Reliability of flipper-banded penguins as indicators of climate change

Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
469,
Pages:
203–206
Date published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nature09630
Received
Accepted
Published online

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change highlighted an urgent need to assess the responses of marine ecosystems to climate change1. Because they lie in a high-latitude region, the Southern Ocean ecosystems are expected to be strongly affected by global warming. Using top predators of this highly productive ocean2 (such as penguins) as integrative indicators may help us assess the impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems3, 4. Yet most available information on penguin population dynamics is based on the controversial use of flipper banding. Although some reports have found the effects of flipper bands to be deleterious5, 6, 7, 8, some short-term (one-year) studies have concluded otherwise9, 10, 11, resulting in the continuation of extensive banding schemes and the use of data sets thus collected to predict climate impact on natural populations12, 13. Here we show that banding of free-ranging king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) impairs both survival and reproduction, ultimately affecting population growth rate. Over the course of a 10-year longitudinal study, banded birds produced 39% fewer chicks and had a survival rate 16% lower than non-banded birds, demonstrating a massive long-term impact of banding and thus refuting the assumption that birds will ultimately adapt to being banded6, 12. Indeed, banded birds still arrived later for breeding at the study site and had longer foraging trips even after 10years. One of our major findings is that responses of flipper-banded penguins to climate variability (that is, changes in sea surface temperature and in the Southern Oscillation index) differ from those of non-banded birds. We show that only long-term investigations may allow an evaluation of the impact of flipper bands and that every major life-history trait can be affected, calling into question the banding schemes still going on. In addition, our understanding of the effects of climate change on marine ecosystems based on flipper-band data should be reconsidered.

At a glance

Figures

  1. Survival of banded and non-banded king penguins during the 10-year study period.
    Figure 1: Survival of banded and non-banded king penguins during the 10-year study period.

    a, Cumulative survival was lower for banded birds (dashed line) than for non-banded birds (solid line) (Cox proportional hazard model, P = 0.04; assumption of proportional hazards verified, P = 0.83). b, Difference between the cumulative survivals of banded and non-banded penguins over time. There is a breakpoint at 54 months (4.5years) and the linear trend is indicated. Differences between banded and non-banded birds tended to disappear after the first 4.5years.

  2. Simulated population growth rates of banded and non-banded penguins as functions of SST.
    Figure 2: Simulated population growth rates of banded and non-banded penguins as functions of SST.

    a, Growth rates of both populations according to SST at the marginal ice zone (MIZ). Error bars, s.e.m. b, Difference between the two growth rates. A quadratic relation well approximated the difference (Growth rate(0.27±0.01)SST(0.09±0.00)SST2, P<0.001 for both SST and SST2).

  3. Potential mechanisms involved in negative impacts of flipper bands on life-history traits and population dynamics in king penguins.
    Figure 3: Potential mechanisms involved in negative impacts of flipper bands on life-history traits and population dynamics in king penguins.

    Flipper bands and climate interact to affect chick production negatively, mostly through delayed timing, survival and, ultimately, population growth rate.

References

  1. Richardson, A. J. & Poloczanska, E. S. Ocean science: under-resourced, under threat. Science 320, 12941295 (2008)
  2. Tynan, C. T. Ecological importance of the southern boundary of the Antarctic Circumpolar current. Nature 392, 708710 (1998)
  3. Croxall, J. P., Trathan, P. N. & Murphy, E. J. Environmental change and Antarctic seabird populations. Science 297, 15101514 (2002)
  4. Durant, J. M. et al. The pros and cons of using seabirds as ecological indicators. Clim. Res. 39, 115129 (2009)
  5. Jackson, S. & Wilson, R. P. The potential costs of flipper-bands to penguins. Funct. Ecol. 16, 141148 (2002)
  6. Fallow, P., Chiaradia, A., Ropert-Coudert, Y., Kato, A. & Reina, R. Flipper-bands modify the short-term diving behaviour of Little penguins. J. Wildl. Mgmt 73, 13481354 (2009)
  7. Gauthier-Clerc, M. et al. Long-term effects of flipper-bands on penguins. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, S423S426 (2004)
  8. Dugger, K., Ballard, G., Ainley, D. & Barton, K. Effects of flipper-bands on foraging behavior and survival of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis Adeliae). Auk 123, 858869 (2006)
  9. Boersma, D. P. & Rebstock, G. A. Effects of double bands on Magellanic penguins. J. Field Ornithol. 81, 195205 (2010)
  10. Boersma, D. P. & Rebstock, G. A. Flipper-bands do not affect foraging-trip duration of Magellanic penguins. J. Field Ornithol. 80, 408418 (2009)
  11. Hindell, M. A., Lea, M.-A. & Hull, C. L. The effects of flipper bands on adult survival rate and reproduction in the royal penguin, Eudyptes schlegeli . Ibis 138, 557560 (1996)
  12. Barbraud, C. & Weimerskirch, H. Emperor penguins and climate change. Nature 411, 183186 (2001)
  13. Jenouvrier, S. et al. Demographic models and IPCC climate projections predict the decline of an emperor penguin population. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 18441847 (2009)
  14. Croxall, J. P., McCann, T. S., Prince, P. A. & Rothery, P. in Antarctic Ocean and Resources Variability (ed. Sahrhage, D.) 261285 (Springer, 1988)
  15. Le Maho, Y. et al. Undisturbed breeding penguins as indicators of changes in marine Resources. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 95, 16 (1993)
  16. May, R. M. Ethics and amphibians. Nature 431, 403 (2004)
  17. Lebreton, J. D. & Clobert, J. in Bird Population Studies: their Relevance to Conservation and Management (eds Perrins, C. M., Lebreton., J. D. & Hirons, G. J. M.) 105125 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1991)
  18. Stearns, S. C. The Evolution of Life Histories (Oxford Univ. Press, 1992)
  19. Pfister, C. A. Patterns of variance in stage-structured populations: evolutionary predictions and ecological implications. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 213218 (1998)
  20. Gaillard, J.-M., Festa-Bianchet, M. & Yoccoz, N. G. Population dynamics of large herbivores: variable recruitment with constant adult survival. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 5863 (1998)
  21. Weimerskirch, H., Stahl, J. C. & Jouventin, P. The breeding biology and population-dynamics of king penguins Aptenodytes patagonica on the Crozet Islands. Ibis 134, 107117 (1992)
  22. Olsson, O. Seasonal effects of timing and reproduction in the king penguin: a unique breeding cycle. J. Avian Biol. 27, 714 (1996)
  23. Koslov, A. N. & Tarverdiyevma, I. Feeding of different species of Myctophidae in different parts of the Southern Ocean. J. Ichthyol. 29, 160167 (1989)
  24. Groscolas, R. & Robin, J.-P. Long-term fasting and re-feeding in penguins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 128, 645655 (2001)
  25. Boulinier, T., McCoy, K. D., Yoccoz, N. G., Gasparini, J. & Tveraa, T. Public information affects breeding dispersal in a colonial bird: kittiwakes cue on neighbours. Biol. Lett. 4, 538540 (2008)
  26. Le Bohec, C. et al. King penguin population threatened by Southern Ocean warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 24932497 (2008)
  27. Deser, C. & Wallace, J. M. El Niño events and their relation to the southern oscillation: 1925–1986. Geophys. Res. Lett. 92, 1418914196 (1987)
  28. Wolfaardt, A. C. & Nel, D. C. in The Rehabilitation of Oiled African Penguins: A Conservation Success Story (eds Nel, D. C. & Whittington, P. A.) 1824 (Birdlife South Africa, 2003)
  29. Descamps, S., Gauthier-Clerc, M., Gendner, J. P. & Le Maho, Y. The annual breeding cycle of unbanded king penguins Aptenodytes patagonicus on Possession Island (Crozet). Avian Sci. 2, 8798 (2002)
  30. Caswell, H. Matrix Population Models: Construction, Analysis and Interpretation 72–76, 300306 (Sinuaer, 2001)
  31. Gendner, J. P., Gauthier-Clerc, M., Le Bohec, C., Descamps, S. & Le Maho, Y. A new application for transponders in studying penguins. J. Field Ornithol. 76, 138142 (2005)
  32. Froget, G., Gauthier-Clerc, M., Le Maho, Y. & Handrich, Y. Is penguin banding harmless? Polar Biol. 20, 409413 (1998)
  33. Nicolaus, M., Bouwman, K. & Dingemanse, N. Effect of PIT tags on the survival and recruitment of Great tits. Ardea 96, 286292 (2009)
  34. Barrat, A. Quelques aspects de la biologie et de l’écologie du Manchot Royal (Aptenodytes patagonicus) des îles Crozet. Com. Natl Fr. Rech. Antarct. 40, 951 (1976)
  35. Stonehouse, B. The king penguin Aptenodytes patagonica of South Georgia. I. Breeding behaviour and development. Falkl. Isl. Depend. Surv. Sci. Rep. 23, 181 (1960)
  36. Bates, D. & Maechler, M. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. CRAN - Package lme4 left fencehttp://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4right fence (2009)

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Université de Strasbourg, Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien, 23 rue Becquerel, 67087 Strasbourg, France

    • Claire Saraux,
    • Céline Le Bohec,
    • Vincent A. Viblanc,
    • David Beaune &
    • Yvon Le Maho
  2. CNRS, UMR7178, 67037 Strasbourg, France

    • Claire Saraux,
    • Céline Le Bohec,
    • Vincent A. Viblanc,
    • David Beaune &
    • Yvon Le Maho
  3. Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis, Department of Biology, University of Oslo, PO Box 1066, Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway

    • Claire Saraux,
    • Céline Le Bohec,
    • Joël M. Durant &
    • Nils C. Stenseth
  4. AgroParisTech, ENGREF, 19 avenue du Maine, F-75732 Paris, France

    • Claire Saraux
  5. Centre de Recherche de la Tour du Valat, Le Sambuc, 13200 Arles, France

    • Michel Gauthier-Clerc
  6. Département Milieux et Peuplements Aquatiques, USM 0402/LOCEAN, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 75231 Paris, France

    • Young-Hyang Park
  7. Department of Arctic and Marine Biology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway

    • Nigel G. Yoccoz
  8. Institute of Marine Research, Flødevigen Marine Research Station, N-4817 His, Norway

    • Nils C. Stenseth

Contributions

C.S. did the analyses and co-wrote the paper; C.L.B. helped in the analyses, the organization of the paper and the writing; Y.L.M. designed the study and co-wrote the paper; V.A.V. provided ideas on the analyses and co-wrote the paper; N.G.Y. proposed one of the analyses and helped with statistics; J.M.D. supplied ideas on the analyses and the organization of the paper; M.G.-C. and N.C.S. added some very useful comments and modifications to the manuscript; D.B. ran some pre-analyses; and Y.-H.P. provided climatic data.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to:

Author details

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. Supplementary Information (286K)

    The file contains Supplementary Tables 1-3 and Supplementary Figures 1-4 with legends.

Comments

  1. Report this comment #17381

    Matt Chew said:

    It's good to see this phenomenon being taken seriously. All "mark and recapture" research programs need to find ways to evaluate the effects of their methods on the fitness of affected individuals, and continually seek ways to minimize observer effects on the organisms under study. "How it's always done" should never be a satisfactory standard.

Subscribe to comments

Additional data