The effect of an external transmitter on the drag coefficient of a bird’s body, and hence on migration range, and energy reserves after migration

Abstract

Externally mounted transmitters or loggers may adversely affect migration performance for reasons other than the effects of added mass. The added frontal area of a payload box increases drag, and if the box triggers separation of the boundary layer over the posterior body, the drag coefficient could also be increased, possibly by a large amount. Any such effects would lead directly to a decreased migration range and reduced energy reserves on completion of migration. We measured the body drag coefficients of Rose-coloured Starlings in the Seewiesen wind tunnel by the wingbeat-frequency method. The speed at which the wingbeat frequency passed through a minimum was taken to be an estimate of the minimum-power speed (Vmp), from which the body drag coefficient was calculated in turn. Dummy transmitter boxes were mounted on the bird’s back by attaching them with Velcro to a side-loop harness pad. The pad alone projected 6 mm above the bird’s back, and increased the drag coefficient by nearly 50%, as compared to the “clean” configuration with no harness. Adding boxes (square-ended or streamlined) produced no further significant increase in the drag coefficient, but the addition of a sloping antenna increased it to nearly twice the clean value. These increases are attributed to separation of the boundary layer over the posterior upper body, triggered by the payload. We then ran computer simulations of a particular Barnacle Goose, for which detailed information was available from an earlier satellite-tracking project, to see how its migration range and reserves on arrival would be affected if its transmitter installation also caused flow separation and affected the body drag coefficient in a similar way. By representing the range calculation in terms of energy height, we separated the effect of the transmitter’s mass, which reduces the fat fraction (and hence also energy height) at departure, from that of flow separation, which steepens the energy gradient. The effect of the mass is small, and increases only slightly with increasing distance, whereas a steeper energy gradient not only reduces the range but also reduces the reserves remaining on arrival, to an extent that increases with migration distance. Energy height is related to the fat fraction rather than the fat mass, and is therefore preferable to energy as such, for expressing reserves in birds of different sizes.