The influence of environmental parameters on the performance and detection range of acoustic receivers

Methods in Ecology and Evolution - Tập 7 Số 7 - Trang 825-835 - 2016
Charlie Huveneers1, Colin A. Simpfendorfer2, Susan Kim1, Jayson M. Semmens3, Alistair J. Hobday4, Hugh Pederson5, Thomas Stieglitz2, Richard Vallee5, Dale M. Webber5, Michelle R. Heupel6, Victor M. Peddemors7, Robert Harcourt8
1Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
2James Cook University
3Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies [Hobart]
4Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [Canberra]
5VEMCO [Bedford]
6Australian Institute of Marine Science
7New South Wales Department of Primary Industries
8Macquarie University

Tóm tắt

Summary Acoustic telemetry is being increasingly used to study the ecology of many aquatic organisms. This widespread use has been advanced by national and international tracking programs that coordinate deployment of passive acoustic telemetry networks on a regional and continental scale to detect tagged animals. While it is well‐known that environmental conditions can affect the performance of acoustic receivers, these effects are rarely quantified despite the profound implications for tag detection and hence the ecological inferences. Here, we deployed eight receivers at different depths within the water column and at different orientations (hydrophone up or down) and 12 tags 200–800 m from the receivers for 234 days to investigate how the tag detection range of acoustic receivers varied through time and under different meteorologic and oceanographic conditions. The study showed that receiver depth and orientation, and time since deployment had the largest effect on the detection range. Thermocline gradient and depth, and wind speed were the environmental factors most affecting detection range, while wind direction, precipitation and atmospheric pressure had negligible or no effect. Comparison of results to a proposed general acoustic theory model and previous studies showed that findings from specific habitat types cannot be generalised and applied across other habitats or environments. A good understanding of the acoustic coverage and temporal variations in relation to environmental conditions are crucial to accurate interpretation of results, and ensuing management recommendations. We recommend that each study include stationary reference tags to measure changes in detection probability with time, help refine detection range, and be used to improve confidence in the reporting and interpretation of the data.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1371/journal.pone.0058522

10.1007/s00338-013-1069-2

10.1098/rsbl.2015.0092

Caruthers J.W., 1977, Fundamentals of Marine Acoustics

10.1577/M03-224.1

10.4031/MTSJ.44.5.3

10.4031/002533205787521668

10.1007/s00442-015-3280-z

10.1111/jfb.12724

10.1121/1.1916452

10.1111/2041-210X.12057

10.1007/s10750-008-9594-7

10.1071/MF05091

10.4031/002533205787521749

Heupel M.&Webber D.(2012)Trends in acoustic tracking: where are the fish going and how will we follow them?Advances in Fish Tagging and Marking TechnologyAmerican Fisheries Society Symposium vol.76(edsJ.McKenzie B.Parsons A.C.Seitz R.K.Kopf M.Mesa&Q.Phelps) pp.219–231.

10.4319/lom.2008.6.327

10.3389/fmars.2015.00012

Hobday A.J., 2011, Advances in Fish Tagging and Marking Technology. American Fisheries Society Symposium 76, 325

10.1071/MF11194

10.1126/science.1255642

Huveneers C. Rogers P.&Drew M.(2014)Monitoring shark species of conservation concern within the Adelaide metropolitan and Gulf St Vincent regions. Final Report to the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board. SARDI Publication No. F2013/000716‐1. SARDI Research Report Series No. 754.South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences) Adelaide Australia.

10.1007/s00227-013-2277-6

10.1007/s11160-013-9328-4

10.1016/j.fishres.2012.02.023

10.1007/s10531-014-0748-9

10.1002/aqc.2431

10.3354/meps10582

Medwin H., 1997, Fundamentals of Acoustical Oceanography

Melnychuk M.C.(2012)Detection efficiency in telemetry studies: definitions and evaluation methods.Telemetry Techniques: a User Guide for Fisheries Research(edsN.S.Adams J.W.Beeman&J.H.Eiler) pp.339–357.American Fisheries Society Bethesda MD.

10.1139/F09-199

10.1051/alr:2008003

10.3354/meps08864

R Development Core Team, 2004, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

10.1007/s00442-008-1041-y

10.1111/j.1467-9876.2005.00510.x

Roughan M. Morris B.D.&Suthers I.M.(2010)NSW‐IMOS: an integrated marine observing system for Southeastern Australia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.IOP Publishing Sydney Australia.

10.3354/meps08469

10.1038/srep01471

10.1577/M08-189.1

10.1139/f07-180

Simpfendorfer C.A., Ghosts in the data: false detections in Vemco VR2 acoustic telemetry monitoring equipment, Animal Biotelemetry

10.2989/AJMS.2009.31.3.8.996

10.18637/jss.v023.i07

10.1139/f77-189

10.4031/MTSJ.48.1.8

10.3354/meps10244

Urick R.J., 1983, Principles of Underwater Sound, 202

Voegeli F., 1996, Overview of underwater acoustics as it applies to telemetry, Underwater Biotelemetry, 23

10.1007/s00338-012-0892-1

10.1111/j.1095-8649.2011.03179.x

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Tập 7 Số 7

825-835

Thông tin tác giả