acta ethologica

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 53–61 | Cite as

Turning passive detection systems into field experiments: an application using wetland fishes and enclosures to track fine-scale movement and habitat choice

  • J. S. Rehage
  • R. E. Boucek
  • E. A. Cline
  • M. I. Cook
  • R. M. Kobza
  • A. K. Saha
Short Communication

Abstract

Understanding habitat selection and movement remains a key question in behavioral ecology. Yet, obtaining a sufficiently high spatiotemporal resolution of the movement paths of organisms remains a major challenge, despite recent technological advances. Observing fine-scale movement and habitat choice decisions in the field can prove to be difficult and expensive, particularly in expansive habitats such as wetlands. We describe the application of passive integrated transponder (PIT) systems to field enclosures for tracking detailed fish behaviors in an experimental setting. PIT systems have been applied to habitats with clear passageways, at fixed locations or in controlled laboratory and mesocosm settings, but their use in unconfined habitats and field-based experimental setups remains limited. In an Everglades enclosure, we continuously tracked the movement and habitat use of PIT-tagged centrarchids across three habitats of varying depth and complexity using multiple flatbed antennas for 14 days. Fish used all three habitats, with marked species-specific diel movement patterns across habitats, and short-lived movements that would be likely missed by other tracking techniques. Findings suggest that the application of PIT systems to field enclosures can be an insightful approach for gaining continuous, undisturbed and detailed movement data in unconfined habitats, and for experimentally manipulating both internal and external drivers of these behaviors.

Keywords

Movement behavior Habitat selection Fishes Passive antennas PIT tags Field enclosures 

References

  1. Aich S, Dreschel TW, Cline EA, Sklar FH (2011) The development of a geographic information system (GIS) to document research in an Everglades physical model. J Environ Sci Eng 5:289–302Google Scholar
  2. Adams AJ, Kirby Wolfe R, Pine WE III, Thornton BL (2006) Efficacy of PIT tags and an autonomous antenna system to study the juvenile life stage of an estuarine-dependent fish. Estuar Coast 29:311–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbour AB, Adams AJ, Tanner Y, Behringer DC, Wolfe RK (2012) Comparison and cost-benefit analysis of PIT tag antennae resighting and seine-net recapture techniques for survival analysis of an estuarine-dependent fish. Fisheries Res 121:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boarman WI, Beigel ML, Goodlett GC, Sazaki M (1998) A passive integrated transponder system for tracking animal movements. Wildlife Soc Bull 26:886–891Google Scholar
  5. Bonter DN, Bridge ES (2011) Applications of radio frequency identification (RFID) in ornithological research: a review. J Field Ornithol 82:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boucek RE, Rehage JS (2013) No free lunch: consumers from a donor marsh community regulate a prey subsidy to an estuarine consumer. Oikos. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.20994.x Google Scholar
  7. Cagnacci F, Boitani L, Powell RA, Boyce MS (2010) Animal ecology meets GPS-based radiotelemetry: a perfect storm of opportunities and challenges. Philo Trans R Soc B 365:2157–2162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell SP, Witham JW, Hunter ML Jr (2010) Stochasticity as an alternative to deterministic explanations for patterns of habitat use by birds. Ecol Monogr 80:287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charney ND, Letcher BH, Haro A, Warren PS (2011) Terrestrial passive integrated transponder antennae for tracking small animal movements. J Wildlife Manage 73:1245–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Englund G, Cooper SD (2003) Scale effects and extrapolation in ecological experiments. Adv Ecol Res 33:161–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flecker AS (1996) Ecosystem engineering by a dominant detritivore in a diverse tropical stream. Ecology 77:1845–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fraser DF, Gilliam JF, Daley MJ, Le AN, Skalski GT (2001) Explaining leptokurtic movement distributions: intrapopulation variation in boldness and exploration. Am Nat 158:124–135Google Scholar
  13. Frederick P, Gawlik DE, Ogden JC, Cook MI, Lusk M (2009) The white ibis and wood stork as indicators for restoration of the everglades ecosystem. Ecol Indicat 9:S83–S95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fury JR (1998) Everglades fisheries investigation project. Game and Freshwater Commission Completion report project no F-56Google Scholar
  15. Gatz AJ, Adams SM (1994) Patterns of movement of centrarchids in two warmwater streams in eastern Tennessee. Ecol Freshw Fish 3:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbons JW, Andrews KM (2004) PIT tagging: simple technology at its best. BioScience 54:447–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gawlik DE (2002) The effects of prey availability on the numerical response of wading birds. Ecol Monogr 72:329–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greathouse EA, Pringle CM, McDowell WH (2006) Do small-scale exclosure/enclosure experiments predict the effects of large-scale extirpation of freshwater migratory fauna? Oecologia 149:709–717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenberg LA, Giller PS (2000) The potential of flatbed passive integrated transponder antennae for studying habitat use by stream fishes. Ecol Freshw Fish 9:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenberg LA, Steinwall T, Persson H (2001) Effects of depth and substrate on use of stream pools by brown trout. Trans Am Fish Soc 130:699–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herborn KA, Macleod R, Miles WTS, Schofield A, Alexander L, Arnold K (2010) Personality in captivity reflects personality in the wild. Anim Behav 79:835–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ives AR, Foufopoulos J, Klopfer ED, Klug JL, Palmer TM (1996) Bottle or big-scale studies: how do we do ecology? Ecology 77:681–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnston P, Berube F, Bergeron NE (2009) Development of a flatbed passive integrated transponder antenna grid for continuous monitoring of fishes in natural streams. J Fish Biol 74:1651–1661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keast L, Fox MG (1992) Space use and feeding patterns of an offshore fish assemblage in shallow mesotrophic lake. Env Biol Fishes 34:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kery M, Hatfield JS (2003) Normality of raw data in general linear models: the most widespread myth in statistics. B Ecol Soc Amer 84:92–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JB, Law R, Tilman D, Loreau M, Gonzalez A (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lima SL, Zollner PA (1996) Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:131–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meynecke J-O, Poole GC, Werry J, Lee SY (2008) Use of PIT tag and underwater video recording in assessing estuarine fish movement in a high intertidal mangrove and salt marsh creek. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 79:168–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mittelbach GG (1981) Foraging efficiency and body size: a study of optimal diet and habitat use by bluegills. Ecology 62:1370–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morris DW (2003) Toward ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 136:1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nathan R, Getz WM, Revilla E, Holyoak M, Kadmon R, Saltz D, Smouse PE (2008) A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19052–19059PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ogden JC, Kushlan JA, Tilmant JT (1976) Prey selectivity by the wood stork. Condor 78:324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Orpwood JE, Miles MS, Russell IC, Armstrong JD (2010) Efficacy of artificial shelters for roach, Rutilus rutilus, against predators in the presence of reeds. Fisher Manage Ecol 17:356–365Google Scholar
  34. Parkos JJ, Ruetz CR, Trexler JC (2011) Disturbance regime and limits on benefits of refuge use for fishes in a fluctuating hydroscape. Oikos 120:1519–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peckarsky BL, Cooper SD, McIntosh AR (1997) Extrapolation from individual behavior to populations and communities in streams. J N Am Bentholl Soc 16:375–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petersen JE, Kemp WM, Bartleson R, Boynton WR, Chen C-C, Cornwell JC, Gardner RH, Hinkle DC, Houde ED, Malone TC, Mowitt WP, Murray L, Sanford LP, Stevenson JC, Sundberg KL, Suttles SE (2003) Multiscale experiments in coastal ecology: improving realism and advancing theory. BioScience 53:1181–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Piper WH (2011) Making habitat selection more ‘familiar’: a review. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1329–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Power ME (1990) Effects of fish in river food webs. Science 250:811–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Power ME, Parker MS, William DE (2008) Seasonal reassembly of a river food web: floods, droughts, and impacts of fish. Ecol Monogr 78:263–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rehage JS, Trexler JC (2006) Assessing the net effect of anthropogenic disturbance on aquatic communities in wetlands: community structure relative to distance from canals. Hydrobiologia 569:359–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rehage JS, Dunker KJ, Liston SE, Loftus WF (2013) Fish community responses to the combined effects of decrease hydroperiod and non-indiguenous fish invasions in a karst wetland: are Everglades solution holes sinks for native fishes? Wetlands. doi:10.1007/s13157-012-0361-1 Google Scholar
  42. Rehmeier RLG, Kaufman GA, Kaufman DW (2006) An automatic activity-monitoring system for small mammals under natural conditions. J Mammal 87:628–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Resetarits WJ (2005) Habitat selection behaviour links local and regional scales in aquatic systems. Ecol Lett 8:480–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robinson EJH, Richardson TO, Sendovafranks AB, Feinerman O, Franks NR (2009) Radio tagging reveals the roles of corpulence, experience and social information in ant decision making. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:627–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosenzweig ML (1981) A theory of habitat selection. Ecology 62:327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Savino JF, Stein RA (1989) Behavior of fish predators 376 and their prey: habitat choice between open water and dense vegetation. Environ Biol Fishes 24:287–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Skov C, Brodersen J, Brönmark C, Hansson L-A, Hertonsson P, Nilsson PA (2005) Evaluation of PIT-tagging in cyprinids. J Fish Biol 67:1195–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stelzer RJ, Chittka L, Carlton M, Ings TC (2010) Winter active bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) achieve high foraging rates in urban Britain. PLoS One 5:e9559PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swaisgood RR (2010) The conservation-welfare nexus in reintroduction programmes: a role for sensory ecology. Anim Welf 19:125–137Google Scholar
  50. Trexler JC, Loftus WF, Perry S (2005) Disturbance frequency and community structure in a 25 year intervention study. Oecologia 145:140–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vainikka A, Kortet R, Paukku S, Rantala MJ, Pirhonen J (2005) What do male tench, Tinca tinca, advertise with morphological ornaments. Acta Ethol 8:70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Valley RD, Bremigan MT (2002) Effects of macrophyte bed architecture on largemouth bass foraging: implications of exotic macrophyte invasions. Trans Am Fisher Soc 131:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wathen G, Coghlan S, Zydlewski J, Trial J (2012) Effects of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomeiu) on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) habitat use and diel movements in an artificial stream. Trans Am Fisher Soc 141:174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Werner EE, Hall DJ (1974) Optimal foraging and the size selection of prey by the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 55:1042–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Winemiller KO, Montoya JV, Roelke DL, Layman CA, Cotner JB (2006) Seasonally varying impact of detritivorous fishes on the benthic ecology of a tropical floodplain river. J N Am Bentholl Soc 25:250–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zimmerman JKH, Vondracek B (2006) Effects of stream enclosures on drifting invertebrates and fish growth. J N Am Bentholl Soc 25:453–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and ISPA 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. S. Rehage
    • 1
  • R. E. Boucek
    • 1
  • E. A. Cline
    • 2
  • M. I. Cook
    • 2
  • R. M. Kobza
    • 2
  • A. K. Saha
    • 1
  1. 1.Earth & Environment Department, Southeast Environmental Research CenterFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Everglades Systems Assessment, South Florida Water Management DistrictWest Palm BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations