Marine Biology

, 164:42 | Cite as

Testing and deployment of C-VISS (cetacean-borne video camera and integrated sensor system) on wild dolphins

  • Heidi C. PearsonEmail author
  • Peter W. Jones
  • Mridula Srinivasan
  • David Lundquist
  • Christopher J. Pearson
  • Karen A. Stockin
  • Gabriel E. Machovsky-Capuska


Multi-sensor biologgers are a powerful method for studying individual behaviors of free-ranging species, yet the challenges of attaching non-invasive biologgers to agile, fast-moving marine species have prohibited application of this technique to small (<5 m) cetaceans. Integration of video cameras into such biologgers is critical to understanding behavior from the animal’s perspective; however, this technique has not been applied to small cetaceans. We examined the feasibility of remotely deploying a cetacean-borne video camera and integrated sensor system (“C-VISS”) on small cetaceans. We deployed C-VISS on eight free-swimming dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) off New Zealand (42°25′15″S 173°40′23″E) from December 2015 to January 2016, collecting a total of 535 min of video footage (average = 66.8 ± 91.10 SD, range 9–284). Dolphins were observed to show limited reactions to biologger attachment attempts and deployments. Social and environmental parameters derived from video footage include conspecific body condition, mother-calf spatial positioning, affiliative behavior, sexual behavior, sociability, prey, and habitat type. The ability to record behavioral states and fine-scale events from the individual’s perspective will yield new insights into the behavior, socioecology, conservation, rehabilitation, and welfare of small cetaceans.


Syntactic Foam Video Footage Very High Frequency Attachment Duration Instrument Individual 
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.



Thanks to: K. Brown, H. Butcher, A. Fanucci-Kiss, E. Hill, A. Judkins, and J. Weir for field assistance; S. Gan for assistance with video analysis; M. Morrissey/Department of Conservation (DOC) and B. and M. Würsig for use of their research vessels and other field support; and the Vancouver Aquarium marine mammal trainers for their assistance during the captive trials. Funding was provided by a National Geographic Society/Waitt Fund Grant; the Encounter Foundation; the Faculty of Veterinary Science and School of Electrical and Information Engineering, The University of Sydney; the Herchel Smith-Harvard Undergraduate Science Research Program; and the University of Alaska Southeast. This material is also based in part upon work supported by the Alaska NASA EPSCoR Program (NNX13AB28A).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted. This study was conducted under University of Alaska Fairbanks IACUC 490961-8, Massey University Animal Ethics Committee approval MU13/90, and DOC permit 37696-MAR. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

Video S1. C-VISS video clip highlighting large group social behavior and mother-calf spatial positioning. Note: the video was rotated 90° counterclockwise in post-processing and the time/date stamp is incorrect. (MP4 19844 KB)


  1. Adimey N, Abernathy K, Gaspard JC III, Marshall G (2007) Meeting the manatee challenge: the feasibility of using CRITTERCAM on wild manatees. Mar Technol Soc J 41:14–18. doi: 10.4031/002533207787442015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altmann J (1974) Observation study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews RD, Pittman RL, Balance LT (2008) Satellite tracking reveals distinct movement patterns for Type B and Type C killer whales in the southern Ross Sea, Antarctica. Polar Biol 31:1461–1468. doi: 10.1007/s00300-008-0487-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey H, Mate BR, Palacios DM, Irvine L, Bograd SJ, Costa DP (2009) Behavioural estimation of blue whale movements in the Northeast Pacific from state-space model analysis of satellite tracks. Endanger Species Res 10:93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baird RW, Ligon AD, Hooker SK, Gorgone AM (2001) Subsurface and nighttime behaviour of pantropical spotted dolphins in Hawai’i. Can J Zool 79:988–996. doi: 10.1139/z01-070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black N (1994) Behavior and ecology of Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) in Monterey Bay, California. Thesis, San Francisco State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. Buurman D (2010) Dolphin swimming and watching: one tourism operator’s perspective. In: Würsig B, Würsig M (eds) The dusky dolphin: master acrobat off different shores. Academic, San Diego, pp 277–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cade DE, Friedlaender AS, Calambokidis J, Goldbogen JA (2016) Kinematic diversity in rorqual whale feeding mechanisms. Curr Biol 26:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calambokidis J, Schorr GS, Steiger GH, Francis J, Bakhtiari M, Marshall G, Oleson EM, Gendron D, Robertson K (2007) Insights into the underwater diving, feeding, and calling behavior of blue whales from a suction-cup-attached video-imaging tag (CRITTERCAM). Mar Technol Soc J 41:19–29. doi: 10.4031/002533207787441980 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cipriano FW (1992) Behavior and occurrence patterns, feeding ecology and life history of dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) off Kaikoura, New Zealand. Dissertation, University of ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis RW, Fuiman LA, Williams TM, Collier SO, Hagey WP, Kanatous SB, Kohin S, Horning M (1999) Hunting behavior of a marine mammal beneath the Antarctic fast ice. Science 283:993–996. doi: 10.1126/science.283.5404.993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dudzinski K (1998). Contact behavior in signal exchange in Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis). Aquat Mamm 24:129–142Google Scholar
  13. Grémillet D, Enstipp MR, Boudiffa M, Liu H (2006) Do cormorants injure fish without eating them? An underwater video study. Mar Biol 148:1081–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanson MB, Baird RW (1998) Dall’s porpoise reactions to tagging attempts using a remotely-deployed suction-cup tag. Mar Technol Soc J 32:18–23Google Scholar
  15. Hays GC, Ferreira LC, Sequeira AMM et al (2016) Key questions in marine megafauna movement ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.015 Google Scholar
  16. Heithaus MR, Marshall GJ, Buhleier BM, Dill LM (2001) Employing Crittercam to study habitat use and behavior of large sharks. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 209:307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heithaus MR, McLash JJ, Frid A, Dill LM, Marshall GJ (2002) Novel insights into green sea turtle behaviour using animal-borne video cameras. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 82:1049–1050. doi: 10.1017/S0025315402006689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horton TW, Holdaway RN, Zerbini AN, Hauser N, Garrigue C, Andriolo A, Clapham PJ (2016) Straight as an arrow: humpback whales swim constant course tracks during long-distance migration. Biol Lett. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0279 Google Scholar
  19. Jefferson TA, Webber MA, Pitman RL (2008) Marine mammals of the world: a comprehensive guide to their identification. Academic, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaplan MB, Mooney TA, Sayigh LS, Baird RW (2014) Repeated call types in Hawaiian melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra). J Acoust Soc Am 136:1394–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Machovsky-Capuska G, Coogan SCP, Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D (2016a) Motive for killing: what drives prey choice in wild predators? Ethology 122:703–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Machovsky-Capuska G, Priddel D, Leong PHW, Jones P, Carlile N, Shannon L, Portelli D, McEwan A, Chaves AV, Raubenheimer D (2016b) Coupling bio-logging with nutritional geometry to reveal novel insights into the foraging behaviour of a plunge-diving marine predator. New Zeal J Mar Freshw. doi: 10.1080/00288330.2016.1152981 Google Scholar
  23. Mann J (1999) Behavioral sampling methods for cetaceans: a review and critique. Mar Mamm Sci 15:102–122. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.1999.tb00784.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mann J, Smuts B (1999) Behavioral development in wild bottlenose dolphin newborns (Tursiops sp.). Behaviour 136:529–566. doi: 10.1163/156853999501469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Markowitz TM (2004) Social organization of the New Zealand dusky dolphin. Dissertation, Texas A&M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  26. Marshall G (1998) Crittercam: an animal-borne imaging and data logging system. Mar Tech Soc 32:11–17Google Scholar
  27. Moll RJ, Millspaugh JJ, Beringer J, Sartwell J, He Z (2007) A new ‘view’ of ecology and conservation through animal-borne video systems. Trends Ecol Evol 22:660–668. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Passaglia C, Dodge F, Herzong E, Jackson S, Barlow R (1997) Deciphering a neural code for vision. Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:12649–12654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pearson HC (2009) Influences on dusky dolphin fission-fusion dynamics in Admiralty Bay, New Zealand. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1437–1446. doi: 10.1007/s00265-009-0821-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rutz C, Hayes GC (2009) New frontiers in biologging science. Biol Lett 5:289–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sakai M, Karczmarski L, Morisaka T, Thornton M (2011) Reactions of Heaviside’s dolphins to tagging attempts using remotely-deployed suction-cup tags. S Afr J Wildl Res 41:134–138. doi: 10.3957/056.041.0116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Samuels A, Tyack P (2000) Flukeprints: a history of studying cetacean societies. In: Mann J, Connor RC, Tyack PL, Whitehead H (eds) Cetacean societies: field studies of dolphins and whales. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 9–44Google Scholar
  33. Schneider K, Baird RW, Dawson S, Visser I, Childerhouse S (1998) Reactions of bottlenose dolphins to tagging attempts using a remotely-deployed suction-cup tag. Mar Mamm Sci 14:316–324. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.1998.tb00720.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Silva TA, Mooney TA, Sayigh LS, Baird RW, Tyack PL (2016) Successful suction-cup tagging of a small delphinid species, Stenella attenuata: insights into whistle characteristics. Mar Mamm Sci. doi: 10.1111/mms.12376 Google Scholar
  35. Stone GS, Goodyear J, Hutt A, Yoshinaga A (1994) A new non-invasive tagging method for studying wild dolphins. Mar Technol Soc J 28:11–16Google Scholar
  36. Watkins WA, Daher MA, Dimarzio NA, Samuels A, Wartzok D, Fristrup KM, Howey PW, Maiefski RR. (2002). Sperm whale dives tracked by radio tag telemetry. Mar Mamm Sci 18:55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Whitehead H (2004) The group strikes back: follow protocols for behavioral research on cetaceans. Mar Mamm Sci 20: 664–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Williams TM, Davis RW, Fuiman LA, Francis J, Le Boeuf BJ, Horning M, Calambokidis J, Croll DA (2000) Sink or swim: strategies for cost-efficient diving by marine mammals. Science 288:133–136. doi: 10.1126/science.288.5463.133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Würsig B, Würsig M (1980) Behavior and ecology of the dusky dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obscurus, in the South Atlantic. Fish Bull 77:871–890Google Scholar
  40. Würsig B, Würsig M (2010) The dusky dolphin: master acrobat off different shores. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heidi C. Pearson
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Peter W. Jones
    • 3
  • Mridula Srinivasan
    • 4
  • David Lundquist
    • 5
  • Christopher J. Pearson
    • 2
  • Karen A. Stockin
    • 6
  • Gabriel E. Machovsky-Capuska
    • 7
  1. 1.University of Alaska SoutheastJuneauUSA
  2. 2.Dusky Dolphin Research ProjectJuneauUSA
  3. 3.School of Electrical and Information EngineeringThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.National Marine Fisheries ServiceSilver SpringUSA
  5. 5.Department of ConservationWellingtonNew Zealand
  6. 6.Coastal-Marine Research Group, Institute of Natural and Mathematical SciencesMassey UniversityAucklandNew Zealand
  7. 7.Sydney School of Veterinary Sciences, Charles Perkins CentreThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations