARE, financed by FCT (MARE—UID/MAR/04292/2013). LK thanks Julia Finger, Elisa Petersen and colleagues for field work support. Authors acknowledge Naomi Tremble for English review.


  1. Arkhipkin AI et al (2015) World squid fisheries. Rev Fish Sci Aquac 23:92–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballance LT, Pitman RL (1999) Foraging ecology of tropical seabirds. In: Adams NJ, Slotow RH (eds) Proceedings of the 22 International Ornithology Congress. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, pp 2057–2071Google Scholar
  3. Barbraud C, Tuck GN, Thomson R, Delord K, Weimerskirch H (2013) Fisheries bycatch as an inadvertent human-induced evolutionary mechanism. PLoS ONE 8:e60353CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Black A (2005) Light induced seabird mortality on vessels operating in the Southern Ocean: incidents and mitigation measures. Antarct Sci 17:67–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bugoni L, Manicini PL, Monteiro DS, Nascimento L, Neves TS (2008) Seabird bycatch in the brazilian pelagic longline fishery and a review of capture rates in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Endanger Species Res 5:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bugoni L, D’Alba L, Furness RW (2009) Marine habitat use of wintering Spectacled Petrels Procellaria conspicillata, and overlap with longline fisheries. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 374:273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calenge C (2006) The package adehabitat for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 197:516–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Copello S, Quintana F (2009) Spatio-temporal overlap between the at-sea distribution of Southern Giant Petrels and fisheries in the Patagonian shelf. Polar Biol 32:1211–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Copello S, Quintana F, Pérez F (2008) Diet of the Southern Giant Petrel in Patagonia: fishery-related items and natural prey. Endanger Species Res 6:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Bruyn PJN, Cooper J, Bester MN, Tosh CA (2007) The importance of land-based prey for sympatrically breeding giant petrels at sub-Antarctic Marion Island. Antarct Sci 19:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dias MP, Granadeiro JP, Catry P (2012) Working the day or the night shift? Foraging schedules of Cory’s Shearwater vary according to marine habitat. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 467:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliot KH, Gaston AJ (2015) Diel vertical migration of prey and light availability constrain foraging in an Arctic seabird. Mar Biol. doi: 10.1007/s00227-015-2701-1 Google Scholar
  13. Elvidge CD, Zhizhin M, Baugh K, Hsu F-C (2015) Automatic boat identification system for VIIRS low light imaging data. Remote Sens 7:3020–3036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Favero M, Khatchikian CE, Arias A, Rodriguez MPS, Cañete G, Mariano-Jelicich R (2003) Estimates of seabird by-catch along the Patagonian shelf by Argentine longline fishing vessels, 1999–2001. Bird Conserv Int 13:273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox JW (2010) Geolocator manual v8. British Antarctic Survey, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Glass JP, Ryan PG (2013) Reduced seabird night strikes and mortality in the Tristan rock lobster fishery. Afr J Mar Sci 35:589–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. González A, Vega R, Barbieri MA, Yáñez E (2012) Determinación de los factores que inciden en la captura incidental de aves marinas en la flota palangrera pelágica chilena. Lat Am J Aquat Res 40:786–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. González-Solís J, Croxall JP, Wood AG (2000) Foraging partitioning between giant petrels Macronectes spp. and its relationship with breeding population at Bird Island, South Georgia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 204:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. González-Zevallos D, Yorio P (2006) Seabirds use of discards and incidental captures at the Argentine Hake Trawl fishery in the Golfo San Jorge, Argentina. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 316:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grémillet D, Mullers HRE, Moseley C, Pichegru L, Coetzee JC, Sabarros PS, van der Lingen CD, Ryan PG, Kato A, Ropert-Coudert Y (2010) Seabirds, fisheries and cameras: peer-reviewed letter. Front Ecol Environ 8:401–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hunter S (1984) Breeding biology and population dynamics of giant petrels Macronectes at South Georgia (Aves: Procellariiformes). J Zool (Lond) 203:441–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunter S (1987) Species and sexual isolating mechanisms in sibling species of giant petrels Macronectes. Polar Biol 7:295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maxwell MR, Henry A, Elvidge CD, Safran J, Hobson VR, Nelson I, Tuttle BT, Dietz JB, Hunter JR (2003) Fishery dynamics of the California Market Squid (Loligo opalescens) as measured by satellite remote sensing. Fish Bull 102:661–670Google Scholar
  24. Paulino C, Escudero L (2011) Use of night satellite imagery to monitor squid fishery in Peru. In: Morales J, Stuart V, Platt T, Sathyendranath S (eds) Handbook of satellite remote sensing image interpretation: applications for marine living resources conservation and management. EU PRESPO and IOCCG, Darthmouth, pp 143–153Google Scholar
  25. Péron C, Delord K, Phillips RA, Charbonnier Y, Marteau C, Louzao M, Weimerskirch H (2010) Seasonal variation in oceanographic habitat and behaviour of White-chinned Petrels Procellaria aequinoctialis from Kerguelen Island. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 416:267–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Petersen SL, Honig MB, Ryan PG, Underhill LG (2009) Seabird bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery off southern Africa. Afr J Mar Sci 31:191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Phillips RA, Xavier JC, Croxall JP (2003) Effects of satellite transmitters on albatrosses and petrels. Auk 120:1082–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Quintana F, Punta G, Copello S, Yorio P (2006) Population status and trends of Southern Giant Petrels (Macronectes giganteus) breeding in North Patagonia, Argentina. Polar Biol 30:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ramírez I, Paiva VH, Menezes D, Silva I, Phillips RA, Ramos JA, Garthe S (2013) Year-round distribution and habitat preferences of the Bugio Petrel. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 476:269–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramos R, Granadeiro JP, Nevoux M, Mougin J-L, Dias MP, Catry P (2012) Combined spatio-temporal impacts of climate and longline fisheries on the survival of a trans-equatorial marine migrant. PLoS ONE 7:e40822CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Regular PM, Hedd A, Montevecchi WA (2011) Fishing in the dark: a pursuit-diving seabird modifies foraging behaviour in response to nocturnal light levels. PLoS ONE 6:e26763CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Reid TA, Yates O, Crofts S (2006) Jigging initiative: interactions between seabirds and jigging vessels in the Falkland Islands and on the high seas. Falklands Conservation, FalklandsGoogle Scholar
  33. Reid TA, Wanless RM, Hilton GM, Phillips RA, Ryan PG (2013) Foraging range and habitat associations of non-breeding Tristan Albatrosses: overlap with fisheries and implications for conservation. Endanger Species Res 22:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rey AR, Polito M, Archuby D, Coria N (2012) Stable isotopes identify age- and sex-specific dietary partitioning and foraging habitat segregation in Southern Giant Petrels breeding in Antarctica and Southern Patagonia. Mar Biol 159:1317–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rolland V, Weimerskirch H, Barbraud C (2010) Relative influence of fisheries and climate on the demography of four albatrosses species. Glob Change Biol 16:1910–1922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ryan PG (1991) The impact of the commercial lobster fishery on seabirds at the Tristan da Cunha islands, South Atlantic. Biol Conserv 57:339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ryan PG, Moloney CL (1988) The effect of trawling on bird and seal distributions in the southern Benguela region. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 45:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  39. Tew Kai E, Benhamou S, van der Lingen CD, Coetzee JC, Pichegru L, Ryan PG, Grémillet D (2013) Are Cape Gannets dependent upon fishery waste? A multi-scale analysis using seabird GPS-tracking, hydro-acoustic surveys of pelagic fish and vessel monitoring systems. J Appl Ecol 50:659–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Votier SC, Bearhop S, Witt MJ, Inger R, Thompson D, Newton J (2010) Individual responses of seabirds to commercial fisheries revealed using GPS tracking, stable isotopes and vessel monitoring systems. J Appl Ecol 47:487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Votier SC, Bicknell A, Cox SL, Scales KL, Patrick SC (2013) A bird’s eye view of discard reform: bird-borne cameras reveal seabird/fishery interactions. PLoS ONE 8:e57376CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Waluda CM, Yamashiro C, Elvidge CD, Hobson VR, Rodhouse PG (2004) Quantifying light-fishing for Dosidicusgigas in the eastern Pacific using satellite remote sensing. Remote Sens Environ 91:129–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Waluda CM, Griffiths HJ, Rodhouse PG (2008) Remotely sensed dynamics of the Illex argentinus fishery, Southwest Atlantic. Fish Res 91:196–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weimerskirch H, Wilson RP (1992) When do Wandering Albatross Diomedea exulans forage? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 86:297–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weimwerskirch H, Capdeville D, Duhamel G (2000) Factors affecting the number and mortality of seabirds attending trawlers and long-liners in the Kerguelen area. Polar Biol 23:236–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiese FK, Montevecchi WA, Davoren GK, Huettmann F, Diamond AW, Linke J (2001) Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the north-west Atlantic. Mar Pollut Bull 42:1285–1290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Xavier JC, Trathan PN, Croxall JP, Wood AG, Podestá G, Rodhouse PG (2004) Foraging ecology and interactions with fisheries of Wandering Albatrosses (Diomedea exulans) breeding at South Georgia. Fish Oceanogr 13:324–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yeh Y-M, Huang H-W, Dietrich KS, Melvin E (2013) Estimates of seabird incidental catch by pelagic longline fisheries in the South Atlantic Ocean. Anim Conserv 16:141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucas Krüger
    • 1
    • 3
  • Vitor H. Paiva
    • 1
  • Maria V. Petry
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jaime A. Ramos
    • 1
  1. 1.MARE—Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Department of Life SciencesUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Laboratório de Ornitologia e Animais MarinhosUniversidade do Vale do Rio dos SinosSão LeopoldoBrazil
  3. 3.Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia Antártico de Pesquisas Ambientais INCT-APARio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations