Best practice guidelines for cetacean tagging

Abstract

Animal-borne electronic instruments (tags) are valuable tools for collecting information on cetacean physiology, behaviour and ecology, and forenhancing conservation and management policies for cetacean populations. Tags allow researchers to track the movement patterns, habitat use andother aspects of the behaviour of animals that are otherwise difficult to observe. They can even be used to monitor the physiology of a taggedanimal within its changing environment. Such tags are ideal for identifying and predicting responses to anthropogenic threats, thus facilitating thedevelopment of robust mitigation measures. With the increasing need for data best provided by tagging and the increasing availability of tags, suchresearch is becoming more common. Tagging can, however, pose risks to the health and welfare of cetaceans and to personnel involved in taggingoperations. Here we provide ‘best practice’ recommendations for cetacean tag design, deployment and follow-up assessment of tagged individuals,compiled by biologists and veterinarians with significant experience in cetacean tagging. This paper is intended to serve as a resource to assist tagusers, veterinarians, ethics committees and regulatory agency staff in the implementation of high standards of practice, and to promote the trainingof specialists in this area. Standardised terminology for describing tag design and illustrations of tag types and attachment sites are provided, alongwith protocols for tag testing and deployment (both remote and through capture-release), including training of operators. The recommendationsemphasise the importance of ensuring that tagging is ethically and scientifically justified for a particular project and that tagging only be used toaddress bona fide research or conservation questions that are best addressed with tagging, as supported by an exploration of alternative methods.Recommendations are provided for minimising effects on individual animals (e.g. through careful selection of the individual, tag design and implantsterilisation) and for improving knowledge of tagging effects on cetaceans through increased post-tagging monitoring.

Assessing the post-release effects of capture, handling and placement of satellite telemetry devices on narwhal(Monodon monoceros)movement behaviour

“…In addition to handling time, this study also presents some evidence to suggest that individuals with ‘bolt-on’ satellite tags had a lower tail-beat frequency following release than those without. Several studies have been attempted to determine the effects of equipping animals with invasive telemetry devices in a wide variety of species ( Walker et al , 2012 ; Andrews et al , 2015 , 2019 ; Shuert et al , 2015 ; Chivers et al , 2016 ; Horning et al , 2017a ; Lear et al , 2018 ). Even when not found to impact survival, physiological costs associated with telemetry devices likely exist with respect to increased drag associated with the disruption of laminar flow across the body ( Andrews et al , 2015 ; Andrews and Enstipp, 2016 ; Kyte et al , 2019 ).…”

“…Many refinement frameworks also highlight the need to assess considerations on a species-specific level ( Hawkins, 2004 ) as well as across all aspects of experimental design for biologging studies ( Casper, 2009 ). As a result, several expert groups pooled collective knowledge from field activities, as well as previous work assessing the use and placement of telemetry devices, to create best practice recommendations for pinnipeds ( Horning et al , 2017b , 2019 ) and cetaceans ( Andrews et al , 2019 ). These best-practice recommendations provide an important framework moving forward and emphasize the need for data to examine how animal handling and the placement of telemetry devices potentially impact health, behaviour and survival of marine mammals.…”

“…Cetaceans, especially, have seen a rapid increase in the number of individuals fitted with telemetry devices over recent years ( McIntyre, 2014 ; Andrews et al , 2019 ). These telemetry devices are generally attached using either a non-invasive method, such as suction cup mounting ( Goldbogen et al , 2013 ), or through more invasive anchored mounts along the dorsal fin or ridge, such as the ‘limpet’-style tag ( Andrews et al , 2015 ), and can often be attached without directly restraining individuals by using a pole or cross-bow to achieve short-term (days) and medium-term (weeks) deployment durations.…”

“…Attachment techniques for long-term deployments (months) using ‘bolt-on’ configurations, however, often require capture and handling ( Balmer et al , 2011 ; Heide-Jørgensen et al , 2017 ). While researchers follow best practices for capture, handling and tag attachment, approved through Animal Care Committees in respective organizations, assessments of the impact of these procedures on cetaceans are limited ( Andrews et al 2019 ).…”

Predicting seasonal movements and distribution of the sperm whale using machine learning algorithms

“…The tags were deployed using the ARTS, a modified pneumatic air gun, at about 8–10 m from the whale set at pressure of 11 bars (Heide‐Jørgensen et al., 2001). This is a standard procedure commonly used in tracking projects of large whales (Andrews et al., 2019). Both transmitters consisted of a stainless‐steel cylinder (SPOT5: 22 × 110 mm SPLASH10 24 × 155 mm) that contained the electronics and one lithium AA cell.…”