Ocean Observations Using Tagged Animals

Roquet, Fabien; Boehme, Lars; Fedak, Mike A.; Block, Barbara A.; Charrassin, Jean‐Benoît; Costa, Daniel; Hückstädt, Luis A.; Guinet, Christophe; Harcourt, Robert; Hindell, Mark A.; McMahon, Clive R.; Woodward, Bill

doi:10.5670/oceanog.2017.235

Cited by 30 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, minimizing tag footprint is important, and this further exemplifies the usefulness of using CFD to efficiently and quickly evaluate the pros and cons of different tag design and size choices. It is also important to note that the effect of tag‐induced drag is likely to be greater as the ratio of tag to animal volume increases (Kyte et al, ), and minimizing tag frontal cross‐sectional area should also be undertaken where possible (Rosen et al, ). Ultimately, to reduce drag, tags should be designed to be more streamlined in line with the contours of the animal being tagged to achieve smooth flow reattachment downstream of the tag (see tag B; Figure ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent decades, the use of biologging devices to gather information on the behaviour, movement and physiology of animals has increased substantially (Hussey et al, ). In addition to collecting vast amounts of movement and behavioural data (Heylen & Nachtsheim, ), biologging devices can collect oceanographic data (Roquet et al, ; Treasure et al, ), and other environmental measures, such as ambient noise levels (Mikkelsen et al, ). However, the attachment of devices to animals is not without consequence for the animals carrying them (Bodey et al, ; Thorstad, Okland, & Heggberget, ; Vandenabeele et al, ; Wilson et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Minimizing the impact of biologging devices: Using computational fluid dynamics for optimizing tag design and positioning

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biologging devices are used ubiquitously across vertebrate taxa in studies of movement and behavioural ecology to record data from organisms without the need for direct observation. Despite the dramatic increase in the sophistication of this technology, progress in reducing the impact of these devices to animals is less obvious, notwithstanding the implications for animal welfare. Existing guidelines focus on tag weight (e.g. the ‘5% rule'), ignoring aero/hydrodynamic forces in aerial and aquatic organisms, which can be considerable. Designing tags to minimize such impact for animals moving in fluid environments is not trivial, as the impact depends on the position of the tag on the animal, as well as its shape and dimensions. We demonstrate the capabilities of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling to optimize the design and positioning of biologgers on marine animals, using the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) as a model species. Specifically, we investigate the effects of (a) tag form, (b) tag size, and (c) tag position and quantify the impact under frontal hydrodynamic forces, as encountered by seals swimming at sea. By comparing a conventional versus a streamlined tag, we show that the former can induce up to 22% larger drag for a swimming seal; to match the drag of the streamlined tag, the conventional tag would have to be reduced in size by 50%. For the conventional tag, the drag induced can differ by up to 11% depending on the position along the seal's body, whereas for the streamlined tag this difference amounts to only 5%. We conclude by showing how the CFD simulation approach can be used to optimize tag design to reduce drag for aerial and aquatic species, including issues such as the impact of lateral currents (unexplored until now). We also provide a step‐by‐step guide to facilitate the implementation of CFD in biologging tag design.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimizing the impact of biologging devices: Using computational fluid dynamics for optimizing tag design and positioning

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Handrich et al., ; Portugal et al., ; White, Grémillet, Green, Martin, & Butler, ), monitored the movements of critically endangered and range‐expanding species (e.g. Block et al., ; Sims et al., ; White, Green, Martin, Butler, & Grémillet, ), and sampled environmental parameters in inhospitable locations (Roquet et al., ; White et al., ). The number of studies published that use biologging technology on vertebrates now encompass many thousands of individuals (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Miniaturization of biologgers is not alleviating the 5% rule

Portugal

White

2018

Methods Ecol Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of biologging technology has increased exponentially over the last decade, allowing us to study animal behaviour at a level of detail not previously possible. It is clear from recent meta‐analyses that the attachment of such devices can have negative effects on individual animals, particularly their behaviour and physiology. In recognition of this, a commonly applied rule is to ensure that devices borne by flying animals weigh less than 5% of their body mass. Over time, the continuing miniaturization of devices should facilitate the deployment of devices that are an ever‐decreasing fraction of animal mass. Despite these considerations regarding device mass, here we show that there has been no apparent reduction in the relationship between body mass and the mass of logging devices over the last 48 years. Using a meta‐analytical approach, we demonstrate that the ongoing miniaturization of animal‐borne devices has resulted not in a decrease in the relative device mass borne by animals, but instead has prompted researchers to measure smaller and smaller species. We recommend that researchers better exploit the ongoing miniaturization of devices to reduce the relative mass of the devices borne by animals, and avoid blind adoption of the 5% or any other arbitrary rule when designing research programs.

show abstract

“…Animal telemetry has contributed data on key physical environmental variables, including ocean temperature and salinity, by using oceanographic sensors integrated into animal-borne satellite transmitters. Tracked marine animals are gathering key surface and sub-surface oceanographic information in some of the harshest environments on the planet, filling important observational gaps in the global climate observing system (Fedak, 2013;Roquet et al, 2013Roquet et al, , 2017, while simultaneously linking the behavior of these animals to these oceanographic parameters (Biuw et al, 2007). Vertical profiles of temperature and salinity, the two key observations for calculating water density are now routinely sampled in several key areas of the global ocean, such as the seasonally ice-covered sectors of the Southern Ocean (Charrassin et al, 2008).…”

Section: Animal Telemetry and Oceanographymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Foraging range is an important candidate EcoBio EOV, that is often derived from animal telemetry and can be informative about the distribution of prey and its effect on marine predators. For example, the Marine Mammals Exploring Oceans Pole-to-Pole (MEOP) program is likely to be an important source of EcoBio EOV data in the Southern Ocean (Roquet et al, 2017;Treasure et al, 2017). Parameters, such as foraging ranges, trip durations and habitat use obtained by tracking elephant seals (Mirounga sp), humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), and king (Aptenodytes patagonicus), emperor (Aptenodytes forsteri), Adélie (Pygoscelis adeliae) and Gentoo (Pygoscelis papua) penguins, have been identified as a cost effective way to monitor the distribution of mesopelagic fish and krill in the ecosystem (Constable et al, 2016;Xavier et al, 2018).…”

Section: Animal Telemetry and Essential Ocean Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal-Borne Telemetry: An Integral Component of the Ocean Observing Toolkit

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal telemetry is a powerful tool for observing marine animals and the physical environments that they inhabit, from coastal and continental shelf ecosystems to polar seas and open oceans. Satellite-linked biologgers and networks of acoustic receivers allow animals to be reliably monitored over scales of tens of meters to thousands of kilometers, giving insight into their habitat use, home range size, the phenology of migratory patterns and the biotic and abiotic factors that drive their distributions. Furthermore, physical environmental variables can be collected using animals as autonomous sampling platforms, increasing spatial and temporal coverage of global oceanographic observation systems. The use of animal telemetry, therefore, has the capacity to provide measures from a suite of essential ocean variables (EOVs) for improved monitoring of Earth's oceans. Here we outline the design features of animal telemetry systems, describe current applications and their benefits and challenges, and discuss future directions. We describe new analytical techniques that improve our ability to not only quantify animal movements but to also provide a powerful framework for comparative studies across taxa. We discuss the application of animal telemetry and its capacity to collect biotic and abiotic data, how the data collected can be incorporated into ocean observing systems, and the role these data can play in improved ocean management.

show abstract

Ocean Observations Using Tagged Animals

Cited by 30 publications

References 10 publications

Minimizing the impact of biologging devices: Using computational fluid dynamics for optimizing tag design and positioning

Minimizing the impact of biologging devices: Using computational fluid dynamics for optimizing tag design and positioning

Miniaturization of biologgers is not alleviating the 5% rule

Animal-Borne Telemetry: An Integral Component of the Ocean Observing Toolkit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About