Kristen M Hart1, Jacquelyn C Guzy2, Brian J Smith3. 1. U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 3321 College Avenue, Davie, FL, 33314, USA. kristen_hart@usgs.gov. 2. U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 3321 College Avenue, Davie, FL, 33314, USA. 3. Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Satellite tags have revolutionized our understanding of marine animal movements. However, tags may stop transmitting for many reasons and little research has rigorously examined tag failure. Using a long-term, large-scale, multi-species dataset, we evaluated factors influencing tracking duration of satellite tags to inform study design for future tracking studies. METHODS: We leveraged data on battery status transmitted with location data, recapture events, and number of transmission days to probabilistically quantify multiple potential causes of failure (i.e., battery failure, premature detachment, and tag damage/fouling). We used a combination of logistic regressions and an ordinary linear model including several predictor variables (i.e., tag type, battery life, species, sex, size, and foraging region). RESULTS: We examined subsets of data from 360 satellite tags encompassing 86,889 tracking days deployed on four species of marine turtles throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, and Bahamas from 2008 to 2019. Only 4.1% of batteries died before failure due to other causes. We observed species-specific variation in how long tags remain attached: hawksbills retained 50% of their tags for 1649 days (95% CI 995-1800), loggerheads for 584 days (95% CI 400-690), and green turtles for 294 days (95% CI 198-450). Estimated tracking duration varied by foraging region (Caribbean: 385 days; Bahamas: 356; southern Gulf of Mexico [SGOM]: 276, northern Gulf of Mexico [NGOM]: 177). Additionally, we documented species-specific variation in estimated tracking duration among foraging regions. Based on sensor data, within the Gulf of Mexico, across species, we estimated that 50% of tags began to foul after 83 95% CI (70-120) days. CONCLUSIONS: The main factor that limited tracking duration was tag damage (i.e., fouling and/or antenna breakage). Turtles that spent most of their time in the Gulf of Mexico had shorter tracking durations than those in the Bahamas and Caribbean, with shortest durations observed in the NGOM. Additionally, tracking duration varied by species, likely as a result of behaviors that damage tags. This information will help researchers, tag companies, permitting agencies, and funders better predict expected tracking durations, improving study designs for imperiled marine turtles. Our results highlight the heterogeneity in telemetry device longevity, and we provide a framework for researchers to evaluate telemetry devices with respect to their study objectives.
BACKGROUND: Satellite tags have revolutionized our understanding of marine animal movements. However, tags may stop transmitting for many reasons and little research has rigorously examined tag failure. Using a long-term, large-scale, multi-species dataset, we evaluated factors influencing tracking duration of satellite tags to inform study design for future tracking studies. METHODS: We leveraged data on battery status transmitted with location data, recapture events, and number of transmission days to probabilistically quantify multiple potential causes of failure (i.e., battery failure, premature detachment, and tag damage/fouling). We used a combination of logistic regressions and an ordinary linear model including several predictor variables (i.e., tag type, battery life, species, sex, size, and foraging region). RESULTS: We examined subsets of data from 360 satellite tags encompassing 86,889 tracking days deployed on four species of marine turtles throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, and Bahamas from 2008 to 2019. Only 4.1% of batteries died before failure due to other causes. We observed species-specific variation in how long tags remain attached: hawksbills retained 50% of their tags for 1649 days (95% CI 995-1800), loggerheads for 584 days (95% CI 400-690), and green turtles for 294 days (95% CI 198-450). Estimated tracking duration varied by foraging region (Caribbean: 385 days; Bahamas: 356; southern Gulf of Mexico [SGOM]: 276, northern Gulf of Mexico [NGOM]: 177). Additionally, we documented species-specific variation in estimated tracking duration among foraging regions. Based on sensor data, within the Gulf of Mexico, across species, we estimated that 50% of tags began to foul after 83 95% CI (70-120) days. CONCLUSIONS: The main factor that limited tracking duration was tag damage (i.e., fouling and/or antenna breakage). Turtles that spent most of their time in the Gulf of Mexico had shorter tracking durations than those in the Bahamas and Caribbean, with shortest durations observed in the NGOM. Additionally, tracking duration varied by species, likely as a result of behaviors that damage tags. This information will help researchers, tag companies, permitting agencies, and funders better predict expected tracking durations, improving study designs for imperiled marine turtles. Our results highlight the heterogeneity in telemetry device longevity, and we provide a framework for researchers to evaluate telemetry devices with respect to their study objectives.
Authors: Jacqueline L Frair; John Fieberg; Mark Hebblewhite; Francesca Cagnacci; Nicholas J DeCesare; Luca Pedrotti Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2010-07-27 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: Raymond H G Klaassen; Mikael Hake; Roine Strandberg; Ben J Koks; Christiane Trierweiler; Klaus-Michael Exo; Franz Bairlein; Thomas Alerstam Journal: J Anim Ecol Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 5.091
Authors: B A Block; I D Jonsen; S J Jorgensen; A J Winship; S A Shaffer; S J Bograd; E L Hazen; D G Foley; G A Breed; A-L Harrison; J E Ganong; A Swithenbank; M Castleton; H Dewar; B R Mate; G L Shillinger; K M Schaefer; S R Benson; M J Weise; R W Henry; D P Costa Journal: Nature Date: 2011-06-22 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Nigel E Hussey; Steven T Kessel; Kim Aarestrup; Steven J Cooke; Paul D Cowley; Aaron T Fisk; Robert G Harcourt; Kim N Holland; Sara J Iverson; John F Kocik; Joanna E Mills Flemming; Fred G Whoriskey Journal: Science Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Graeme C Hays; Helen Bailey; Steven J Bograd; W Don Bowen; Claudio Campagna; Ruth H Carmichael; Paolo Casale; Andre Chiaradia; Daniel P Costa; Eduardo Cuevas; P J Nico de Bruyn; Maria P Dias; Carlos M Duarte; Daniel C Dunn; Peter H Dutton; Nicole Esteban; Ari Friedlaender; Kimberly T Goetz; Brendan J Godley; Patrick N Halpin; Mark Hamann; Neil Hammerschlag; Robert Harcourt; Autumn-Lynn Harrison; Elliott L Hazen; Michelle R Heupel; Erich Hoyt; Nicolas E Humphries; Connie Y Kot; James S E Lea; Helene Marsh; Sara M Maxwell; Clive R McMahon; Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara; Daniel M Palacios; Richard A Phillips; David Righton; Gail Schofield; Jeffrey A Seminoff; Colin A Simpfendorfer; David W Sims; Akinori Takahashi; Michael J Tetley; Michele Thums; Philip N Trathan; Stella Villegas-Amtmann; Randall S Wells; Scott D Whiting; Natalie E Wildermann; Ana M M Sequeira Journal: Trends Ecol Evol Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 17.712
Authors: Patricia Miloslavich; Juan Manuel Díaz; Eduardo Klein; Juan José Alvarado; Cristina Díaz; Judith Gobin; Elva Escobar-Briones; Juan José Cruz-Motta; Ernesto Weil; Jorge Cortés; Ana Carolina Bastidas; Ross Robertson; Fernando Zapata; Alberto Martín; Julio Castillo; Aniuska Kazandjian; Manuel Ortiz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-08-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kristen M Hart; Autumn R Iverson; Ikuko Fujisaki; Margaret M Lamont; David Bucklin; Donna J Shaver Journal: Ecol Evol Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 2.912
Authors: Nicholas A Farmer; Jessica R Powell; James A Morris; Melissa S Soldevilla; Lisa C Wickliffe; Jonathan A Jossart; Jonathan K MacKay; Alyssa L Randall; Gretchen E Bath; Penny Ruvelas; Laura Gray; Jennifer Lee; Wendy Piniak; Lance Garrison; Robert Hardy; Kristen M Hart; Chris Sasso; Lesley Stokes; Kenneth L Riley Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 3.752