Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Pabellón II Ciudad Universitaria, C1428EGA, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Flavio Quintana
Laboratorio de Ecología de Predadores Tope Marinos (LEPTOMAR), Instituto de Biología de Organismos Marinos (IBIOMAR), CONICET. Boulevard Brown 2915, U9120ACD, Puerto Madryn, Chubut, Argentina
Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución & Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires (IEGEBA), CONICET, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Pabellón II Ciudad Universitaria, C1428EGA, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
áreas de uso aves GPS IBAs Sistemas de Posicionamiento Global tamaño de muestra
Cómo citar
Gabelli-Suarez, Vera, Flavio Quintana, and Agustina Gómez-Laich. 2026. “Optimización Del Uso De Dispositivos GPS Para Estimar Las áreas De Uso Y alimentación En Aves Marinas: El Cormorán Imperial Como Caso De Estudio”. El Hornero 41 (1). https://doi.org/10.56178/eh.v41i1.1533.
A pesar del extenso uso de dispositivos GPS para determinar áreas de uso, solo muy ocasionalmente se evalúa cuál es el número de individuos a instrumentar para obtener resultados estadísticamente robustos sin comprometer el bienestar animal. En este trabajo, examinamos el efecto del tamaño de muestra (i.e., número de individuos instrumentados) sobre la precisión en la estimación de las áreas marinas de uso y de alimentación del Cormorán Imperial (Leucocarbo atriceps). Analizamos la información proveniente de 140 adultos reproductores de la colonia de Punta León (Chubut, Argentina), obtenida durante siete temporadas. Estimamos el tamaño de las áreas de uso y alimentación incrementando el número de animales de uno a 20. A su vez, debido a diferencias intersexuales en el comportamiento de alimentación de la especie, calculamos el tamaño del área de uso y de alimentación de 10 hembras y 10 machos por año, incrementando el número de animales de uno a 10. En promedio, se necesitaron al menos 13 aves para alcanzar incrementos inferiores al 5% en el tamaño de las áreas. Instrumentar entre 10 y 12 machos/hembras fue suficiente para estimar las áreas de uso o alimentación de cada uno de los sexos con un error inferior al 5%. Este trabajo presenta un procedimiento sencillo para estimar el número necesario de aves a instrumentar, adaptable a otras especies con patrones de movimiento similares.
Aickin M, Gensler H (1996) Adjusting for multiple testing when reporting research results: The Bonferroni vs Holm methods. American Journal of Public Health 86(5):726-728. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.86.5.726
Alberdi R, Erba DA (2022) Introducción a los Sistemas de Información Geográfica (SIG) aplicados al catastro. Editorial Universidad Católica de Santa Fe, Santa Fe
Anderson DR, Burnham KP (2002) Avoiding pitfalls when using information-theoretic methods. The Journal of Wildlife Management 66(3):912-918. https://doi.org/10.2307/3803155
Arrondo E, Pérez-García JM (2025) Call for a critical review of widespread use of animal tracking devices. European Journal of Wildlife Research 71:27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-025-01906-7
Beal M, Oppel S, Handley J, Pearmain EJ, Morera-Pujol V, Carneiro APB, Davies TE, Phillips RA, Taylor PR, Miller MGR, Franco AMA,Catry I, Patrício AR, Regalla A, Staniland I, Boyd C, Catry P, Dias MP (2021) track2KBA: An R package for identifying important sites for biodiversity from tracking data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 12(12):2372-2378. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13713
BirdLife International (2009) Designing networks of marine protected areas: Exploring the linkages between Important Bird Areas and ecologically or biologically significant marine areas. BirdLife International, Cambridge UK
Bishop CM, Butler PJ (1995) Physiological modelling of oxygen consumption in birds during flight. Journal of Experimental Biology 198(10):2153-2163. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.198.10.2153
Blanco GS, Tonini MH, Gallo L, Dell’Omo G, Quintana F (2022) Tracking the exposure of a pelagic seabird to marine plastic pollution. Marine Pollution Bulletin 180:113767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113767
Bodey TW, Cleasby IR, Bell F, Parr N, Schultz A, Votier SC, Bearhop S (2018) A phylogenetically controlled meta-analysis of biologging device effects on birds: Deleterious effects and a call for more standardized reporting of study data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9(4):946-955. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12934
Clark BL, Carneiro APB, Pearmain EJ, Rouyer MM, …, Dias MP (2023) Global assessment of marine plastic exposure risk for oceanic birds. Nature Communications 14(1):3665. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38900-z
Colwell RK, Chao A, Gotelli NJ, Lin S-Y, Mao CX, Chazdon RL, Longino JT (2012) Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages. Journal of plant ecology 5(1):3-21. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtr044
Copello S, Blanco GS, Seco Pon JP, Quintana F, Favero M (2016) Exporting the problem: Issues with fishing closures in seabird conservation. Marine Policy 74:120-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.008
Copello S, Seco Pon JP, Favero M (2014) Spatial overlap of Black-browed albatrosses with longline and trawl fisheries in the Patagonian Shelf during the non-breeding season. Journal of Sea Research 89:44-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2014.02.006
Copello S, Quintana F (2009) Spatio-temporal overlap between the at-sea distribution of Southern Giant Petrels and fisheries at the Patagonian Shelf. Polar Biology 32(8):1211-1220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-009-0620-7
Davoren GK, Montevecchi WA, Anderson JT (2003) Distributional patterns of a marine bird and its prey: habitat selection based on prey and conspecific behaviour. Marine Ecology Progress Series 256:229-242. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps256229
Donald PF, Fishpool LDC, Ajagbe A, Bennun LA, Bunting G, Burfield IJ, Butchart SHM, Capellan S, Crosby MJ, Dias MP (2019) Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs): The development and characteristics of a global inventory of key sites for biodiversity. Bird Conservation International 29(2):177-198. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270918000102
Eken G, Bennun L, Brooks TM, Darwall W, Fishpool LDC, Foster M, Knox D, Langhammer P, Matiku P, Radford E, Salaman P, Sechrest W, Smith ML, Spector S, Tordoff A (2004) Key Biodiversity Areas as Site Conservation Targets. BioScience 54(12): 1110–1118. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1110:KBAASC]2.0.CO;2
Elliott KH, Bull RD, Gaston AJ, Davoren GK (2009) Underwater and above water search patterns of an Arctic seabird: Reduced searching at small spatiotemporal scales. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63:1773-1785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0801-y
Fishpool LD, Evans MI (2001) Important Bird Areas in Africa and associated islands: Priority sites for conservation. Pisces Publications & BirdLife International, Newbury & Cambridge UK
Frere E, Quintana F, Gandini P (2005) Cormoranes de la costa patagónica: Estado poblacional, ecología y conservación. El Hornero 20(1):35-52. https://doi.org/10.56178/eh.v20i1.818
Gómez-Laich A, Quintana F, Shepard ELC, Wilson RP (2012) Intersexual differences in the diving behaviour of Imperial Cormorants. Journal of Ornithology 153:139-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-011-0714-1
Gómez-Laich A, Wilson RP, Shepard ELC, Quintana F (2013) Energy expenditure and food consumption of foraging Imperial cormorants in Patagonia, Argentina. Marine Biology 160(7):1697-1707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-013-2222-8
Harris S, Raya Rey A, Phillips RA, Quintana F (2013) Sexual segregation in timing of foraging by imperial shags (Phalacrocorax atriceps): Is it always ladies first? Marine Biology 160:1249-1258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-013-2177-9
Harris S, Raya Rey A, Zavalaga C, Quintana F (2014) Strong temporal consistency in the individual foraging behaviour of Imperial Shags Phalacrocorax atriceps. Ibis 156(3):523-533. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12159
He P, Klarevas-Irby JA, Papageorgiou D, Christensen C, Strauss ED, Farine DR (2023) A guide to sampling design for GPS-based studies of animal societies. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 14(8):1887-1905. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13999
Hebblewhite M, Haydon DT (2010) Distinguishing technology from biology: A critical review of the use of GPS telemetry data in ecology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 365(1550):2303-2312. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0087
Ibarra C, Marinao C, Suárez N, Kasinsky T, Yorio P (2022) Patterns of sexual segregation in the use of trophic resources in breeding Imperial Cormorants. Marine Biology 169(12):154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-022-04143-7
Johnson KA, Goody RS (2011) The original Michaelis constant: Translation of the 1913 Michaelis–Menten paper. Biochemistry 50(39):8264-8269. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi201284u
Kays R, Crofoot MC, Jetz W, Wikelski M (2015) Terrestrial animal tracking as an eye on life and planet. Science 348(6240):aaa2478. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa2478
Kenward RE (2001) A manual for wildlife radio tagging. Academic press, San Diego
Knezevic SZ, Streibig JC, Ritz C (2007) Utilizing R software package for dose- response studies: The concept and data analysis. Weed Technology 21(3):840-848. https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-06-161.1
Langley LP, Bearhop S, Burton NHK, Banks AN, Frayling T, Thaxter CB, Clewley GD, Scragg E, Votier SC (2021) GPS tracking reveals landfill closures induce higher foraging effort and habitat switching in gulls. Movement Ecology 9(1):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-021-00278-2
Lascelles BG, Taylor P, Miller MGR, Dias MP, Oppel S, Torres L, Hedd A, Le Corre M, Phillips RA, Shaffer SA, Weimerskirch H, Small C (2016) Applying global criteria to tracking data to define important areas for marine conservation. Diversity and Distributions 22(4):422-431. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12411
Lehikoinen P, Tiusanen M, Santangeli A, Rajasärkkä A, Jaatinen K, Valkama J, Virkkala R, Lehikoinen A (2021) Increasing protected area coverage mitigates climate-driven community changes. Biological Conservation 253:108892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108892
Lenz J, Böhning-Gaese K, Fiedler W, Mueller T (2015) Nomadism and seasonal range expansion in a large frugivorous bird. Ecography 38(1):54-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00522
Lindberg MS, Walker J (2007) Satellite telemetry in avian research and management: Sample size considerations. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(3):1002-1009. https://doi.org/10.2193/2005-696
Malacalza VE, Hall MA (1988) Sexing adult King Cormorants (Phalacrocorax albiventer) by discriminant analysis. Colonial Waterbirds 11:32-37. https://doi.org/10.2307/1521167
Malacalza VE, Poretti TI, Bertellotti NM (1994) La dieta de Phalacrocorax albiventer en Punta León (Chubut, Argentina) durante la temporada reproductiva. Ornitología Neotropical 5(2):91-97
Nathan R (2008) An emerging movement ecology paradigm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(49):19050-19051. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808918105
Nathan R, Monk CT, Arlinghaus R, Adam T, Alós J, …, Ivan Jarić (2022) Big-data approaches lead to an increased understanding of the ecology of animal movement. Science 375(6582):eabg1780. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg1780
Orians GH, Pearson NE (1979) On the theory of central place foraging. Analysis of Ecological Systems 155:154-177
Page B, McKenzie J, Sumner MD, Coyne M, Goldsworthy SD (2006) Spatial separation of foraging habitats among New Zealand fur seals. Marine Ecology Progress Series 323: 263-279. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps323263
Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, Team RC (2007) Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3(57):1-89. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.nlme
Quintana F, Wilson R, Dell’Arciprete P, Shepard E, Gómez-Laich A (2011) Women from Venus, men from Mars: Inter-sex foraging differences in the imperial cormorant Phalacrocorax atriceps a colonial seabird. Oikos 120(3):350-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18387.x
Quintana F, Wilson R, Gómez-Laich A (2024) Síntesis y revisión crítica del uso de bio-registradores para aves marinas en Sudamérica. El Hornero 39(2):4-4. https://dx.doi.org/10.56178/eh.v39i2.1488
Quintana F, Wilson R, Prandoni N, Svagelj WS, Gómez-Laich A (2022) Long-term ecology studies in Patagonian seabirds: A review with the Imperial cormorant as a case study. En: Helbling EW, Narvarte MA, González RA, Villafañe VE (eds) En Global change in Atlantic coastal Patagonian ecosystems: A journey through time. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 233-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86676-1_10
R Core Team (2022) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Viena, Austria. http://www. R-project. org/
Rebstock GA, Abrahms B, Boersma PD (2022) Site fidelity increases reproductive success by increasing foraging efficiency in a marine predator. Behavioral Ecology 33(4):868-875. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arac052
Regan CE, Bogdanova MI, Newell M, Gunn C, Wanless S, Harris MP, Langlois Lopez S, Benninghaus E, Bolton M, Daunt F, Searle KR (2024) Seabirds show foraging site and route fidelity but demonstrate flexibility in response to local information. Movement Ecology 12(46). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-024-00467-9
Shimada T, Thums M, Hamann M, Limpus CJ, Hays GC, FitzSimmons NN, Wildermann NE, Duarte CM, Meekan MG (2021) Optimising sample sizes for animal distribution analysis using tracking data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 12(2):288-297. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13506
Soanes LM, Arnould JPY, Dodd SG, Milligan G, Green JA (2014) Factors affecting the foraging behaviour of the European shag: Implications for seabird tracking studies. Marine Biology 161:1335-1348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-014-2422-x
Soanes LM, Arnould JPY, Dodd SG, Sumner MD, Green JA (2013) How many seabirds do we need to track to define home-range area? Journal of Applied Ecology 50(3):671-679. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12069
Svagelj WS, Quintana F (2007) Sexual size dimorphism and sex determination by morphometric measurements in breeding Imperial Shags (Phalacrocorax atriceps). Waterbirds 30(1):97-102. https://doi.org/10.1675/1524-4695(2007)030[0097:SSDASD]2.0.CO;2
Swingland IR, Greenwood PJ (eds) (1983) The ecology of animal movement. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Thiollay J-M (2002) Important Bird Areas in Africa and Associated Islands. Priority Sites for Conservation 2001. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:1697–1698. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016864606424
Watanabe YY, Takahashi A, Sato K, Viviant M, Bost C-A (2011) Poor flight performance in deep-diving cormorants. Journal of Experimental Biology 214(3):412-421. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.050161
Weimerskirch H (2007) Are seabirds foraging for unpredictable resources? Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 54(3-4):211-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2006.11.013
Weimerskirch H, Bertrand S, Silva J, Marques JC, Goya E (2010) Use of social information in seabirds: compass rafts indicate the heading of food patches. PloS one 5(3):e9928. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009928
Williams HJ, Taylor LA, Benhamou S, Bijleveld AI, Clay TA, de Grissac S, Demšar U, English HM, Franconi N, Gómez-Laich A, Griffiths RC, Kay WP, Morales JM, Potts JR, Rogerson KF, Rutz C, Spelt A, Trevail AM, Wilson RP, Börger L (2020) Optimizing the use of biologgers for movement ecology research. Journal of Animal Ecology 89(1):186-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13094
Wilson RP, Pütz K, Peters G, Culik B, Scolaro JA, Charrassin JB, Ropert-Coudert Y (1997) Long-term attachment of transmitting and recording devices to penguins and other seabirds. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1): 101-106. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783290
Wilson RP, Quintana F, Hobson VJ (2012) Construction of energy landscapes can clarify the movement and distribution of foraging animals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279(1730):975-980. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.1544
Yorio P, Quintana F, Dell’Arciprete P, González-Zevallos D (2010) Spatial overlap between foraging seabirds and trawl fisheries: Implications for the effectiveness of a marine protected area at Golfo San Jorge, Argentina. Bird Conservation International 20(3):320-334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270910000286
