Author:
Græsli Anne Randi,Thiel Alexandra,Beumer Larissa T.,Fuchs Boris,Stenbacka Fredrik,Neumann Wiebke,Singh Navinder J.,Ericsson Göran,Arnemo Jon M.,Evans Alina L.
Abstract
AbstractInstrumentation and sample collection for wildlife research and management may require chemical immobilisation of animals, which may entail physiological and behavioural effects on them. It is therefore important to evaluate the immobilisation protocols to reduce the risk of mortality and morbidity of the handled animals and their populations. Using a multi-sensor approach, we assessed the short-term (< 10 days) thermal and behavioural responses of 10 adult female moose (Alces alces) equipped with ruminal temperature loggers and GPS collars with accelerometers to helicopter-based chemical immobilisations. We investigated the body temperature (Tb), movement rates, and resting time before, during, and after recapture. Chemical immobilisations on average increased maximum Tb by 0.71 °C during the capture day, and imposed longer travel distances during the capture day and the two following days (3.8 and 1.8 km, respectively), compared to a 10-day reference period before the immobilisation. The probability of resting was 5–6% lower on the capture day and the two following days compared to the reference period, and females with offspring had a higher probability of resting than females without. Maximum Tb, movement rate, and resting time returned to pre-capture levels on an individual level 2 h, 3 days, and 3 days after the immobilisation, respectively. Chemical immobilisation of moose from a helicopter increases the energy expenditure deduced through movement and Tb rise lasting for hours to days. Ecological and physiological studies aimed at inferring general patterns may encounter bias if including sensor and tracking data from tagged animals without accounting for potential post-capture effects.
Funder
Høgskolen i Innlandet
Inland Norway University Of Applied Sciences
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Nature and Landscape Conservation,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference63 articles.
1. Andersen R, Linnell JD, Langvatn R (1996) Short term behavioural and physiological response of moose Alces alces to military disturbance in Norway. Biol Conserv 77:169–176
2. Arnemo JM, Ahlqvist P, Andersen R, Berntsen F, Ericsson G, Odden J, Brunberg S, Segerström P, Swenson JE (2006) Risk of capture-related mortality in large free-ranging mammals: experiences from Scandinavia. Wildl Biol 12:109–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2995.2008.00397.x
3. Arnemo JM, Kreeger TJ, Soveri T (2003) Chemical immobilization of free-ranging moose. Alces 39:243–253
4. Barros DS, Evans AL, Arnemo JM, Stenbacka F, Ericsson G (2018) Effective thiafentanil immobilization and physiological responses of free-ranging moose (Alces alces) in northern Sweden. Vet Anaesth Analg 45:502–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaa.2018.02.008
5. Baskin L, Ball JP, Danell K (2004) Moose escape behaviour in areas of high hunting pressure. Alces 40:123–131