The bio-logging technique is extensively used in the fields of ecology and ethology, wherein a data logger, such as a sensor or camera, is attached to the target animal’s body to collect the required data. In this method, the efficiency of recovery of the data logger is not ideal. In this study, we proposed a new recovery method, with the aim of addressing the aforementioned problem in bio-logging. The authors previously fabricated a data-logger separator, which weighed approximately 10 g, and was targeted at small seabirds. Because there were some problems associated with the circuit board and the separation performance of this device, we modified the device to overcome the previous drawbacks. We fabricated a flexible printed circuit to improve the operation of the mounted actuator and wireless microcomputer, and improve the efficiency of the fabrication process. We conducted an experiment to determine the proper length and position at which the actuator is attached, in order to achieve a stable motion. We thus fabricated a new prototype with these improvements and performed an operational test at low temperatures from a particular distance, simulating actual usage in a natural environment. The results demonstrated that separation occurred without failure, thus indicating that the separator can be efficiently used in practical environment.

1. [1] B. A. Block, “Physiological ecology in the 21st century: advancements in biologging science,” Integrative and Comparative Biology, Vol.45, No.2, pp. 305-320, 2005.
2. [2] S. J. Cooke, “Biotelemetry and biologging in endangered species research and animal conservation: relevance to regional, national, and iucn red list threat assessments,” Endangered Species Research, Vol.4, Nos.1-2, pp. 165-185, 2008.
3. [3] C. Rutz and G. C. Hays, “New frontiers in biologging science,” Biology Letters, Vol.5, Issue 3, pp. 289-292, 2009.
4. [4] Bio-Logging Science, “Bio-Logging,” Information Design Associates Kyoto, 2009 (in Japanese).
5. [5] K. Evans, M.-A. Lea, and T. Patterson, “Recent advances in bio-logging science: Technologies and methods for understanding animal behavior and physiology and their environments,” Deep-Sea Research Part II, Topical Studies in Oceanography, Vol.88-89, pp. 1-6, 2013.
6. [6] J. Korpela, H. Suzuki, S. Matsumoto, Y. Mizutani, M. Samejima, T. Maekawa, J. Nakai, and K. Yoda, “Machine learning enables improved runtime and precision for bio-loggers on seabirds,” Communications Biology, Vol.3, No.1, pp. 1-9, 2020.
7. [7] K. Yoda, “Advances in bio-logging techniques and their application to study navigation in wild seabirds,” Advanced Robotics, Vol.33, Nos.3-4, pp. 108-117, 2019.
8. [8] N. Tomita, Y. Mizutani, P. N. Trathan, and Y. Niizuma, “Relationship between non-breeding migratory movements and stable isotopes of nitrogen and carbon from primary feathers of black-tailed gull larus crassirostris,” Ornithological Science, Vol.14, No.1, pp. 3-11, 2015.
9. [9] G. C. Hays, L. C. Ferreira, A. M. Sequeira, M. G. Meekan, C. M. Duarte, H. Bailey, F. Bailleul, W. D. Bowen, M. J. Caley, D. P. Costa et al., “Key questions in marine megafauna movement ecology,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol.31, No.6, pp. 463-475, 2016.
10. [10] C. C. Wilmers, B. Nickel, C. M. Bryce, J. A. Smith, R. E. Wheat, and V. Yovovich, “The golden age of bio-logging: how animal-borne sensors are advancing the frontiers of ecology,” Ecology, Vol.96, No.7, pp. 1741-1753, 2015.
11. [11] K. Yamazaki, C. Kozakai, S. Koike, H. Morimoto, Y. Goto, and K. Furubayashi, “Myrmecophagy of Japanese black bears in the grasslands of the ashio area, Nikko national park, japan,” Ursus, Vol.23, No.1, pp. 52-64, 2012.
12. [12] C. Kozakai, K. Yamazaki, Y. Nemoto, A. Nakajima, S. Koike, S. Abe, T. Masaki, and K. Kaji, “Effect of mast production on home range use of Japanese black bears,” the J. of Wildlife Management, Vol.75, No.4, pp. 867-875, 2011.
13. [13] T. K. Chapple, A. C. Gleiss, O. J. Jewell, M. Wikelski, and B. A. Block, “Tracking sharks without teeth: a non-invasive rigid tag attachment for large predatory sharks,” Animal Biotelemetry, Vol.3, No.1, 14, 2015.
14. [14] J. M. Buil, L. R. Peckre, M. Dörge, C. Fichtel, P. M. Kappeler, and H. Scherberger, “Remotely releasable collar mechanism for medium-sized mammals: an affordable technology to avoid multiple captures,” Wildlife Biology, Vol.2019, No.1, pp. 1-7, 2019.
15. [15] S. J. Portugal and C. R. White, “Miniaturization of biologgers is not alleviating the 5% rule,” Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Vol.9, No.7, pp. 1662-1666, 2018.
16. [16] D. G. Barron, J. D. Brawn, and P. J. Weatherhead, “Meta-analysis of transmitter effects on avian behavior and ecology,” Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Vol.1, No.2, pp. 180-187, 2010.
17. [17] H.-C. Kim, M. Kim, Y.-S. Kwon, M.-J. Hong, C.-U. Park, S.-M. Yun, W.-J. Lee, S.-T. Chong, J. Hang, T. A. Klein et al., “New distribution and host records for ornithodoros capensis neumann and ornithodoros sawaii kitaoka and suzuki (acari: Ixodida: Argasidae) collected from black-tailed gull, larus crassirostris, nestlings and nest soil and litter on hong and nan islands, republic of korea,” Systematic and Applied Acarology, Vol.22, No.11, pp. 1899-1909, 2017.
18. [18] T. Abe, N. Kubo, K. Abe, H. Suzuki, K. Yoda, R. Tadakuma, and Y. Tsumaki, “Study on hypercompact and lightweight data logger separators for wild animals,” Advanced Robotics, Vol.35, No.11, pp. 81-92, doi: 10.1080/01691864.2020.1855245, 2021.