| one publication added to basket [404406] | Gone with the wind: environmental variation influences detection efficiency in a coastal acoustic telemetry array
Edwards, J.E.; Buijse, A.D.; Winter, H.V.; Bijleveld, A.I. (2024). Gone with the wind: environmental variation influences detection efficiency in a coastal acoustic telemetry array. Animal Biotelemetry 12(1): 21. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40317-024-00378-x
In: Animal Biotelemetry. BioMed Central/Springer Nature: London. e-ISSN 2050-3385, meer
|   |
| Author keywords |
Acoustic telemetry; Range test; Detection range; Detection efficiency; Environmental variability; Coastal ecosystem |
| Auteurs | | Top |
- Edwards, J.E.
- Buijse, A.D.
- Winter, H.V.
- Bijleveld, A.I., meer
|
|
|
| Abstract |
Range tests play a critical role in designing acoustic telemetry studies, guiding equipment configuration, deployment techniques, and the analysis of animal movement data. These studies often strive to capture the effects of environmental variation on detection efficiency over time but are frequently limited in spatial and temporal scale. This could lead to disparities between test results and the circumstances encountered during animal tracking studies. In this study, we evaluated detection range and efficiency at two distinct spatial and temporal scales in a dynamic intertidal ecosystem. Two range tests were conducted, the first being a small-scale study using 6 receivers deployed over 1 month. Using modern acoustic receivers with built-in transmitters and environmental sensors, we then conducted a large-scale range test with 22 receiver stations over a full year to approximate the area and duration of a typical animal movement study. Differences in detection range between the two studies occurred as a result of environmental variation and tag power output, with midpoint ranges estimated as 123 m (small scale, low power), 149 m (small scale, high power) and 311 m (large scale, very high power). At both scales, wind speed emerged as the most influential factor explaining temporal variation in predicted detection efficiency. However, this effect was modulated by wind direction which varied as a result of land sheltering and fetch between the two study scales. At the small scale, detection efficiency decreased with winds from the south and east, while at the large scale, northern and westerly winds were most detrimental. Water temperature had a positive effect on predicted detection efficiency at both scales, while relative water level was positive at the small scale and negative at the large scale. Additional factors, including precipitation and Topographic Position Index, were found to influence detection efficiency at a large scale. Moreover, sensors associated with receivers in the larger array revealed the significant influences of receiver tilt and ambient noise. These discrepancies in the outcomes of the two studies underscore the critical role of scale in range test design and emphasize the need for long-term, in situ range testing at relevant spatial scales. |
|
