European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 131–140 | Cite as

Flow simulation along a seal: the impact of an external device

Original Paper

Abstract

An increasing number of marine mammal studies on physiology, behaviour and ecology rely on data, which have been collected from back-mounted devices, such as bio-logging tags and satellite transmitters. However, external devices may influence an animal’s hydrodynamics, behaviour and energy expenditure and, therefore, can impede the individual animal. To investigate the influence of external devices on seals, the water flow along a grey seal was simulated using computational fluid dynamics calculations. The simulations revealed several changes in forces and moments and thus balance, due to this device. The investigated satellite transmitter creates an average 12% increase of the drag coefficient. Additionally, there are significant relative transmitter-induced increases in pitching moment (32%) and lift (240%). The simulations also showed that the transmitter generates areas of decreased wall shear stress on the seal’s back. The results of this study demonstrate that external devices can change the hydrodynamics of the seal, which is expected to alter the seal’s physiology and behaviour and its use of the ecosystem. Long-term attachment may have adverse effects on the animal’s welfare. It is important to take these effects into consideration when studying tagged seals; otherwise, the value of the data obtained will be poor. Therefore, interpretations and extrapolations regarding ‘natural behaviour’ of animals in their ‘natural environment’ should only be made with great caution.

Keywords

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) Telemetry Animal welfare Satellite transmitter Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus

Abbreviations

CFD

Computational fluid dynamics

Cd

Drag coefficient

Cl

Lift coefficient

Cm

Pitching moment coefficient

D

Drag force (N)

L

Lift force (N)

M

Pitching moment

ρ

Fluid density (kg m−3)

U

Swimming speed (m s−1)

A

Frontal projection area (cm2)

α

Pitch angle (°)

Ν

Kinematic viscosity (m2 s−1)

WSS

Wall shear stress (N m2)

References

  1. Aarts G, MacKenzie M, McConnell B, Fedak M, Matthiopoulos J (2008) Estimating space-use and habitat preference from wildlife telemetry data. Ecography 31:40–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguilar Soto N, Johnson MP, Madsen PT, Díaz F, Domínguez I, Brito A, Tyack P (2008) Cheetahs of the deep sea: deep foraging sprints in short-finned pilot whales off Tenerife (Canary Islands). J Anim Ecol 77:936–947CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bannasch R, Wilson R, Culik B (1994) Hydrodynamic aspects of design and attachment of a back-mounted device in penguins. J Exp Biol 194:83–96Google Scholar
  4. Benvenuti S, Dall'Antonia L (2004) Foraging strategies of breeding seabirds studied by bird-borne data loggers. Mem Natl Inst Polar Res 58:110–117Google Scholar
  5. Block BA (2005) Physiological ecology in the 21st century: advancements in biologging science. Integr Comp Biol 45:305–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Call KA, Fadely BS, Greig A, Rehberg MJ (2007) At-sea and on-shore cycles of juvenile Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) derived from satellite dive recorders: a comparison between declining and increasing populations. Deep-Sea Res, Part 2, Top Stud Oceanogr 54:298–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke J, Kerry K (1994) The effects of monitoring procedures on Adélie penguin colonies. CCAMLR Sci 1:155–164Google Scholar
  8. Croll DA, Osmek SD, Bengston JL (1991) An effect of instrument attachment on foraging trip duration in Chinstrap penguins. Condor 93:771–779Google Scholar
  9. Culik BM, Luna-Jorquera G (1997) Satellite tracking of Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti) in northern Chile. Mar Biol 128:547–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Culik B, Wilson RP (1991) Swimming energetics and performance of instrumented Adelie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae). J Exp Biol 158:355–368Google Scholar
  11. Culik BM, Bannasch R, Wilson RP (1994) External devices on penguins: how important is shape? Mar Biol 118:353–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dicken ML, Booth AJ, Smale MJ (2006) Preliminary observations of tag shedding, tag reporting, tag wounds, and tag biofouling for raggedtooth sharks (Carcharias taurus) tagged off the east coast of South Africa. ICES J Mar Sci 63:1640–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fedak M (2004) Marine animals as platforms for oceanographic sampling: a “win/win” situation for biology and operational oceanography. Mem Natl Inst Polar Res 58:133–147Google Scholar
  14. Gallon SL, Sparling CE, Georges JY, Fedak MA, Biuw M, Thompson D (2007) How fast does a seal swim? Variations in swimming behaviour under differing foraging conditions. J Exp Biol 210:3285–3294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gifford A, Compagno LJV, Levine M, Antoniou A (2007) Satellite tracking of whale sharks using tethered tags. Fish Res 84:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamel NJ, Parrish JK, Conquest LL (2004) Effects of tagging on behavior, provisioning, and reproduction in the common murre (Uria aalge), a diving seabird. Auk (American Ornithologists Union) 121:1161–1171Google Scholar
  17. Hawkins P (2004) Bio-logging and animal welfare: practical refinements. Mem Natl Inst Polar Res 58:58–70Google Scholar
  18. Hays GC, Bradshaw CJA, James MC, Lovell P, Sims DW (2007) Why do Argos satellite tags deployed on marine animals stop transmitting? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 349:52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hays GC, Doyle TK, Houghton JDR, Lilley MKS, Metcalfe JD, Righton D (2008) Diving behaviour of jellyfish equipped with electronic tags. J Plankton Res 30:325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Healy M, Chiaradia A, Kirkwood R, Dann P (2004) Balance: a neglected factor when attaching external devices to penguins. Mem Natl Inst Polar Res 58:179–182Google Scholar
  21. Hooker SK, Boyd IL (2003) Salinity sensors on seals: use of marine predators to carry CTD data loggers. Deep-Sea Res, Part 1, Oceanogr Res Pap 50:927–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Houghton JDR, Broderick AC, Godley BJ, Metcalfe JD, Hays GC (2002) Diving behaviour during the interesting interval for loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta nesting in Cyprus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 227:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Howell AB (1930) Aquatic mammals. Charles C. Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  24. Igual JM, Forero MG, Tavecchia G, González-Solis J, Martínez-Abraín A, Hobson KA, Ruiz X, Oro D (2005) Short-term effects of data-loggers on Cory’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea). Mar Biol 146:619–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koed A, Thorstad EB (2001) Long-term effect of radio-tagging on the swimming performance of pikeperch. J Fish Biol 58:1753–1756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kooyman GL (2004) Genesis and evolution of bio-logging devices: 1963–2002. Mem Natl Inst Polar Res 58:15–22Google Scholar
  27. Liu H (2002) Computational biological fluid dynamics: digitizing and visualizing animal swimming and flying. Integr Comp Biol 42:1050–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lohmann KJ, Luchi P, Hays GC (2008) Goal navigation and island-finding in sea turtles. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 356:83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matthiopoulos J, McConnell B, Duck C, Fedak M (2004) Using satellite telemetry and aerial counts to estimate space use by grey seals around the British Isles. J Appl Ecol 41:476–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McMahon CR, Field IC, Bradshaw CJA, White GC, Hindell MA (2008) Tracking and data-logging devices attached to elephant seals do not affect individual mass gain or survival. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 360:71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. Colombia University Press, New York, pp 15–46Google Scholar
  32. Myers AE, Lovell P, Hays GC (2006) Tools for studying animal behaviour: validation of dive profiles relayed via the Argos satellite system. Anim Behav 71:989–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Naito Y (2004) Bio-logging science and new tools for marine bio-science. Proc. Int. Symp. SEASTAR 2000, Bio-logging Science 2004:72–75Google Scholar
  34. Orthmann T (2000) Telemetrische Untersuchungen zur Verbreitung, zum Tauchverhalten und zur Tauchphysiologie von Seehunden (Phoca vitulina vitulina) des Schleswig-Holsteinischen Wattenmeeres. Dissertation, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  35. Paredes R, Jones IL, Boness DJ (2005) Reduced parental care, compensatory behaviour and reproductive costs of thick-billed murres equipped with data loggers. Anim Behav 69:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petrie SA, Rogers KH (1996) Effects of harness-attached satellite transmitters on captive whitefaced ducks Dendrocygna viduata. S Afr J Wildl Res 26:93Google Scholar
  37. Ponganis PJ (2007) Bio-logging of physiological parameters in higher marine vertebrates. Deep-Sea Res, Part 2, Top Stud Oceanogr 54:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ponganis PJ, van Dam RP, Knower T, Levenson DH, Ponganis KV (2004) Deep dives and aortic temperatures of emperor penguins: new directions for bio-logging at the isolated dive hole. Mem Natl Inst Polar Res 58:155–161Google Scholar
  39. Read AJ, Westgate AJ (1997) Monitoring the movements of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) with satellite telemetry. Mar Biol 130:315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ropert-Coudert Y, Wilson RP (2004) Subjectivity in bio-logging science: do logged data mislead? Mem Natl Inst Polar Res 58:23–33Google Scholar
  41. Ropert-Coudert Y, Bost CA, Handrich Y, Bevan RM, Butler PJ, Woakes AJ, Le Maho Y (2000) Impact of externally attached loggers on the diving behaviour of the king penguin. Physiol Biochem Zool 73:438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Ropert-Coudert Y, Kato A, Baudat J, Bost CA, Le Maho Y, Naito Y (2001) Feeding strategies of free-ranging Adélie penguins Pygoscelis adeliae analysed by multiple data recording. Polar Biol 24:460–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simeone A, Wilson RP, Knauf G, Knauf W, Schützendübe J (2002) Effects of attached data-loggers on the activity budgets of captive Humboldt penguins. Zoo Biol 21:365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stelle LL, Blake RW, Trites AW (2000) Hydrodynamic drag in steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). J Exp Biol 203:1915–1923PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Stewart BS, Leatherwood SL, Yochem PK (1989) Harbor seal tracking and telemetry by satellite. Mar Mamm Sci 5:361–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taylor SS, Leonard ML, Boness DJ, Majluf P (2001) Foraging trip duration increases for Humboldt penguins tagged with recording devices. J Avian Biol 32:369–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thompson D, Fedak MA (1993) Cardiac responses of grey seals during diving at sea. J Exp Biol 174:139–154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Thorstad EB, Okland F, Heggberget TG (2001) Are long term negative effects from external tags underestimated? Fouling of an externally attached telemetry transmitter. J Fish Biol 59:1092–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Watson KP, Granger RA (1998) Hydrodynamic effect of a satellite transmitter on a juvenile green turtle (Chelonia mydas). J Exp Biol 201:2497–2505PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Whidden SE, Williams CT, Breton AR, Buck CL (2007) Effects of transmitters on the reproductive success of tufted puffins. J Field Ornithol 78:206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilson RP, Grant WS, Duffy DC (1986) Recording devices on free-ranging marine animals: does measurement affect foraging performance? Ecology 67:1091–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilson RP, Kreye JM, Lucke K, Urquhart H (2004) Antennae on transmitters on penguins: balancing energy budgets on the high wire. J Exp Biol 207:2649–2662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anja A. H. Hazekamp
    • 1
  • Roy Mayer
    • 2
  • Nynke Osinga
    • 1
  1. 1.Seal Rehabilitation and Research Centre (SRRC)PieterburenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.FlowMotion GermanyWeenerGermany

Personalised recommendations