Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Weak effects of geolocators on small birds : A meta-analysis controlled for phylogeny and publication bias

Brlík, Vojtěch ; Koleček, Jaroslav ; Burgess, Malcolm ; Hahn, Steffen ; Humple, Diana ; Krist, Miloš ; Ouwehand, Janne ; Weiser, Emily L. ; Adamík, Peter and Alves, José A. , et al. (2020) In Journal of Animal Ecology 89(1). p.207-220
Abstract

Currently, the deployment of tracking devices is one of the most frequently used approaches to study movement ecology of birds. Recent miniaturization of light-level geolocators enabled studying small bird species whose migratory patterns were widely unknown. However, geolocators may reduce vital rates in tagged birds and may bias obtained movement data. There is a need for a thorough assessment of the potential tag effects on small birds, as previous meta-analyses did not evaluate unpublished data and impact of multiple life-history traits, focused mainly on large species and the number of published studies tagging small birds has increased substantially. We quantitatively reviewed 549 records extracted from 74 published and 48... (More)

Currently, the deployment of tracking devices is one of the most frequently used approaches to study movement ecology of birds. Recent miniaturization of light-level geolocators enabled studying small bird species whose migratory patterns were widely unknown. However, geolocators may reduce vital rates in tagged birds and may bias obtained movement data. There is a need for a thorough assessment of the potential tag effects on small birds, as previous meta-analyses did not evaluate unpublished data and impact of multiple life-history traits, focused mainly on large species and the number of published studies tagging small birds has increased substantially. We quantitatively reviewed 549 records extracted from 74 published and 48 unpublished studies on over 7,800 tagged and 17,800 control individuals to examine the effects of geolocator tagging on small bird species (body mass <100 g). We calculated the effect of tagging on apparent survival, condition, phenology and breeding performance and identified the most important predictors of the magnitude of effect sizes. Even though the effects were not statistically significant in phylogenetically controlled models, we found a weak negative impact of geolocators on apparent survival. The negative effect on apparent survival was stronger with increasing relative load of the device and with geolocators attached using elastic harnesses. Moreover, tagging effects were stronger in smaller species. In conclusion, we found a weak effect on apparent survival of tagged birds and managed to pinpoint key aspects and drivers of tagging effects. We provide recommendations for establishing matched control group for proper effect size assessment in future studies and outline various aspects of tagging that need further investigation. Finally, our results encourage further use of geolocators on small bird species but the ethical aspects and scientific benefits should always be considered.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and , et al. (More)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and (Less)
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
keywords
condition, migration, phenology, reproduction, return rate, survival, tag effect, tracking device
in
Journal of Animal Ecology
volume
89
issue
1
pages
207 - 220
publisher
Wiley-Blackwell
external identifiers
  • pmid:30771254
  • scopus:85062712450
ISSN
0021-8790
DOI
10.1111/1365-2656.12962
language
English
LU publication?
no
additional info
Funding Information: We thank James W. Fox (Migrate Technology), the Swiss Ornithological Institute, Biotrack/Lotek employees for circulating the call for sharing the unpublished study results among their customers and Rien van Wijk for sharing our inquiry for unpublished data among the Migrant Landbird Study Group members. We are grateful to Carlos Camacho, Vladimir G. Grinkov, Helene M. Lampe, Ken Otter, Jaime Potti, Milica Po?gayov?, Scott M. Ramsay and Helmut Sternberg for providing unpublished data and to Marie H?nov? for extracting part of the species-specific life-history data. We thank Martin Sl?de?ek, anonymous reviewers and editors for valuable comments on the earlier version of the manuscript and Ad?la Stupkov? for the graphics. The fieldwork in Greenland and Russia (Yamal Peninsula) was supported by the RFBR through grant Arctic-18-05-60261, Yamal-LNG company (Sabetta) and the French Polar Institute (IPEV, program 1036 ?Interactions?). D.K. was supported by the Russian Science Foundation grant (project no. 17-14-01147) and by a Leverhulme Trust research grant to Richard Holland (RPG-2013288). The study was funded by the Czech Science Foundation (project no. 13-06451S) and by the Institutional Research Plan (RVO: 68081766). We are grateful to the funders, supporters and researchers of the many studies included herein. Any use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Publisher Copyright: © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Animal Ecology © 2019 British Ecological Society
id
23e4306b-a5fe-4243-b25e-264620708af5
date added to LUP
2021-10-29 10:59:16
date last changed
2024-04-20 15:27:21
@article{23e4306b-a5fe-4243-b25e-264620708af5,
  abstract     = {{<p>Currently, the deployment of tracking devices is one of the most frequently used approaches to study movement ecology of birds. Recent miniaturization of light-level geolocators enabled studying small bird species whose migratory patterns were widely unknown. However, geolocators may reduce vital rates in tagged birds and may bias obtained movement data. There is a need for a thorough assessment of the potential tag effects on small birds, as previous meta-analyses did not evaluate unpublished data and impact of multiple life-history traits, focused mainly on large species and the number of published studies tagging small birds has increased substantially. We quantitatively reviewed 549 records extracted from 74 published and 48 unpublished studies on over 7,800 tagged and 17,800 control individuals to examine the effects of geolocator tagging on small bird species (body mass &lt;100 g). We calculated the effect of tagging on apparent survival, condition, phenology and breeding performance and identified the most important predictors of the magnitude of effect sizes. Even though the effects were not statistically significant in phylogenetically controlled models, we found a weak negative impact of geolocators on apparent survival. The negative effect on apparent survival was stronger with increasing relative load of the device and with geolocators attached using elastic harnesses. Moreover, tagging effects were stronger in smaller species. In conclusion, we found a weak effect on apparent survival of tagged birds and managed to pinpoint key aspects and drivers of tagging effects. We provide recommendations for establishing matched control group for proper effect size assessment in future studies and outline various aspects of tagging that need further investigation. Finally, our results encourage further use of geolocators on small bird species but the ethical aspects and scientific benefits should always be considered.</p>}},
  author       = {{Brlík, Vojtěch and Koleček, Jaroslav and Burgess, Malcolm and Hahn, Steffen and Humple, Diana and Krist, Miloš and Ouwehand, Janne and Weiser, Emily L. and Adamík, Peter and Alves, José A. and Arlt, Debora and Barišić, Sanja and Becker, Detlef and Belda, Eduardo J. and Beran, Václav and Both, Christiaan and Bravo, Susana P. and Briedis, Martins and Chutný, Bohumír and Ćiković, Davor and Cooper, Nathan W. and Costa, Joana S. and Cueto, Víctor R. and Emmenegger, Tamara and Fraser, Kevin and Gilg, Olivier and Guerrero, Marina and Hallworth, Michael T. and Hewson, Chris and Jiguet, Frédéric and Johnson, James A. and Kelly, Tosha and Kishkinev, Dmitry and Leconte, Michel and Lislevand, Terje and Lisovski, Simeon and López, Cosme and McFarland, Kent P. and Marra, Peter P. and Matsuoka, Steven M. and Matyjasiak, Piotr and Meier, Christoph M. and Metzger, Benjamin and Monrós, Juan S. and Neumann, Roland and Newman, Amy and Norris, Ryan and Pärt, Tomas and Pavel, Václav and Perlut, Noah and Piha, Markus and Reneerkens, Jeroen and Rimmer, Christopher C. and Roberto-Charron, Amélie and Scandolara, Chiara and Sokolova, Natalia and Takenaka, Makiko and Tolkmitt, Dirk and van Oosten, Herman and Wellbrock, Arndt H.J. and Wheeler, Hazel and van der Winden, Jan and Witte, Klaudia and Woodworth, Bradley K. and Procházka, Petr}},
  issn         = {{0021-8790}},
  keywords     = {{condition; migration; phenology; reproduction; return rate; survival; tag effect; tracking device}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{01}},
  number       = {{1}},
  pages        = {{207--220}},
  publisher    = {{Wiley-Blackwell}},
  series       = {{Journal of Animal Ecology}},
  title        = {{Weak effects of geolocators on small birds : A meta-analysis controlled for phylogeny and publication bias}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12962}},
  doi          = {{10.1111/1365-2656.12962}},
  volume       = {{89}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}