Report of the Joint US Office of Naval Research, International Whaling
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Report of the Joint US Office of Naval Research, International Whaling Commission and US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Workshop on Cetacean Tag Development, Tag Follow-up and Tagging Best Practices J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 21 (SUPPL.), 2020 349 Report of the Joint US Office of Naval Research, International Whaling Commission and US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Workshop on Cetacean Tag Development, Tag Follow-up and Tagging Best Practices1 1. INTRODUCTORY ITEMS1 2. TAG TERMINOLOGY The Workshop was held at the National Marine Fisheries New definitions of tag terminology were introduced and Service office in Silver Spring, Maryland, USA from 6 to are presented in detail and illustrated in Annex E. Briefly, 8 September 2017. During this Workshop, limited time two categories of cetacean electronic tags were specified was devoted to the topic of understanding the impacts of according to the method of attachment to the animal: invasive invasive tagging and improving invasive tagging techniques. and non-invasive. ‘Invasive’ is defined as a tag type with an Therefore, a subgroup of the Silver Spring Workshop attachment that intentionally breaks the skin, regardless of participants met at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center how large or deep the break may be, and non-invasive tags in Seattle, WA, USA on 19 and 20 June 2018 to develop are those for which attachments do not penetrate through more detailed recommendations for future directions in the skin (e.g. suction-cup tags). Invasive tags can be further the development of invasive tag attachments. This report divided into three categories. Type A refers to tags that are integrates discussions held during the two meetings. The anchored to the dorsal fin or the body. The anchoring systems agendas of the meetings in Silver Spring and Seattle are terminate below the skin but the electronics are external to provided in Annexes A and B, respectively. the body. Type B corresponds to bolt-on tags with external Funding for the Workshop was provided by the International electronics and piercing anchor(s) fixed with external bolts, Whaling Commission (IWC), the United States National typically attached through the dorsal fin or dorsal ridge of Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’ National Marine small to medium-size cetaceans. Type C includes tags in Fisheries Service (NOAA/NMFS) and the United States which the anchoring systems and the electronic packages Office of Naval Research (ONR). A total of 42 participants are consolidated and embedded in the body of the animals from 9 different countries attended the Silver Spring meeting, with an external antenna. These latter tags are typically used and 19 from 6 countries participated in the Seattle meeting. on large cetaceans and are designed to anchor below the Participants included tag developers, tag users, veterinarians, blubber-muscle interface. engineers, representatives of governmental and inter- governmental agencies, and tag manufacturers. The list of participants is provided in Annex C. 3. PRESENTATIONS Since the 2009 Cetacean Tag Design Workshop (Office 1.1 Introduction of Chair and Rapporteurs of Naval Research, 2009), a National Oceanographic Donovan was appointed Chair and Simeone, Double and Partnership Program (NOPP) topic with funding from Rowles acted as rapporteurs for the Workshop in Silver ONR, Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management (BOEM), Spring. Weise and Schorr were nominated, respectively, National Science Foundation (NSF), NOAA, and American Chair and rapporteur for the meeting in Seattle. Petroleum Institute (API) supported a variety of studies to improve tagging technology and to better understand 1.2 Terms of Reference the effects of tags on cetaceans, both on individual and The Terms of Reference of the Workshop are presented as population levels. Presentations by Workshop participants Annex D. (Annex F) summarised information from these NOPP studies. Presentations also reviewed the benefits and limitations of 1.3 Expected outcomes the use of antibiotics on invasive tags, and on potential new The expected outcomes of the Workshop included a review technologies that could be considered in future development of progress in tag design and attachment over the last decade of tag housing and tag attachments. since the Cetacean Tag Workshop (Office of Naval Research, 2009) and a review of studies that have examined the 3.1 Invasive tags effects of tagging. In addition, the Workshop was expected 3.1.1 Type A tags to review a draft of the ‘Cetacean Tagging Best Practice Andrews presented information on Type A (anchored) Guidelines’ (hereafter referred to as ‘the Guidelines’), which tags, focusing on the Low Impact Minimally-Percutaneous was prepared by a group of 22 experts in cetacean tagging External-electronics Transmitter (LIMPET) satellite tag. and cetacean medicine and was shared with the participants This tag was initially developed for application to killer prior to the Workshop. The Guidelines would be finalised whales (Orcinus orca), but its modest success with that after the Workshop to serve as a global resource to assist species led to a desire to apply it more broadly and to researchers, veterinarians, animal care committee members, make it commercially available. Before that could be done, and regulatory agency staff, in the interpretation and refinements were necessary, and the presentation focused on implementation of current standards of practice and promote those refinements that have occurred since the 2009 ONR- the training of specialists in this area. It was expected that sponsored cetacean tag Workshop, and especially the results the Guidelines would be endorsed by the IWC Scientific of the NOPP project, funded by ONR, entitled ‘Improving Committee, and published in the peer-reviewed literature. attachments of remotely-deployed dorsal fin- mounted tags: tissue structure, hydrodynamics, in situ performance, 1Presented to the meeting as SC/68A/Rep03. and tagged-animal follow-up’. Collaborators on that 350 REPORT OF THE JOINT TAGGING WORKSHOP project were R. Baird, G. Schorr, R. Mittal, L. Howle, attachment durations are still quite variable and not as long and B. Hanson. The goal was to improve the LIMPET tag as desired, and some tags still break (Andrews et al., 2015). methodology to achieve longer, less variable attachment Due to the highly variable nature of LIMPET satellite tag durations, and to work to ensure that the tag provided data durations, the deployment information for 247 of similarly without significantly affecting tagged animals adversely. deployed, location-only tags were assessed within a The approach included four topics: Generalized Linear Model framework. The effects of (1) hydrodynamics of tag shape; species, tag mold, dart version, and vertical and horizontal (2) dorsal fin tissue structure; position of the tags on the dorsal fin on transmission duration (3) performance of tag attachments – simulated and actual; were evaluated. A newer dart manufacturing process, which and eliminated individually welded petals (Andrews et al., 2015) (4) effects of tags, based on follow-up studies of wound resulted in significantly longer attachment durations with the healing, behaviour, and vital rates. median attachment duration increasing by 13 days (p<0.01). Using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and physical Within species comparisons were made with the inclusion of models in a water tunnel, effects of tag shape, orientation the covariate Region where applicable, but should be viewed relative to flow, and location on the dorsal fin were examined. with caution due to small sample sizes. Three species had The hypothesis that lift was just as significant as drag in the no significant factors influencing attachment duration, total external force on the tag was supported through both CFD while pilot whale (Globicephala spp.) tags deployed in the simulations and water tunnel experimentation. Although the Atlantic were attached for significantly longer than in Hawaii hydrodynamics work was important in developing the new (p=0.03), and sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) tags LIMPET tag package designs that are now offered by Wildlife deployed in Alaska were attached significantly longer than Computers, the current hypothesis is that the majority of tags those on whales in Hawaii (p=0.02). A ballistic comparison are displaced by contact with con-specifics or other objects, between the three types of LIMPET tags currently in use and therefore the ability to stay attached when exposed to indicate that both tag type and distance to target play those forces in addition to the forces of water flow must be an important role in flight trajectories, which should be considered in future tag package and attachment designs. The considered during deployment. Results of this study suggest team examined dorsal fin tissue from five species to assess that additional research and development work is required to structural layer geometry and collagen composition along reach consistent attachment performance, while minimising with fiber strength. However, variation within a fin was nearly the impact on tagged whales. as great as variation amongst species, and additional work on Raverty discussed a case report of mucormycosis in a this topic will be required before understanding of how tissue tagged southern resident killer whale. A 20-year-old male, composition may relate to tag attachment performance will L95, was satellite tagged February 23, 2016. At the time of be advanced. Performance of the titanium tag attachment deployment, the animal appeared in good body condition, darts used in LIMPET tags, using both tissue surrogates and but follow up re-sighting on February 25 revealed that the blubber and dorsal fin tissue salvaged from carcasses, showed animal was in suboptimal body condition with a prominent that during static pull tests, the backwards-facing petals depression along the nape and apparent shapes of the ribs usually bent around in an arc and did not break. However, and scapula. L95 was observed dead March 26 and towed field observations showed that in some cases the small petals ashore for a necropsy April 1, 2016. L95 presented in an were retained in the fin.