Do you hear what I hear? Implications of detector selection for acoustic monitoring of bats
Authors:
Open Access
- 18 September 2012
- journal article
- animal movement
- Published by Wiley in Methods in Ecology and Evolution
- Vol. 3 (6) , 992-998
Abstract
Summary: The probability of detecting the echolocation calls of bats is affected by the strength of the signal as well as the directionality and frequency response of the acoustic detectors. Regardless of the research question, it is important to quantify variation in recording system performance and its impacts on bat detection results. The purpose of this study was to compare the detection of echolocation calls among five commonly used bat detectors: AnaBat SD2 (Titley Scientific), Avisoft UltraSoundGate 116 CM16/CMPA (Avisoft Bioacoustics), Batcorder 2·0 (ecoObs), Batlogger (Elekon AG) and Song Meter SM2BAT (Wildlife Acoustics). We used playback of synthetic calls to optimize detection settings for each system. We then played synthetic signals at four frequencies (25, 55, 85 and 115 kHz) at 5‐m intervals (5–40 m) and three angles (0°, 45°, 90°) from the detectors. Finally, we recorded free‐flying bats (Lasiurus cinereus), comparing the number of calls detected by each detector. Detection was most affected by the frequency dominating the signal and the distance from the source. The effect of angle was less apparent. In the synthetic signal experiment, Avisoft and Batlogger outperformed other detectors, while Batcorder and Song Meter performed similarly. Batlogger performed better than the other detectors at angles off‐centre (45° and 90°). AnaBat detected the fewest signals and none at 85 kHz or 115 kHz. Avisoft detected the most signals. In the free‐flying bat experiment, Batlogger recorded 93% of calls relative to Avisoft, while AnaBat, Batcorder and Song Meter recorded 40–50% of the calls detected by Avisoft. Numerous factors contribute to variation in data sets from acoustic monitoring; our results demonstrate that choice of detector plays a role in this variation. Differences among detectors make it difficult to compare data sets obtained with different systems. Therefore, the choice of detector should be taken into account in designing studies and considering bat activity levels among studies using different detectors.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Aggregative response in bats: prey abundance versus habitatOecologia, 2012
- Effects of Orientation and Weatherproofing on the Detection of Bat Echolocation CallsJournal of Fish and Wildlife Management, 2010
- Characterization of the Echolocation Calls of Bats from Exuma, BahamasActa Chiropterologica, 2009
- Differences in Bat Activity in Relation to Bat Detector Height: Implications for Bat Surveys at Proposed Windfarm SitesActa Chiropterologica, 2009
- Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypothesesFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2007
- Eavesdropping by bats on the feeding buzzes of conspecificsCanadian Journal of Zoology, 2007
- Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities: assessing the effects of rotor size and tower heightCanadian Journal of Zoology, 2007
- Variation in Echolocation Call Frequencies Recorded from North American Vespertilionid Bats: A Cautionary NoteJournal of Mammalogy, 1987
- A Comparison of Sensitivities of Three Bat DetectorsJournal of Mammalogy, 1982
- Measurements of atmospheric attenuation at ultrasonic frequencies and the significance for echolocation by batsThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1982