No effect of passive integrated transponder tagging method on survival or body condition in a northern population of Black-capped Chickadees (Poecile atricapillus).

Abstract

Passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags allow a range of individual‐level data to be collected passively and have become a commonly used technology in many avian studies. Although the potential adverse effects of PIT tags have been evaluated in several species, explicit investigations of their impacts on small (<12 g) birds are limited. This is important, because it is reasonable to expect that smaller birds could be impacted more strongly by application of PIT tags. In this study, we individually marked Black‐capped Chickadees (Poecile atricapillus), a small (circa 10 g) passerine, at the University of Alberta Botanic Garden to evaluate potential lethal and sublethal effects of two PIT tagging methods: attachment to leg bands or subcutaneous implantation. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to compare the apparent survival of chickadees with leg band (N = 79) and implanted PIT tags (N = 77) compared with control birds that received no PIT tags (N = 76) over the subsequent 2 years based on mist net recaptures. We used radio‐frequency identification (RFID) redetections of leg band PIT tags to evaluate sex‐specific survival and increase the accuracy of our survival estimates. We also used a generalized linear regression model to compare the body condition of birds recaptured after overwintering with leg band PIT tags, implanted PIT tags, or neither. Our analysis found no evidence for adverse effects of either PIT tagging method on survival or body condition. While we recommend carefully monitoring study animals and evaluating the efficacy of different PIT tagging methods, we have shown that both leg band and subcutaneously implanted PIT tags ethical means of obtaining individualized information in a small passerine.