Strike Off the Band, Says Penguin Study

Banding penguins to track them is bad for their health, a new study reports. David Biello investigates

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Great mountains of ice are melting in Antarctica, vast plains of frozen water continue to collapse into the Southern Ocean. That's bad news for penguins, which rely on the ice for hunting, among other things. To find out how bad, some scientists had been affixing bands to penguin's flippers.

The bands allow tracking of the changes in penguins' lifestyle. And they didn't seem to be hurting the birds: Several banded Adelie penguins that were taken thousands of miles from their home in eastern Antarctica swam all the way back in less than a year.

But a new 10-year study of king penguins shows that bands kill. Banded birds died more frequently than their unencumbered cousins and produced fewer chicks between 1998 and 2008. The exact reason is unclear but it may be that the bands drag on the penguins during their swimming flights through Antarctic waters. In fact, such bands force Adelie penguins to exert nearly a quarter more energy to swim.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


What's worse from a scientific standpoint: banded and unbanded penguins respond differently to climate changes, with the banded birds showing up even later to breed when food is scarce. That makes the case for banding them even more suspect, especially when sensors implanted beneath the skin can deliver the same information. One thing remains clear, however, bands may be bad for the Antarctic birds but climate change will be even worse.

—David Biello

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe