Ecological inference using data from accelerometers needs careful protocols.

Accelerometers in animal-attached tags are powerful tools in behavioural ecology, they can be used to determine behaviour and provide proxies for movement-based energy expenditure. Researchers are collecting and archiving data across systems, seasons and device types. However, using data repositories to draw ecological inference requires a good understanding of the error introduced according to sensor type and position on the study animal and protocols for error assessment and minimisation.Using laboratory trials, we examine the absolute accuracy of tri-axial accelerometers and determine how inaccuracies impact measurements of dynamic body acceleration (DBA), a proxy for energy expenditure, in human participants. We then examine how tag type and placement affect the acceleration signal in birds, using pigeons Columba livia flying in a wind tunnel, with tags mounted simultaneously in two positions, and back- and tail-mounted tags deployed on wild kittiwakes Rissa tridactyla. Finally, we present a case study where two generations of tag were deployed using different attachment procedures on red-tailed tropicbirds Phaethon rubricauda foraging in different seasons.Bench tests showed that individual acceleration axes required a two-level correction to eliminate measurement error. This resulted in DBA differences of up to 5% between calibrated and uncalibrated tags for humans walking at a range of speeds. Device position was associated with greater variation in DBA, with upper and lower back-mounted tags varying by 9% in pigeons, and tail- and back-mounted tags varying by 13% in kittiwakes. The tropicbird study highlighted the difficulties of attributing changes in signal amplitude to a single factor when confounding influences tend to covary, as DBA varied by 25% between seasons.Accelerometer accuracy, tag placement and attachment critically affect the signal amplitude and thereby the ability of the system to detect biologically meaningful phenomena. We propose a simple method to calibrate accelerometers that can be executed under field conditions. This should be used prior to deployments and archived with resulting data. We also suggest a way that researchers can assess accuracy in previously collected data, and caution that variable tag placement and attachment can increase sensor noise and even generate trends that have no biological meaning.

The role of wingbeat frequency and amplitude in flight power.

Body-mounted accelerometers provide a new prospect for estimating power use in flying birds, as the signal varies with the two major kinematic determinants of aerodynamic power: wingbeat frequency and amplitude. Yet wingbeat frequency is sometimes used as a proxy for power output in isolation. There is, therefore, a need to understand which kinematic parameter birds vary and whether this is predicted by flight mode (e.g. accelerating, ascending/descending flight), speed or morphology. We investigate this using high-frequency acceleration data from (i) 14 species flying in the wild, (ii) two species flying in controlled conditions in a wind tunnel and (iii) a review of experimental and field studies. While wingbeat frequency and amplitude were positively correlated, R2 values were generally low, supporting the idea that parameters can vary independently. Indeed, birds were more likely to modulate wingbeat amplitude for more energy-demanding flight modes, including climbing and take-off. Nonetheless, the striking variability, even within species and flight types, highlights the complexity of describing the kinematic relationships, which appear sensitive to both the biological and physical context. Notwithstanding this, acceleration metrics that incorporate both kinematic parameters should be more robust proxies for power than wingbeat frequency alone.

Resting costs too: the relative importance of active and resting energy expenditure in a sub-arctic seabird.

Breeding is costly for many animals, including birds that must deliver food to a central place (i.e. nest). Measuring energy expenditure throughout the breeding season can provide valuable insight into physiological limitations by highlighting periods of high demand, and ultimately allows improvement of conservation strategies. However, quantifying energy expenditure in wildlife can be challenging, as existing methods do not measure both active (e.g. foraging) and resting energy costs across short and long time scales. Here, we developed a novel method for comparing active and resting costs in 66 pre-breeding and breeding seabirds (black-legged kittiwakes, Rissa tridactyla) by combining accelerometry and triiodothyronine (T3) as proxies for active and resting costs, respectively. Active energy costs were higher during incubation (P=0.0004) and chick rearing (P<0.0001) than during pre-laying, because of an increase in the time spent in flight of 11% (P=0.0005) and 15% (P<0.0001), respectively. Levels of T3, reflecting resting costs, peaked marginally during incubation with a mean (±s.d.) concentration of 4.71±1.97 pg ml-1 in comparison to 2.66±1.30 pg ml-1 during pre-laying (P=0.05) and 3.16±2.85 pg ml-1 during chick rearing (P=0.11). Thus, although chick rearing is often assumed to be the costliest breeding stage by multiple studies, our results suggest that incubation could be more costly as a result of high resting costs. We highlight the importance of accounting for both active and resting costs when assessing energy expenditure.