A method for estimating the “position accuracy” of acoustic fish tags

Ehrenberg, John E.

doi:10.1006/jmsc.2001.1138

Cited by 40 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Animals that vocalize rarely can be tracked in the same way, but with the sound being produced by an acoustic transmitting tag attached to the animal (Watkins et al 1993, Baumgartner et al 2008). This technique, termed active tracking, is widely used in fisheries research (Ehrenberg & Steig 2002), but has the disadvantage that a sound is produced close to the animal with the potential to disturb it (Watkins & Schevill 1975, Kastelein et al 2006). This problem can be overcome, at the expense of a reduced operating range, by using sounds with frequency above the hearing range of the animal when this is known.…”

Section: Acoustic Trackingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After a brief review of the technology underpinning these devices, we examine the use of acoustic tags in studies of sound production, foraging, movement, and the effects of noise. The term 'acoustic tag' will be used for conciseness to signify an acoustic recording device, but should not be confused with the acoustic transmitting tags used to track fish, which are also termed acoustic tags (Ehrenberg & Steig 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Studying the behaviour and sensory ecology of marine mammals using acoustic recording tags: a review

Johnson¹,

Soto²,

Madsen³

2009

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

199

215

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many marine animals use sound passively or actively for communication, foraging, predator avoidance, navigation, and to sense their environment. The advent of acoustic recording tags has allowed biologists to get the on-animal perspective of the sonic environment and, in combination with movement sensors, to relate sounds to the activities of the tagged animal. These powerful tools have led to a wide range of insights into the behaviour of marine animals and have opened new opportunities for studying the ways they interact with their environment. Acoustic tags demand new analysis methods and careful experimental design to optimize the consistency between research objectives and the realistic performance of the tags. Technical details to consider are the suitability of the tag attachment to a given species, the accuracy of the tag sensors, and the recording and attachment duration of the tag. Here we consider the achievements, potential, and limitations of acoustic recording tags in studying the behaviour, habitat use and sensory ecology of marine mammals, the taxon to which this technology has been most often applied. We examine the application of acoustic tags to studies of vocal behaviour, foraging ecology, acoustic tracking, and the effects of noise to assess both the breadth of applications and the specific issues that arise in each.

show abstract

Section: Acoustic Trackingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Studying the behaviour and sensory ecology of marine mammals using acoustic recording tags: a review

Johnson¹,

Soto²,

Madsen³

2009

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

199

215

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If more than four 2.15 hydrophones detected the same tag signal, the four with the best geometric configuration for 3D tracking were then selected (Wahlberg et al 2001;Ehgrenberg and Steig 2002).…”

Section: A Detection Event Was Initiated When the Time Interval Betwementioning

confidence: 99%

Survival Rates of Juvenile Salmonids Passing Through the Bonneville Dam and Spillway in 2008

Ploskey¹,

Weiland²,

Faber³

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2008, the Portland District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) contracted with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to conduct an acoustic telemetry study to estimate the survival rates of juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead passing through Bonneville Dam (BON) and its spillway. Of particular interest was the relative survival rate of smolts detected passing through end spill bays 1-3 and 16-18, which had deep flow deflectors immediately downstream of spill gates, versus the survival rate of smolts passing through middle spill bays 4-15, which had shallow flow deflectors.Yearling Chinook salmon (YC), steelhead (STH), and fall Chinook salmon (FC) longer than 95 mm were collected from routine smolt monitoring samples at John Day Dam (JDA) and held overnight before surgery so that they were not overly stressed. Smolts longer than 95 mm were surgically implanted with Juvenile Acoustic Telemetry System (JSATS) and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags and held another night to allow time for fish to recover from surgery. Fish tagged the previous day were released by a PNNL team three times per day (morning, midday, and night) in the JDA pool near Arlington, Oregon, and about 2.5 km below JDA in spring and summer. The team also released FC about 3 km below The Dalles Dam (TDA) in summer. Releases of live JSATS-tagged smolts in the Columbia River upstream of BON totaled 3431 YC and 3430 STH in spring. In summer, 5909 FC were released upstream of BON. Releases were spread out over 28 consecutive days (April 29 through May 27) during spring and over 29 consecutive days (June 15 through July 13) in summer. All of the "treatment" fish released above BON had the opportunity to be detected and regrouped by a BON forebay entrance array of autonomous nodes or by dam-face arrays at the BON spillway (this study) or BON Powerhouse 2 (B2) ) before they passed the BON project. An array is a group of underwater listening devices deployed to detect acoustic tags in fish passing through a forebay or an entire cross section of the river above or below a dam. Non-spillway passage routes were assigned based on detections of PIT tags in the B2 Corner Collector (B2CC) and B2 Juvenile Bypass System (B2 JBS) and acoustic detections on a cabled JSATS array in the B2 forebay (from Faber et al. 2009). Routes of spillway passage included end bays 1-3 and 16-18 with deep flow deflectors downstream of spill gates and middle bays 4-15 with shallow flow deflectors. Powerhouse 1 was not monitored.A National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) team released 826 live and 50 dead tagged YC in spring and 1020 live and 52 dead tagged FC smolts in summer into the downstream end of the BON tailrace near the USACE boat launch three times per day (about 0600, 1300, and 2100 hours PST) to serve as reference releases (controls) for virtual releases of treatment fish from upstream of the dam. Reference releases were made daily from April 30 through June 2 and from June 16 through July 22. The NMFS team also released 826 live YC and 1020...

show abstract

“…Various authors have pointed out the effects of multiple intrinsic and environmental factors on the probability of location and positioning error, such as the number of receivers deployed, the accuracy of the receiver location measurements, the receiver array characteristics, collisions between transmissions from multiple tags, the location of the tag relative to the locations of the receivers, time measurement precision at the receivers, the bottom topography and thermal conditions [2,6,[8][9][10][11][12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the VEMCO Positioning System: spatial distribution of the probability of location and the positioning error in a reservoir

Roy¹,

Beguin²,

Argillier³

et al. 2014

Anim Biotelem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Recent improvements in fixed acoustic monitoring receivers allow the tracking of individual aquatic animals over long periods of time with regular fine-scale positions. The VEMCO Positioning System (VPS) is now widely used, but various methodological issues remain to be clarified. The aim of this study was to analyze the spatial distribution of the probability of location and the positioning error over the entire surface of a hydropower reservoir, prior to analyzing fish behavior. Findings: Filtering the data set by the horizontal position error (HPE) significantly reduced the positioning error. Retaining only the positions with an HPE less than 15 retained 79% of VPS positions and decreased the positioning error by 33% (mean = 3.3 m, SD = 3.3 m). A higher probability of location was observed inside than outside the receiver array (44% and 36%, respectively). Moreover, the positioning error significantly differed inside (n = 243, mean = 2.4 m, SD = 2.1 m) and outside (n = 253, mean = 4.2 m, SD = 4.0 m) the receiver array (P < 0.001). Finally, the lowest positioning errors were detected in the area with the highest receiver density. Conclusions: The VPS measures fish positioning in a reservoir, under suitable conditions, with satisfactory accuracy. We showed that the probability of location and the positioning error differed spatially in accordance with previous results in other conditions. Consequently, these analyses are recommended as a prerequisite to further spatial analyses using VPS-derived data.

show abstract

A method for estimating the “position accuracy” of acoustic fish tags

Cited by 40 publications

References 15 publications

Studying the behaviour and sensory ecology of marine mammals using acoustic recording tags: a review

Studying the behaviour and sensory ecology of marine mammals using acoustic recording tags: a review

Survival Rates of Juvenile Salmonids Passing Through the Bonneville Dam and Spillway in 2008

Testing the VEMCO Positioning System: spatial distribution of the probability of location and the positioning error in a reservoir

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About