Use of Multiple Temperature Logger Models Can Alter Conclusions

Abstract

Remote temperature loggers are often used to measure water temperatures for ecological studies and by regulatory agencies to determine whether water quality standards are being maintained. Equipment specifications are often given a cursory review in the methods; however, the effect of temperature logger model is rarely addressed in the discussion. In a laboratory environment, we compared measurements from three models of temperature loggers at 5 to 40 °C to better understand the utility of these devices. Mean water temperatures recorded by logger models differed statistically even for those with similar accuracy specifications, but were still within manufacturer accuracy specifications. Maximum mean temperature difference between models was 0.4 °C which could have regulatory and ecological implications, such as when a 0.3 °C temperature change triggers a water quality violation or increases species mortality rates. Additionally, precision should be reported as the overall precision (including a consideration of significant digits) for combined model types which in our experiment was 0.7 °C, not the ≤0.4 °C for individual models. Our results affirm that analyzing data collected by different logger models can result in potentially erroneous conclusions when <1 °C difference has regulatory compliance or ecological implications and that combining data from multiple logger models can reduce the overall precision of results.

Closing the gap between science and management of cold‐water refuges in rivers and streams

“…Resource managers Implement adaptive management when evaluating management outcomes (Figure 6) margin of error greater than 1°C (Whittier et al, 2020). Furthermore, the physiological consequences of thermal exposure (frequency and magnitude) vary depending on life stages and species-specific tolerances.…”

“…It is also essential to propose definitions that enable enforcement (where applicable) and to explicitly acknowledge the dynamic nature of CWRs while supporting management objectives. For example, salmonids respond to temperature changes of less than 1°C (Berman & Quinn, 1991), yet some assessment tools have a margin of error greater than 1°C (Whittier et al, 2020). Furthermore, the physiological consequences of thermal exposure (frequency and magnitude) vary depending on life stages and species‐specific tolerances.…”

Low-cost electronic sensors for environmental research: Pitfalls and opportunities

“…Whilst this highlights a potential pitfall in the use of low-cost sensors, commercial data loggers also report substantial variance (e.g. Whittier et al, 2020). Indeed, the need for rigorous sensor-specific calibration follows best practice in environmental monitoring and is not a hurdle unique to build-it-yourself sensors.…”