In 2002 the Census of Marine Life (CoML) organized ...

Title: The Ocean Tracking Network Community White Paper (OceanObs’09) Lead author: Ron O'Dor, Dalhousie University, 1355 Oxford St., Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada B3H 4J1, [email protected] Contributing authors: Michael Stokesbury, Faculty of Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4J1, Canada, email: [email protected] Peter Smith, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, 1 Challenger Drive, P. O. Box 1006, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada, B2Y 4A2, email: [email protected] Laurent Dagorn, IRD HEA, BP 5045, 34032 Montpellier Cedex 1, Montpellier, France, email: [email protected] Kim Holland, Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii, P.O. Box 1346, Coconut Island, Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744, USA, email: [email protected] Ian Jonsen, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, 1 Challenger Drive, P. O. Box 1006, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada, B2Y 4A2, email: [email protected] John Payne, POST, Vancouver Aquarium, P. O. Box 3232, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6B 3X8, email: [email protected] Warwick Sauer, Rhodes University, Grahams Town, South Africa, email: w. [email protected] Jayson Semmens, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, Email: [email protected] Fred Whoriskey, the Atlantic Salmon Federation, P. O. Box 5200, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada, E5B 3S8, email: [email protected]

Origins In 2002 the Census of Marine Life (CoML) organized a meeting to see what outputs were possible by 2010 from a major investment in an animal tracking project in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. It quickly became clear that newly available satellite technology would allow huge, rapid advances in understanding behaviors and requirements of large animals. However, the CoML Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) had committed to an egalitarian approach to marine animals across the size spectrum. There was an emerging technology using acoustic tags that made it possible to track animals as small as 10 cm, but it was less immediately deliverable. This system would take years to create the equivalent of an underwater satellite system. The SSC decided to hedge its bets by creating two projects. The first was Tagging of Pacific Predators (TOPP) and was to take maximum advantage of the existing satellite technology. The second, the Pacific Ocean Shelf Tracking (POST) project, pioneered working with smaller animals to reach as far down the food chain as possible. The Ocean Tracking Network (OTN, O'Dor et al. 2009) developed as an effort to link these technologies to provide information on ocean food webs crucial for the understanding necessary for Ecosystem Based Management (EBM). Nations around the world now recognize the EBM approach as essential for sustainable fisheries and healthy oceans. Tracking is only one of many technologies that CoML has tested that improve our capacity to monitor and manage the sometimes competing interests of ocean industries and biodiversity (Rogers et al. CWP, Vanden Berge et al. CWP)

1

Current Situation The TOPP project is the focus of another Community White Paper (Costa et al. CWP), so we will not elaborate here, beyond saying that it has proven an amazingly successful way of determining where large animals go in the ocean and documenting the physical conditions that draw them there. These “animal oceanographers” provide important data for large scale ocean models, but more interestingly they also explore and report on crucial small-scale features such as eddies that have had limited study using traditional oceanographic techniques or Argo floats and remain poorly understood (Rutz & Hays 2009, Boehme et al. 2009, Charrassin et al. CWP, Rintoul et al. CWP). The TOPP project is already reporting its results in a new layer in Google Earth 5.0 (Boehme et al. CWP) and will provide a remarkably integrated picture of animal use of the North Pacific Ocean for the Census 2010 report. TOPP is going global with the Global Tagging of Pelagic Predators database which is rapidly becoming one of the largest sources of oceanographic data for many ocean regions. The POST project also has made dramatic advances building essentially permanent "curtains" of acoustic receivers. These have demonstrated movements of acoustically tagged, at risk stocks of green sturgeon from California to Alaska and found long, unexpected residence times in British Columbia (Linley et al. 2008). Perhaps the most remarkable feature of this system of curtains is its 95% detection efficiency, recently used to demonstrate that 20 g salmon smolts from the Columbia River with eight major dams on it have riverine survival rates indistinguishable from smolts from the nearby Fraser River, which has no dams (Welch et al. 2008). Such results are changing the way people think about conservation, and could have consequences worth trillions of dollars to the hydropower industry and possibly trillions of carbon credits to the rest of us. The Ocean Tracking Network (OTN) is committed to expanding the POST technology globally as a pilot project of the UN Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission's (IOC) Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). GOOS is the marine component of the Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS), and OTN adds significantly to the marine data available to GEOSS. OTN receiver curtains can not only record the passage of tagged animals, but also record oceanographic data at depths to 500m hundreds of kilometers offshore - beyond the reach of most cabled systems. With present technology these data are recovered after a significant delay, but developments under way should provide it in near real-time. This focus complements the GEOSS coverage that returns much more information globally on ocean properties in the top few centimetres from satellites. The rest of the white paper will focus on what the OTN can deliver immediately and the actions the OTN is initiating to provide crucial technology developments for ocean observation in the next decade. A major advantage of the POST technology for EBM is that it can deal with the "small, deep majority" As Figure 1 suggests, only about 10% of pelagic marine animals are large enough to carry satellite tags, but nearly 75% are large enough to carry acoustic tags. Acoustic tags also do not require that animals surface to talk to satellites or be recaptured to download archived data. Plans are outlined below to couple these technologies to deliver comprehensive coverage of food webs over a dramatically increased volume of the world ocean. The immediate goals of OTN are: (1) to create a global network of compatible underwater receivers that record the presence or absence of uniquely coded acoustic tags carried by animals – large animals can carry battery power lasting for many years; (2) to establish a global network of 2

users who put their information in a common database, so that animals that travel long distances can be tracked systematically; (3) to demonstrate technologies that couple animal locations to the oceanographic conditions they experience. The longer term goals of the OTN are: (1) to integrate the data collected by the receiver network with data collected and stored archivally by tags as the animals move freely in the ocean and (2) to make these data available to the oceanographic community for modeling and other purposes through GOOS. The OTN can become a vehicle for linking the elements of GEOSS because it is committed to interfacing the TOPP data recovered via satellite links through system Argos and viewed in the context of synoptic oceanographic data from satellites with the data from the array of permanent curtains. Figure 2 lays out the present and anticipated scope of the OTN listening curtains. The existing curtains belong to partners in the GOOS pilot project that have agreed to work towards fully integrated data sharing (see www.oceantrack.org). The first and second waves of deployments reflect proposed expansions announced by the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada in partnership with agencies in 14 Ocean Regions around the world. The major installations in the third wave in Figure 2 separate ocean basins and were proposed in a recent budget exercise for ocean observing systems for GEOSS. The existing arrays include a mixture of: (1) Vemco VR-2s, which have to be recovered to return data and are often deployed seasonally; (2) VR-3s deployed to 250m that have a 5-7 year battery life and can upload data via acoustic modems; (3) surface deployed VR-4 Globals that communicate via satellite or radio and (4) prototypes of VR-4s that can be deployed to 500m and have modems with the capacity to relay data along a curtain back to a cable system currently being tested in the Victoria Experimental Network Under the Sea (VENUS) system (www.venus.org). Future investments will focus on long-term, permanent, year-round deployments to serve multiple trackers and provide data regularly from physical and chemical sensor pods co-located to relay via VR-4 receiver modems. Coupling Migrations to Ocean Physics Part of the rationale for creating OTN as a part of GOOS was the economy of letting oceanographic observers, who routinely collect and manage vast amounts of data, add a relatively small amount of information of high economic value about animal movements to their collections. Historically animal trackers operated independently and focused on specific local problems. The OTN provides large scale arrays at areas of biological and physical interest, thus providing added value to many smaller scale electronic tagging projects. For example, Figure 3 shows projects underway that are tagging Atlantic salmon in the Gulf of Maine, Scotian Shelf and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The OTN capacity will add large-scale capabilities to these smaller scale projects, and therefore increase their scientific scope and provide an economy of scale. A major test-bed for OTN is along the Halifax Line, which has been occupied as an oceanographic transect for 60 years (initiated in 1950; Taylor 1961). Here the same efforts required to harvest oceanographic data can also harvest biological data. As shown in Figure 4, the first deployment of receivers on the inner portion of the Line in April-May 2008 quickly demonstrated the intended synergies. At-risk Atlantic salmon tagged in three different river system by four agencies in two countries surprised everyone by crossing the inner Line in large numbers, detecting nearly a third of the juvenile salmon tagged, presumably headed for 3

Greenland. By co-locating the tracking line with an array of profiling current meters it was possible to interpret behaviour in context. The fish appeared to choose the path of least current resistance, both temporally (May-June) and spatially (currents inshore of the mooring site at the end of the pilot line are generally weaker than at the site; Figure 4). A similar pattern was recent repeated in 2009. A visit to www.oceantrack.org will provide a view of developing data policies with provide access to both physical and, after a reasonable delay, biological data via IODE at IOC. As indicated in Costa et al. (CWP) the quantities and complexity of data from the TOPP project far exceeds that integrated through OTN, but the TOPP, POST, OTN and other independent satellite and acoustic tracking projects continue to work toward compatible data archiving and distribution systems. Future Developments The capacity to implement EBM by linking several trophic levels with acoustic tags results from a new concept called Business Card Tags (BCTs). These include both a coded transmitter and a receiver, and are presently being deployed in Australia and Hawaii (Holland et al. 2009). The present implementation of these tags is archival, so the tags must be retrieved to recover their records. This works well for animals like seals that return reliably to breeding sites, but the next generation of BCTs will be able to download data to curtain receivers using a technology called Fast CHAT, which provides a relatively broadband acoustic channel for rapid transfer of archived data - both codes received and physical parameters. In large animals, such tags can carry batteries potentially lasting for 20 years, which will generate unprecedented individual animal time series. Although BCTs can be external, sound travels through tissue, so acoustic tags can be totally internalized in animals, which reduces tag bio-fouling, abrasion to the animal's skin, long-term tag loss and animal mortality (Welch et al. 2007), but still allows detection of other animals as well as data transfer. Internal placement works well for BCTs and some kinds of physiological telemetry, but it doesn't allow animals to record hydrographic properties (e.g. CTDs) of their environment as TOPP does, and it doesn't work easily with light-based geopositioning, which is important in most archival tags. The best initial approach may be to double-tag animals with existing technologies and integrate data retrospectively as it is recovered to demonstrate what types of data are most reliable and valuable. However, even surgically implanted archival tags that have oceanographic sensors and/or light-based geolocation require external connections and current designs leave a small open wound in the animal. The optimum solution may be external tags that communicate with internal archival tags capable of downloading data acoustically. We call this solution Fully Integrated Tagging (FIT; O’Dor et al. 2007). Larger animals could carry external sensor tags that transfer data over small distances through the skin to a large internal tag that stores and acoustically downloads compressed data more rapidly than previous versions of CHAT tags (Holland et al. 2001, Voegeli et al. 2001). This trans-dermal relay is a proven technology in the sense that it reverses the process used by Wildlife Computer (2007) stomach temperature "pills" to communicate internal temperatures to external tags. We think FIT should include a totally internal component designed to last for most of the life of the animal. External tags may fall off and be replaced, but the data should be archived internally with reasonable expectations that it will be downloaded to a receiver on a curtain, even if the animal is never seen again.

4

BCTs themselves are receivers that larger animals carry to recognize acoustic codes from other animals in range to build up a “bioprobe” image of ecosystem interactions. This will add a new class of information to what is collectable by telemetry (Holland et al. 2009, Holland et al. 2007, Stokesbury et al. 2009, O’Dor & Stokesbury 2009). Coupling these biological interaction data with information about the physical environment where it happens will be a powerful new tool for understanding what environments animals require and why. As indicated in Figure 5, FIT can potentially operate in two modes. BCT encounter data could be relayed to external satellite tags on animals that routinely surface, allowing these data to be returned in near real time along with GPS geopositioning and full spectrum CTD data available on some of the larger current generation tags (Giunet et al. 2009). Conversely, relatively cheap, light-geopositioning temperature-depth tags could relay their data to the internal FIT, which could then relay the data to bottom receivers without having to be recovered. As with existing Pop-off Archival Transmitting (PAT) tags, vastly more data can be stored archivally than can be transmitted, but the general lesson from PAT tags has been that a few well-chosen data are a lot more valuable than no data. O'Dor and Stokesbury (2009) have discussed a variety of other archival tag types which might become much more valuable if their data could be recovered acoustically as well as by recapture. These include RAFOS tags that geoposition at depth by recording arrival times of powerful "pongs" from long range sound systems (Recksiek et al. 2006), Star-Oddi (2007) tags that detect the sonars of ships in known locations, and dead-reckoning "daily diary" tags (Wilson 2007, Wilson et al. 2007) designed to reset when they download to an acoustic receiver in a known location. A recent addition to this list are the Desert Star Systems 'micro observation stations' (Flagg 2009). Understanding the physiological responses of animals to changes in their physical environment and even the underlying genetic differences is now possible by using biotelemetry in an ocean laboratory such as POST (Cooke et al. 2008). Accelerometers, pressure transmitters and heart rate measurement tags are all transmitted acoustically, and as technology advances we should soon be able to measure plasma osmotic pressure, pH, and stress and reproductive hormones (S. D. McCormick, personal communication). Concerns Will tagged individuals encounter each other? Concerns are often raised that building up a picture of ecosystem interactions from animals carrying tags seems relatively improbable. This is a crucial question that must be addressed to design efficient tagging experiments. If we define an encounter as proximity in space and time between a bioprobe and an acoustic-tagged individual, distance will typically range between 300500m, depending on the power of the acoustic tag. Encounters could be predation events, competitive interactions or simply coincidence in time and space. However, the questions of how likely and how often are difficult to answer until we have in situ demonstrations of the BCT technology at large operational scales. Under which conditions under are encounters likely? A planned large-scale deployment adding grey seals bioprobes to the mix of tagged species on the Scotian Shelf near the Halifax Line will serve as a test case. Encounter rates can be predicted by making use of pre-existing data from a variety of sources. These include electronic tracking 5

data, traditional mark-recapture tagging studies, DFO research vessel (RV) surveys, International Observer Program (IOP) data, fishery logbook data, and bio-physical oceanographic data. Integration of these datasets to facilitate prediction of encounters can be achieved through multiple approaches, each of which contributes to resolving overlap in species distributions at different spatial and temporal scales. Approaches range from descriptive tools, such as kernel density estimators (Worton 1989) applied at coarse resolutions, to simulations based on detailed behavioural, distributional and oceanographic information applied at finer resolutions. Simulations will explore implications of different tagging scenarios, such as the potential influences of sex and seasonality on animal movement patterns (Breed et al. 2006). Additionally, simulations of animal movement patterns will be used to explore encounter probabilities with other species. Predictions arising from these approaches can be validated and refined as OTN data on species encounters become available. Predicted encounter rates can, for example, specify numbers of bioprobes and acoustic tags that must be deployed to obtain a given number of encounters between two species. The methodology and knowledge gained from these experiences can be applied throughout the OTN. Another factor bearing on the probability of detecting interactions is the picture of the ocean that TOPP has returned. The vast expanses of ocean that appear the same to the eye are not the same to animals that live there. TOPP has identified many "oceanic hotspots" where many species concentrate, usually around prey. In such places the probabilities of predator-prey interactions must be elevated. One of the problems of ocean management is that these "spots" are not spots in the geographic sense, but continually shifting habitats. Most of us have probably seen movies of dozens of predators attacking huge schools of pilchard of South Africa. The volume of predatorprey interaction is not the volume of the ocean, but the volume of the pilchard school, and the range of acoustic detection is tens of thousands of times the range of capture. We also think few people really appreciate how many acoustically tagged animals are in the water at any one time. The largest manufacturer of acoustic tags, Vemco (a division of AMIRIX Systems Inc.), convinced its customers in 2005 (Heupel et al. 2005) to change from a code scheme with 64,000 unique codes to one allowing up to 1,000,000-codes because it is essential to maintain unique identities. The change may have some disadvantages in terms of detectability and equipment updating, but these are minor compared to not knowing whose fish you are detecting. We doubt the manufacturer would invest in such changes unless there really are a lot of tags out there. Efforts to create large-scale listening systems have benefitted from the fact that one company, Vemco, has had over 80% of the world acoustic telemetry market, which means many small research projects have compatible equipment, whether or not they are aware of it. This is a fact that the POST project and other groups (ACT, Fox et al. 2009; AATAMS, Huveneers & Harcourt 2009) have taken advantage of, as they bring more researchers into large-scale data-sharing networks. Recently, several companies from other sectors of the marine telemetry world have begun to introduce competing technologies (Lotek 2009). Although the ensuing competition holds promise for lower prices and improved products in the future, it remains crucial to largescale observation that coding schemes remain compatible, unique and do not interfere with each other.

6

For OTN to provide its benefits it is essential that codes remain globally unique. OTN encourages all tag users to share their metadata on what fish are carrying which tags. We provide a data warehouse to make this possible at www.oceantrack.org. An additional advantage of such affiliation with OTN is that partners can order collectively and receive discounts on bulk tag purchases, reflecting the principle that as tag numbers increase, manufacturing technologies improve and prices drop. The world in which OTN would introduce FIT is one in which there will be a lot more tags on a lot more species. Management and Policy Implications OTN includes a group focused on converting its scientific information into policy. One output of this group was a recent article in the Ocean Year Book (O'Dor 2007), which in its closing remarks proposes a model that shares detailed information with the fishing community in exchange for regulatory compliance. In the quote below the concepts possible with OTN are aligned with the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995). "Such management will have to account for many different value systems, so the transition to an ideal state may take many years or decades, but the tools are available. We just need to keep up the momentum for fisheries rationalization. Some possible constraints are listed below. 1. The costs of catching fish should be minimized relative to the value of the product. (FAO 8.6) If we know a fish is going to migrate into a bay where it can be trapped using a 7 m boat, then pursuing it in a 70 m boat hundreds of kilometres offshore could only make sense if the net value of the offshore product is higher. 2. The catching methods should minimize environmental damage (FAO 6.8). If we know a fish is going to migrate onto a sandy bottom site that has already been extensively trawled, then there would be no rationale for pursuing the same fish in areas with high virgin biodiversity. 3. Fisheries should focus lower on the food web (FAO 6.2). The top of the oceanic food web has already taken an enormous hit, so the market is naturally adapting to this. Squid is now as common as tuna on menus and it probably takes 100 tonnes of squid to make a 1- tonne bluefin tuna, so unless the net price differential exceeds this, where is the justification? Focusing lower may even allow for some recovery among the top predators. On land, we eat a lot more cattle than tigers. 4. The same technologies used to identify the best places to fish can reveal the best places to locate permanent and/or temporary marine protected areas to conserve biodiversity and enhance stocks to be fished in other sites (FAO 6.8). 5. The technologies also give a dynamic picture of migratory routes so that endangered species can be protected throughout their migrations by timely closures of areas to competing uses. How much information is needed to optimize survival and minimize interactions?" Although the FAO code of conduct provides valuable guidelines for managing fisheries and ecosystems, there is no universal enforcement mechanism. The primary value of a permanent biological observing system at the level of OTN is that it can deliver clear, irrefutable evidence of changes to the ocean ecosystem on a global scale which must at least be an embarrassment to 7

climate change and overfishing deniers. The process for turning good information into policy is never clear, but it cannot happen without reliable information collected consistently over time.

8

References Breed, G. A., Bowen, W. D., McMillan, J. I., and Leonard, M. L. (2006) Sexual segregation of seasonal foraging habitats in a non-migratory marine mammal. Proc. Roy. Soc. B-Biol. Sc. 273: 2319-2326 Boehme, L., Biuw, M., Thorpe, S., Meredith, M., Nicholls, K., Guinet, C., Costa, D., Hindell, M., and Fedak, M. (2009) Biologging in the global ocean observing system, p 16. In Rutz and Hays 2009. Boehme, L. et al. (CWP) Biologging in the global ocean observing system. Cooke, S.J., Hinch, S.G., Farrell, A.P., Patterson, D.A., Miller-Saunders, K., Welch, D.W., Donaldson, M.R., Hanson, K.C., Crossin, G.T., Mathes, M.T., Lotto, A.G., Hruska, K.A., Olsson, I., Wagner, G.N. Thompson, R., Hourston, R. English, K.K., Larsson, S., Shrimpton, J.M., Van der Kraak, G. (2008) Developing a mechanistic understanding of fish migrations by linking telemetry with physiology, behavior, genomics and experimental biology: an interdisciplinary case study on adult Fraser River sockeye salmon. Fisheries Research 33: 321-338. Charrissin, J-B. et al. (CWP) New insights into Southern Ocean physical and biological processes revealed by instumented elephant seals. Costa, D.P. (CWP) TOPP as a Marine Life Observatory: Using electronic tags to monitor the movements, behaviour and habitats of marine vertebrates. Ocean Observing 2009, Community White Paper 080. FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) Rome: FAO, 41 pp. Flagg, M. (2009) Seatag™: introducing a new line of ‘micro observation stations’ for animal tagging and environmental studies, p 24. In Rutz and Hays 2009. Fox, D.A., Savoy, T.F., and Manderson, J.P. (2009) A large-scale collaborative approach to telemetry in the Eastern US: the Atlantic Cooperative Telemetry (ACT) network, p 24. In Rutz and Hays 2009. Guinet, C., Bailleul, F., Cotté, C., Blain, S., Chiron, L., Dragon, A.C., Lovell, P., and Fedak M. (2009) Assessing the foraging success of southern elephant seal and productivity of southern ocean using a new generation of CTD-fluorescence Argos data relayed tag, p 30. In Rutz and Hays 2009. Heupel, M., Simpfendorfer C. and Lowe, C. (2005) Passive Acoustic Telemetry Technology: Current Applications and Future Directions. Results of the VR2 workshop held on Catalina Island Nov 28 – Dec 1, Mote Technical Report Number 1066: 1-98. Holland, K.N., Bush. A., Meyer, C.G., Kajiura, S., Wetherbee, B.M., and Lowe, C.G. (2001) Five tags applied to a single species in a single location: the tiger shark experience. In J.R. Sibert and J.L. Nielsen (eds.) Electronic Tagging and Tracking in Marine Fisheries, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Ma. pp. 237–247. Holland, K., Dagorn, L., Meyer, C., Papastamatiou, Y. and Whitney, N. (2007) The Development and Results of Preliminary Testing of “Ecology Tags.” Second International Symposium on Tagging and Tracking Marine Fish with Electronic Devices, San Sebastian, Spain, 8–11 October. Holland, K., Meyer, C., and Dagorn, L. (2009) Initial field testing of acoustic “Business Card” tags, p 34. In Rutz and Hays 2009. Huveneers, C., and Harcourt, R.G. (2009) The Australian Acoustic Tagging And Monitoring System (AATAMS) – A national network for the investigation of migratory marine species, p 35. In Rutz and Hays 2009.

9

Lindley ST, Moser ML, Erickson DL, Belchik M, Welch DW, Rechisky EL, Kelly JT, Heublein J, Klimley AP (2008). Marine migration of North American green sturgeon. Trans Am Fish Soc 137:182-194 Lotek 2009 http://www.lotek.com/dual-mode-letter.htm O’Dor, R.K. (2007) A known ocean? Discussions among ocean stakeholders. Ocean Yearbook 21, 33–46. O’Dor, R. K., Stokesbury, M. J. W., and Jackson, G. D. (2007) Tracking marine species – taking the next steps. In J. M. Lyle, D. M., Furlani, and Buxton, C. D. (eds.) Cutting-edge technologies in fish and fisheries science. Australian Society for Fish Biology Workshop Proceedings, Hobart, Tasmania. O'Dor, R.K., Fennel, K and Vanden Berghe, E. (2009) A One Ocean Model of Biodiversity. Deep Sea Research II, in press. O’Dor, R.K. and Stokesbury, M.J.W. (2009) The Ocean Tracking Network - adding animals to the Global Ocean Observing System. Reviews: Methods and Technologies in Fish Biology and Fisheries 9: in press. In J.L. Nielsen et al. (eds.), Tagging and Tracking of Marine Animals with Electronic Devices. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9640-2 6 O'Dor, R.K., Branton, R., Dick, T., and Stokesbury, M.J.W. (2009) The Ocean Tracking Network - more animal movement in GOOS, p 57. In Rutz and Hays 2009. Recksiek, C.W., Fischer, G., Rossby, H.T., Cadrin, S.X. and Kasturi, P. (2006) Development and application of ‘RAFOS’ tags for studying fish movement. ICES C.M. 2006/Q:16. Rintoul, S. et al. (CWP) Southern Ocean Observing System (SOOS): Rationale and strategy for sustained observations of the Southern Ocean. Rutz, C and Hays, G.C. (2009) New frontiers in biologging science. Biol. Lett. published online 11 March. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0089 Star-Oddi. (2007) www.star- oddi.com/Temperature Recorders/Data Storage Tags/GPS fish archival Tag/ Stokesbury, M.J.S., Dadswell, M.J., Holland, K.N., Jackson, G.D., Bowen, W.D. and R.K. O’Dor. (2009) Tracking of diadromous fishes at sea using hybrid acoustic and archival electronic tags. In Haro, A. J., K. L. Smith, R. A. Rulifson, C. M. Moffitt, R. J. Klauda, M. J. Dadswell, R. A. Cunjak, J. E. Cooper, K. L. Beal, and Avery, T. S. (eds.) 2009. Challenges for Diadromous Fishes in a Dynamic Global Environment. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 69, in press, Bethesda, Maryland. Taylor, G.B. (1961) Temperature, salinity, and density distributions, Halifax Section, August, 1950 to November, 1960. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Manuscript Report Series No. 95, 5 pp.+figs. Vanden Berge, E. et al. (CWP) Integrating biological data into ocean observing systems: the future role of the Ocean Biogeographical Information System (OBIS). Voegeli, F.A.,Webber, D.M., Smale, M.J., Andrade, Y. and O’Dor, R.K. (2001) Ultrasonic telemetry, tracking and automated monitoring technology for sharks. Environ Biol Fish 60: 267– 281. Welch, D.W., S. Turo, and S.D. Batten. (2006) “Large-scale Marine and Freshwater Movements of White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus)”. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 135:140–143. DOI: 10.1577/T05-197.1 Welch, D.W., Batten, S.D.,Ward, B.R. (2007) Growth, survival, and tag retention of steelhead trout (O. mykiss) surgically implanted with dummy acoustic tags. Hydrobiologia 582: 289–299. DOI 10.1007/s10750-006-0553-x 10

Welch, D. W., Rechisky, E. L., Melnychuk, M. C., Porter, A. D., Walters, C. J., Clements, S., Clemens, B. J., McKinley, S. R., and Schreck, C.(2008) Survival of migrating salmon smolts in large rivers with and without dams. PLoS Biology Wildlife Computer (2007) http://www.wildlifecomputers.com/products.aspx?ID=10 Wilson, R.P. (2007) Getting animals to write a daily diary for us; problems and solutions for enigmatic, and ostensibly easy, species. Second International Symposium on Tagging and Tracking Marine Fish with Electronic Devices, San Sebastian, Spain, 8–11 October. Wilson, R.P., Shepard, E.L.C. and Liebsch, N. (2007) Prying into the intimate details of animal lives: use of a daily diary on animals. Endang Species Res 3, in press. doi: 10.3354/esr00064 Worton, B. J. (1989) Kernal methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home range studies. Ecology 70: 164-168 Acronyms ADCP - Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler BCT - Business Card Tag, an acoustic tag which transmits and receives codes to monitor interactions between species to make oceanic EBM possible. CHAT - Communicating Histogram Acoustic Transponder tags developed in 2000 download data archived in tag memory in a compressed format to fixed receivers. Fast CHAT is the next generation technology that uses a broad frequency band to accelerate data transfer. CoML SSC - The Census of Marine Life is governed by a Scientific Steering Committee. CTD - Conductivity-Temperature-Depth tags provide profiles of these two crucial variables in seawater properties that control movements of seawater. EBM - Ecosystem Based Management is seen as a goal by a majority of nations globally under various descriptors as a replacement for single species management. FIT - The Fully Integrated Tag is under development as a solution to providing EBM for oceanic ecosystems. GOOS - Global Ocean Observing System of the UN Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. GEOSS - Global Earth Observing System of Systems OTN - Ocean Tracking Network PAT - Pop-off Archival Transmitting tags that relay archived information to satellites after being released from animals that rarely surface. POST - Pacific Ocean Shelf Tracking project of the CoML demonstrated the use of small acoustic tags on the "small, deep majority" of species. RAFOS - This acronym is simply the reverse of SOFAR, the acronym for the US Navy's for locating sound sources by triangulating locations from arrival times on at sensitive hydrophones. RAFOS triangulates the positions of animals from the arrival times of "pongs" - brief, loud sounds from known position sources. TOPP - The Tagging of Pacific Predators CoML project demonstrated PAT and CTD data recovery from 23 species across the Pacific.

11

Figure 1. The cumulative size spectra for fish, sharks and squid, illustrating the concept of the "small, deep majority". As indicated by the dashed lines, among bony fishes and squids, including major commercial pelagic species only about 10% ever become big enough to carry the satellite linked tags used in the TOPP project. Nearly 75% are large enough to carry POST-type acoustic tags, thus the need for cross-over technology for oceanic Ecosystem Based Management. (Modified from O'Dor et al. 2009)

12

Figure 2. The anticipated global scope of the OTN project, showing existing partner equipment in red, tentatively funded installations for the next three years in orange and yellow and larger scale deployments under consideration in white.

13

Figure 3. Areas where Atlantic salmon are being tagged (●) with coded acoustic tags, and location of OTN affiliated acoustic receiver lines (▬) and individual stations ( ).

14

Figure 4. The initial deployment of the OTN Halifax Line covering almost 25 km (A) detected the passage of 34 Atlantic salmon tagged by four international agencies in it first two months of operation. (B) maps in space and time of the passage of the animals by receivers (separated by ~1 km); the sizes of the red circles are proportional to the number of detections; (d) indicates the date of deployment and (u) dates of data uploads. (C) shows the monthly mean current vector profiles [blue dots, with sample vectors drawn at surface(green) and mid-depth(red)], as measured by an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP), roughly co-located with the outer station (No.27) on the line of receivers. Data on Atlantic salmon movement are preliminary and represent the unpublished work of S. D. McCormick (USGS-BRD), J. Zydlewski (USGS- Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit), J. Kocik and J. Hawkes (NOAA - NMFS), P. Amiro (DFO - Bedford Institute of Oceanography) and F. Whoriskey (the Atlantic Salmon Federation) and should not be cited without permission. Similar results indicating a consistent pattern have now been recovered for 2009.

15

Figure 5. This figure from Vemco indicates their concept for integrating acoustic and satellite information. Small prey can be recorded on internal receiver tags in larger predators. These tags can also include an open source communication link to external tags. Archived oceanographic data can be downloaded to bottom-resident acoustic receivers for animals that don't surface to communicate with satellites. Alternatively, acoustic predator-prey interaction data can be transferred to satellites for those that do.

16