Factors affecting detection probabilities of acoustic transmitters using passive receivers
Abstract Background Passive acoustic telemetry is a common tool used to study fish movements. Range tests, or determining the distance at which transmitters can be recognized by a receiver, are needed to accurately determine fish position in the environment. However, range tests are not often conduc...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Animal Biotelemetry |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-025-00411-7 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850105631854297088 |
|---|---|
| author | William J. Radigan Cali Engel Phil Chvala Christopher Longhenry Mark Pegg |
| author_facet | William J. Radigan Cali Engel Phil Chvala Christopher Longhenry Mark Pegg |
| author_sort | William J. Radigan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Passive acoustic telemetry is a common tool used to study fish movements. Range tests, or determining the distance at which transmitters can be recognized by a receiver, are needed to accurately determine fish position in the environment. However, range tests are not often conducted or are only completed during a single season prior to an acoustic telemetry study commencing though seasonality may affect detection probabilities over a multi-year study’s duration. Therefore, we conducted a series of tests to assess the effect of seasonality on range detection over a 3-year period on Lewis and Clark Lake, a Missouri River reservoir. Specifically, we measured the effects that seasonal environmental (e.g., wind, depth, temperature) factors had on detection probability at a range of distances using Innovasea V13 acoustic transmitters at 14 VR2tx 69-kHz passive receivers. These data were used to inform array design for a concurrent acoustic telemetry research project. We accounted for spatiotemporal variation in detection probability by evaluating monthly detection probabilities across years from March–September during 2022–2024. Results Mean detection probability for Lewis and Clark Lake receivers from range tests was 0. 60 for 50 m, 0.50 for 100 m, 0.37 for 200 m, 0.23 for 400 m, 0.15 for 600 m, and 0.11 for 800 m. We found detection probabilities in the spring were greater than those in the other seasons. We found negative relationships between detection probabilities and distance between the tag and receiver, wind speed, inflow through Fort Randall Dam, and tag depth. Further, we found detection probabilities varied with river kilometer, presumably due to habitat differences. Conclusions Implications of our findings include consideration of lower realized detection probabilities (i.e., resulting from environmental factors) compared to equipment capabilities during study design, and the consideration of both anthropogenic influences (i.e., inflow) and natural environmental factors (i.e., wind) that affect detection probabilities. The receiver array in Lewis and Clark Lake, South Dakota was modified due to the findings presented herein, in that receivers were stationed in nearshore locations presumably sheltered from the wind. In general, our data support placing receiver stations nearer to shore and protected from wind fetch to the best extent possible to optimize detection distance. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-2cc4c232df8145f7b945cc7ebdf309bd |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2050-3385 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-05-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Animal Biotelemetry |
| spelling | doaj-art-2cc4c232df8145f7b945cc7ebdf309bd2025-08-20T02:39:02ZengBMCAnimal Biotelemetry2050-33852025-05-011311910.1186/s40317-025-00411-7Factors affecting detection probabilities of acoustic transmitters using passive receiversWilliam J. Radigan0Cali Engel1Phil Chvala2Christopher Longhenry3Mark Pegg4School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-LincolnSchool of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-LincolnNebraska Game and Parks CommissionSouth Dakota Department of Game, Fish and ParksSchool of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-LincolnAbstract Background Passive acoustic telemetry is a common tool used to study fish movements. Range tests, or determining the distance at which transmitters can be recognized by a receiver, are needed to accurately determine fish position in the environment. However, range tests are not often conducted or are only completed during a single season prior to an acoustic telemetry study commencing though seasonality may affect detection probabilities over a multi-year study’s duration. Therefore, we conducted a series of tests to assess the effect of seasonality on range detection over a 3-year period on Lewis and Clark Lake, a Missouri River reservoir. Specifically, we measured the effects that seasonal environmental (e.g., wind, depth, temperature) factors had on detection probability at a range of distances using Innovasea V13 acoustic transmitters at 14 VR2tx 69-kHz passive receivers. These data were used to inform array design for a concurrent acoustic telemetry research project. We accounted for spatiotemporal variation in detection probability by evaluating monthly detection probabilities across years from March–September during 2022–2024. Results Mean detection probability for Lewis and Clark Lake receivers from range tests was 0. 60 for 50 m, 0.50 for 100 m, 0.37 for 200 m, 0.23 for 400 m, 0.15 for 600 m, and 0.11 for 800 m. We found detection probabilities in the spring were greater than those in the other seasons. We found negative relationships between detection probabilities and distance between the tag and receiver, wind speed, inflow through Fort Randall Dam, and tag depth. Further, we found detection probabilities varied with river kilometer, presumably due to habitat differences. Conclusions Implications of our findings include consideration of lower realized detection probabilities (i.e., resulting from environmental factors) compared to equipment capabilities during study design, and the consideration of both anthropogenic influences (i.e., inflow) and natural environmental factors (i.e., wind) that affect detection probabilities. The receiver array in Lewis and Clark Lake, South Dakota was modified due to the findings presented herein, in that receivers were stationed in nearshore locations presumably sheltered from the wind. In general, our data support placing receiver stations nearer to shore and protected from wind fetch to the best extent possible to optimize detection distance.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-025-00411-7Passive acoustic telemetryDetection probabilitiesRange testsReservoirsSeasonalityDischarge |
| spellingShingle | William J. Radigan Cali Engel Phil Chvala Christopher Longhenry Mark Pegg Factors affecting detection probabilities of acoustic transmitters using passive receivers Animal Biotelemetry Passive acoustic telemetry Detection probabilities Range tests Reservoirs Seasonality Discharge |
| title | Factors affecting detection probabilities of acoustic transmitters using passive receivers |
| title_full | Factors affecting detection probabilities of acoustic transmitters using passive receivers |
| title_fullStr | Factors affecting detection probabilities of acoustic transmitters using passive receivers |
| title_full_unstemmed | Factors affecting detection probabilities of acoustic transmitters using passive receivers |
| title_short | Factors affecting detection probabilities of acoustic transmitters using passive receivers |
| title_sort | factors affecting detection probabilities of acoustic transmitters using passive receivers |
| topic | Passive acoustic telemetry Detection probabilities Range tests Reservoirs Seasonality Discharge |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-025-00411-7 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT williamjradigan factorsaffectingdetectionprobabilitiesofacoustictransmittersusingpassivereceivers AT caliengel factorsaffectingdetectionprobabilitiesofacoustictransmittersusingpassivereceivers AT philchvala factorsaffectingdetectionprobabilitiesofacoustictransmittersusingpassivereceivers AT christopherlonghenry factorsaffectingdetectionprobabilitiesofacoustictransmittersusingpassivereceivers AT markpegg factorsaffectingdetectionprobabilitiesofacoustictransmittersusingpassivereceivers |