Do you hear what I hear? Implications of detector selection for acoustic monitoring of bats
Do you hear what I hear? Implications of detector selection for acoustic monitoring of bats
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00244.x
复制
发表时间：
2012-12-01
影响因子：
6.6
通讯作者：
Fenton, Melville Brockett
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Adams, Amanda M.;Jantzen, Meredith K.;Fenton, Melville Brockett
探测蝙蝠回声定位叫声的概率受信号强度以及声探测器的方向性和频率响应的影响。无论研究问题，重要的是要量化记录系统的性能及其对蝙蝠检测结果的影响的变化。本研究的目的是比较五种常用的蝙蝠探测器对回声定位叫声的检测：AnaBat SD 2（蒂特利Scientific）、Avisoft UltraSoundGate 116 CM 16/CMPA（Avisoft Bioacoustics）、Batcorder 2.0（ecoObs）、Batlogger（Elekon AG）和Song Meter SM 2BAT（Wildlife Acoustics）。我们使用合成调用的回放来优化每个系统的检测设置。然后，我们以5米的间隔（540米）和三个角度（0度，45度，90度）播放四个频率（25，55，85和115 kHz）的合成信号。最后，我们记录了自由飞行的蝙蝠（Lasiurus cinereus），比较每个探测器探测到的呼叫数量。检测最受信号的频率和与源的距离影响。角度的影响不太明显。在合成信号实验中，Avisoft和Batlogger的表现优于其他检测器，而Batcorder和Song Meter的表现相似。Batlogger在偏离中心的角度（45度和90度）下比其他探测器表现更好。AnaBat检测到的信号最少，在85 kHz或115 kHz时没有。Avisoft检测到的信号最多。在自由飞行的蝙蝠实验中，Batlogger记录了93%的呼叫相对于Avisoft，而AnaBat，Batcorder和Song Meter记录了Avisoft检测到的4050%的呼叫。许多因素有助于从声学监测的数据集的变化，我们的研究结果表明，检测器的选择在这种变化中发挥了作用。探测器之间的差异使得难以比较不同系统获得的数据集。因此，在设计研究时应考虑检测器的选择，并在使用不同检测器的研究中考虑蝙蝠的活动水平。
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 (540 m) and three angles (0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees) 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 degrees and 90 degrees). 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 4050% 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.