An experimental study measuring the effects of a tarsus-mounted tracking device on the behaviour of a small pursuit-diving seabird
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Miniaturized tracking devices are taking a rapidly increasing role in studies measuring animal movement and other aspects of behaviour, especially for wide-ranging species such as seabirds that are difficult to observe otherwise. A crucial, but questionable criterion of such migration research is assuming that effects of tracking devices on animal behaviour are negligible, to ensure results of tracking studies are biologically relevant. To address this concern, we experimentally quantified effects of a 2 g (ca. 1.1% of body mass) geolocation device on crested auklet ( Aethia cristatella ) behaviour, including return rate, activity on the colony surface, and measures of reproductive performance in a two-year, two-part field study. In experiment 1, we fitted tracking devices (or identical dummy devices) to one mate of a breeding pair in nesting crevices, to quantify effects on reproductive performance and nest fidelity. In experiment 2, we assigned dummy devices to birds captured at the colony site surface, to quantify effects on social activity, return rate and provisioning behaviour. For birds tagged in crevices, we detected no effect on fledging success, or chick growth rate (mass and wing length). However, mass at fledging age of chicks provisioned with one tagged parent was significantly lower than control, and low nest site fidelity (compared to control birds) was observed for tagged birds. Individuals tagged on the colony surface showed significantly reduced colony surface activity, return rates and provisioning behaviour. This study shows strong ‘observer effects’ of an attached device well below the recommended size limit for wildlife tagging. Future studies should both quantify effects of attached devices and consider the biological relevance of measures of the behaviour of interest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".