Effects of geolocators on hatching success, return rates, breeding movements, and change in body mass in 16 species of Arctic-breeding shorebirds.

Simple item page
dc.citation.volume4
dc.contributor.authorWeiser EL
dc.contributor.authorLanctot RB
dc.contributor.authorBrown SC
dc.contributor.authorAlves JA
dc.contributor.authorBattley PF
dc.contributor.authorBentzen R
dc.contributor.authorBêty J
dc.contributor.authorBishop MA
dc.contributor.authorBoldenow M
dc.contributor.authorBollache L
dc.contributor.authorCasler B
dc.contributor.authorChristie M
dc.contributor.authorColeman JT
dc.contributor.authorConklin JR
dc.contributor.authorEnglish WB
dc.contributor.authorGates HR
dc.contributor.authorGilg O
dc.contributor.authorGiroux M-A
dc.contributor.authorGosbell K
dc.contributor.authorHassell C
dc.contributor.authorHelmericks J
dc.contributor.authorJohnson A
dc.contributor.authorKatrínardóttir B
dc.contributor.authorKoivula K
dc.contributor.authorKwon E
dc.contributor.authorLamarre J-F
dc.contributor.authorLang J
dc.contributor.authorLank DB
dc.contributor.authorLecomte N
dc.contributor.authorLiebezeit J
dc.contributor.authorLoverti V
dc.contributor.authorMcKinnon L
dc.contributor.authorMinton C
dc.contributor.authorMizrahi D
dc.contributor.authorNol E
dc.contributor.authorPakanen V-M
dc.contributor.authorPerz J
dc.contributor.authorPorter R
dc.contributor.authorRausch J
dc.contributor.authorReneerkens J
dc.contributor.authorRönkä N
dc.contributor.authorSaalfeld S
dc.contributor.authorSenner N
dc.contributor.authorSittler B
dc.contributor.authorSmith PA
dc.contributor.authorSowl K
dc.contributor.authorTaylor A
dc.contributor.authorWard DH
dc.contributor.authorYezerinac S
dc.contributor.authorSandercock BK
dc.date.available2016-04-29
dc.date.available2016-04-03
dc.date.issued2016
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Geolocators are useful for tracking movements of long-distance migrants, but potential negative effects on birds have not been well studied. We tested for effects of geolocators (0.8-2.0 g total, representing 0.1-3.9 % of mean body mass) on 16 species of migratory shorebirds, including five species with 2-4 subspecies each for a total of 23 study taxa. Study species spanned a range of body sizes (26-1091 g) and eight genera, and were tagged at 23 breeding and eight nonbreeding sites. We compared breeding performance and return rates of birds with geolocators to control groups while controlling for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: We detected negative effects of tags for three small-bodied species. Geolocators reduced annual return rates for two of 23 taxa: by 63 % for semipalmated sandpipers and by 43 % for the arcticola subspecies of dunlin. High resighting effort for geolocator birds could have masked additional negative effects. Geolocators were more likely to negatively affect return rates if the total mass of geolocators and color markers was 2.5-5.8 % of body mass than if tags were 0.3-2.3 % of body mass. Carrying a geolocator reduced nest success by 42 % for semipalmated sandpipers and tripled the probability of partial clutch failure in semipalmated and western sandpipers. Geolocators mounted perpendicular to the leg on a flag had stronger negative effects on nest success than geolocators mounted parallel to the leg on a band. However, parallel-band geolocators were more likely to reduce return rates and cause injuries to the leg. No effects of geolocators were found on breeding movements or changes in body mass. Among-site variation in geolocator effect size was high, suggesting that local factors were important. CONCLUSIONS: Negative effects of geolocators occurred only for three of the smallest species in our dataset, but were substantial when present. Future studies could mitigate impacts of tags by reducing protruding parts and minimizing use of additional markers. Investigators could maximize recovery of tags by strategically deploying geolocators on males, previously marked individuals, and successful breeders, though targeting subsets of a population could bias the resulting migratory movement data in some species.
dc.description.publication-statusPublished
dc.identifierhttp://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000381933100001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=c5bb3b2499afac691c2e3c1a83ef6fef
dc.identifierARTN 12
dc.identifier.citationMOVEMENT ECOLOGY, 2016, 4
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s40462-016-0077-6
dc.identifier.elements-id261327
dc.identifier.harvestedMassey_Dark
dc.identifier.issn2051-3933
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10179/16561
dc.relation.isPartOfMOVEMENT ECOLOGY
dc.subjectBreeding success
dc.subjectGeologger
dc.subjectGlobal location sensor (GLS)
dc.subjectResearch impacts
dc.subjectReturn rates
dc.subjectTracking methods
dc.subjectWaders
dc.subject.anzsrc0502 Environmental Science and Management
dc.subject.anzsrc0602 Ecology
dc.titleEffects of geolocators on hatching success, return rates, breeding movements, and change in body mass in 16 species of Arctic-breeding shorebirds.
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.notesNot known
pubs.organisational-group/Massey University
pubs.organisational-group/Massey University/College of Sciences
pubs.organisational-group/Massey University/College of Sciences/School of Natural Sciences
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Weiser 2016 effects of geolocators on shorebirds Movement Ecology.pdf
Size:
2.05 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
Journal Articles