Abstract
Multisensor biologging provides a powerful tool for ecological research, enabling fine-scale observation of animals to directly link physiology and movement to behavior across ecological contexts. However, applied research into behavioral disturbance and recovery following human interventions (e.g., capture and translocation) has mostly relied on coarse location-based tracking or unidimensional approaches (e.g., dive profiles and activity/energetic metrics) that may not resolve behaviors and recovery processes. Biologging can improve insights into both disturbed and natural behavior, which is critical for management and conservation initiatives, although challenges remain in objectively identifying distinct behavioral modes from complex multisensor datasets. Using white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) released from a non-lethal catch-and-release shark bite mitigation program, we explored how combining multisensor biologging (video, depth, accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers), track reconstruction and behavioral state modeling using hidden Markov models (HMMs) can improve our understanding of behavioral processes and recovery. Biologging tags were deployed on eight white sharks, recording their continuous behaviors, movements, and environmental context (habitat, interactions with other organisms/objects) for periods of 10–87 h post-release. Dive profiles and tailbeat analysis (as a standard, activity-based method for assessing recovery) indicated an immediate “disturbed” period of offshore movement, displaying rapid tailbeats and an average tailbeat-derived recovery period of 9.7 h, with evidence of smaller individuals having longer recoveries. However, further integrating magnetometer-derived headings, track reconstruction and HMM modeling revealed a cryptic shift to diurnal clockwise-counterclockwise circling behavior, which we argue represents compelling new evidence for hypothesized unihemispheric sleep amongst elasmobranchs. By simultaneously providing critical information toward conservation-focused shark management and understudied aspects of shark behavior, our study highlights how integrating multisensor information through HMMs can improve our understanding of both post-release and natural behavior, especially in species that are difficult to observe directly.
Highlights
Establishing how animal movement and behavior shifts across ecological contexts is critical to understanding ecology, yet examining this at relevant spatiotemporal scales in free-ranging individuals presents a long-standing technical challenge (Nathan et al, 2008)
White sharks were captured during July and August in 2018 and 2019 on SMART drumlines (Guyomard et al, 2019; Tate et al, 2021a) at Evans Head, New South Wales (NSW), Australia (29.11◦S, 153.43◦E, Figure 1)
Inertial measurement data, threedimensional track reconstruction and behavioral state modeling through hidden Markov models (HMMs) to perform an integrated analysis of post-release recovery processes in white sharks, revealing new insights into the nature and timing of cryptic post-release behavioral shifts, and factors influencing these
Summary
Establishing how animal movement and behavior shifts across ecological contexts is critical to understanding ecology, yet examining this at relevant spatiotemporal scales in free-ranging individuals presents a long-standing technical challenge (Nathan et al, 2008). Pure biologging objectives usually focus on examining natural behavior, but this requires accounting for behavioral disturbances resulting from the tagging process, including capture and handling which are often necessitated for deployments on elusive or transient species, or due to tag application requirements (e.g., rigid attachment/careful alignment for accelerometers/magnetometers; Wilson et al, 2008; Shillinger et al, 2012; but see Chapple et al, 2015; Pearson et al, 2017). The magnitude, nature and duration of post-release disturbance can vary between individuals, species and contexts (e.g., capture behavior, environmental conditions; Gallagher et al, 2014; Guida et al, 2016; Whitney et al, 2016), yet these responses are often excluded from detailed analysis as unwanted side-effects to natural behavior (e.g., Coffey et al, 2020). Careful selection of the most appropriate sensors is critical to this (Williams et al, 2020)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.