Neckband or backpack? : Differences in tag design and their effects on GPS/accelerometer tracking results in large waterbirds

Kölzsch, Andrea; Neefjes, Marjolein; Barkway, Jude; Müskens, Gerhard J. D. M.; van Langevelde, Frank; de Boer, Willem F.; Prins, Herbert H. T.; Cresswell, Brian H.; Nolet, Bart A.

Neckband or backpack? : Differences in tag design and their effects on GPS/accelerometer tracking results in large waterbirds

Dateien

Koelzsch_2-cchqewgjnb0n9.pdfGröße: 2.63 MBDownloads: 314

Datum

2016

Autor:innen

Kölzsch, Andrea

Neefjes, Marjolein

Barkway, Jude

Müskens, Gerhard J. D. M.

van Langevelde, Frank

de Boer, Willem F.

Prins, Herbert H. T.

Cresswell, Brian H.

Nolet, Bart A.

Open Access-Veröffentlichung

Open Access Gold

Sammlungen

Biologie

Publikationstyp

Zeitschriftenartikel

Publikationsstatus

Published

Erschienen in

Animal Biotelemetry. 2016, 4(1), 13. eISSN 2050-3385. Available under: doi: 10.1186/s40317-016-0104-9

Zusammenfassung

Background

GPS and accelerometer tracking presently revolutionises the fields of ecology and animal behaviour. However, the effects of tag characteristics like weight, attachment and data quality on study outcomes and animal welfare are important to consider. In this study, we compare how different tag attachment types influence the behaviour of a group of tagged large waterbirds, GPS accuracy and behaviour classification success from accelerometer data.

Results

Both neckband and backpack tags had similar effects on the behaviour of six captive Canada geese (Branta canadensis), increasing the amount of discomfort behaviour in relation to untagged individuals. Both treatment groups also slightly decreased the amount of foraging, but the duration of neither vigilance nor resting was affected. GPS positions that were filtered with classical GPS platform settings (i.e. smoothing) were more accurate than positions improved by satellite-based differential augmentation. Tag attachment, however, did not induce any differences in position accuracy of both data types. Behaviour classification success was generally similar for neckband and backpack tags. But in detail, behaviours mainly performed by the head like foraging and vigilance were better detected from accelerometer data of neckband tags, whereas behaviours like resting and walking were more successfully detected from backpack tag data.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the use of neckband or backpack tags for tracking large waterbirds and their behaviour largely depends on which behaviours are most important to detect. However, for wildlife tracking studies, factors like tag retention time are also of great importance, especially for animals like some goose species that are known to quickly destroy backpack tags. For future studies, we advise to carefully evaluate not only tag weight, but also attachment methods and data quality, because the right choice depends on the research question. This will improve the scope of wildlife tracking even more for various scientific, conservation and management applications.

Fachgebiet (DDC)

570 Biowissenschaften, Biologie

Schlagwörter

Animal tracking, Tag attachment, Tag placement, Tag effects, Differential GPS accuracy, SBAS, Behaviour classification, Accelerometer, Canada goose, Branta c. canadensis

Zitieren

ISO 690

KÖLZSCH, Andrea, Marjolein NEEFJES, Jude BARKWAY, Gerhard J. D. M. MÜSKENS, Frank VAN LANGEVELDE, Willem F. DE BOER, Herbert H. T. PRINS, Brian H. CRESSWELL, Bart A. NOLET, 2016. Neckband or backpack? : Differences in tag design and their effects on GPS/accelerometer tracking results in large waterbirds. In: Animal Biotelemetry. 2016, 4(1), 13. eISSN 2050-3385. Available under: doi: 10.1186/s40317-016-0104-9

BibTex

@article{Kolzsch2016-12Neckb-48248,
  year={2016},
  doi={10.1186/s40317-016-0104-9},
  title={Neckband or backpack? : Differences in tag design and their effects on GPS/accelerometer tracking results in large waterbirds},
  number={1},
  volume={4},
  journal={Animal Biotelemetry},
  author={Kölzsch, Andrea and Neefjes, Marjolein and Barkway, Jude and Müskens, Gerhard J. D. M. and van Langevelde, Frank and de Boer, Willem F. and Prins, Herbert H. T. and Cresswell, Brian H. and Nolet, Bart A.},
  note={Article Number: 13}
}

RDF

<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/48248">
    <dc:rights>Attribution 4.0 International</dc:rights>
    <dc:contributor>Cresswell, Brian H.</dc:contributor>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/28"/>
    <dc:contributor>van Langevelde, Frank</dc:contributor>
    <dc:contributor>Nolet, Bart A.</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:title>Neckband or backpack? : Differences in tag design and their effects on GPS/accelerometer tracking results in large waterbirds</dcterms:title>
    <dc:contributor>Kölzsch, Andrea</dc:contributor>
    <dc:creator>Neefjes, Marjolein</dc:creator>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/48248/3/Koelzsch_2-cchqewgjnb0n9.pdf"/>
    <dc:contributor>de Boer, Willem F.</dc:contributor>
    <dc:contributor>Prins, Herbert H. T.</dc:contributor>
    <dc:contributor>Barkway, Jude</dc:contributor>
    <dc:creator>de Boer, Willem F.</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Barkway, Jude</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Kölzsch, Andrea</dc:creator>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/28"/>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2020-01-17T09:26:13Z</dcterms:available>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Background&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;GPS and accelerometer tracking presently revolutionises the fields of ecology and animal behaviour. However, the effects of tag characteristics like weight, attachment and data quality on study outcomes and animal welfare are important to consider. In this study, we compare how different tag attachment types influence the behaviour of a group of tagged large waterbirds, GPS accuracy and behaviour classification success from accelerometer data.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Results&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Both neckband and backpack tags had similar effects on the behaviour of six captive Canada geese (Branta canadensis), increasing the amount of discomfort behaviour in relation to untagged individuals. Both treatment groups also slightly decreased the amount of foraging, but the duration of neither vigilance nor resting was affected. GPS positions that were filtered with classical GPS platform settings (i.e. smoothing) were more accurate than positions improved by satellite-based differential augmentation. Tag attachment, however, did not induce any differences in position accuracy of both data types. Behaviour classification success was generally similar for neckband and backpack tags. But in detail, behaviours mainly performed by the head like foraging and vigilance were better detected from accelerometer data of neckband tags, whereas behaviours like resting and walking were more successfully detected from backpack tag data.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Conclusion&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Our findings suggest that the use of neckband or backpack tags for tracking large waterbirds and their behaviour largely depends on which behaviours are most important to detect. However, for wildlife tracking studies, factors like tag retention time are also of great importance, especially for animals like some goose species that are known to quickly destroy backpack tags. For future studies, we advise to carefully evaluate not only tag weight, but also attachment methods and data quality, because the right choice depends on the research question. This will improve the scope of wildlife tracking even more for various scientific, conservation and management applications.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"/>
    <dc:contributor>Neefjes, Marjolein</dc:contributor>
    <dc:creator>van Langevelde, Frank</dc:creator>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/48248"/>
    <dc:creator>Prins, Herbert H. T.</dc:creator>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/48248/3/Koelzsch_2-cchqewgjnb0n9.pdf"/>
    <dc:creator>Müskens, Gerhard J. D. M.</dc:creator>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2020-01-17T09:26:13Z</dc:date>
    <dc:creator>Nolet, Bart A.</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:issued>2016-12</dcterms:issued>
    <dc:contributor>Müskens, Gerhard J. D. M.</dc:contributor>
    <dc:creator>Cresswell, Brian H.</dc:creator>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Begutachtet

Ja