Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 158, Issue 10, pp 2377–2387 | Cite as

Comparison of fine-scale acoustic monitoring systems using home range size of a demersal fish

  • Kelly S. AndrewsEmail author
  • Nick Tolimieri
  • Greg D. Williams
  • Jameal F. Samhouri
  • Chris J. Harvey
  • Phillip S. Levin
Method

Abstract

We compared the results from fixed acoustic transmitters and transmitters implanted in lingcod Ophiodon elongatus provided by two fine-scale passive acoustic monitoring systems: the older Vemco© Radio Acoustic Positioning (VRAP) system and the newer VR2W Positioning System (VPS) with either three or four receivers. The four-receiver VPS method calculated five times more positions of lingcod than VRAP and more than twice as many as the three-receiver VPS. Calculated positions of fixed transmitters were less precise with VRAP than either VPS approach. Measurements of home range for lingcod were similar between the four-receiver VPS and VRAP, which were both greater than the three-receiver VPS. Comparisons varied when lingcod were in/near complex habitats. As new technology develops, it is important to understand how new methods compare to previous methods. This may be important when describing patterns of movement or habitat use in the context of changes in habitat or management efforts.

Keywords

Home Range Generalize Linear Mixed Model Hydrophone Home Range Size Complex Habitat 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank G. & S. Parmelee of the Culthius Bay Community Association for providing a platform (their garage) for the VRAP base station, computer, and radio antenna; F. Smith from Vemco© for processing the VPS data and A. Dufault for help maintaining VRAP buoys during the study. The use of trademark system names does not constitute the endorsement of any particular commercial product; we only use commercial names to ease discussion of the different methods. We also thank F. Smith, D. Allan, and two anonymous reviewers for useful comments on this manuscript. Special thanks to Rodrigo and Gabriela for inspiration during the writing process.

References

  1. Andrews KS, Williams GD, Farrer D, Tolimieri N, Harvey CJ, Bargmann G, Levin PS (2009) Diel activity patterns of sixgill sharks, Hexanchus griseus: the ups and downs of an apex predator. Anim Behav 78:525–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cartamil DP, Lowe CG (2004) Diel movement patterns of ocean sunfish Mola mola off southern California. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 266:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Espinoza M, Farrugia TJ, Webber DM, Smith F, Lowe CG (2011) Testing a new acoustic telemetry technique to quantify long-term, fine-scale movements of aquatic animals. Fish Res 108(2–3):364–371. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2011.01.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Jackson GD, O’Dor RK, Andrade Y (2005) First tests of hybrid acoustic/archival tags on squid and cuttlefish. Mar Freshwater Res 56(4):425–430. doi: 10.1071/mf04248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jadot C, Donnay A, Colas ML, Cornet Y, Bégout Anras ML (2006) Activity patterns, home-range size, and habitat utilization of Sarpa salpa (Teleostei: sparidae) in Mediterranean waters. Ices J Mar Sci 63:128–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jorgensen SJ, Kaplan DM, Klimley AP, Morgan SG, O’Farrell MR, Botsford LW (2006) Limited movement in blue rockfish Sebastes mystinus: internal structure of home range. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 327:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Katajisto J, Moilanen A (2006) Kernel-based home range method for data with irregular sampling intervals. Ecol Modell 194:405–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kerwath SE, Gotz A, Attwood CG, Sauer WHH, Wilke CG (2007) Area utilisation and activity patterns of roman Chrysoblephus laticeps (Sparidae) in a small marine protected area. Afr J Mar Sci 29(2):259–270. doi: 10.2989/ajms.2007.29.2.10.193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Klimley A, Le Boeuf B, Cantara K, Richert J, Davis S, Van Sommeran S (2001) Radio acoustic positioning as a tool for studying site-specific behavior of the white shark and other large marine species. Mar Biol 138(2):429–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lowe CG, Topping DT, Cartamil DP, Papastamatiou YP (2003) Movement patterns, home range, and habitat utilization of adult kelp bass Paralabrax clathratus in a temperate no-take marine reserve. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 256:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. March D, Plamer M, Alos J, Grau A, Cardona F (2010) Short-term residence, home range size and diel patterns of the painted comber Serranus scriba in a temperate marine researve. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 400:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mitamura H, Uchida K, Miyamoto Y, Arai N, Kakihara T, Yokota T, Okuyama J, Kawabata Y, Yasuda T (2009) Preliminary study on homing, site fidelity, and diel movement of black rockfish Sebastes inermis measured by acoustic telemetry. Fish Sci 75(5):1133–1140. doi: 10.1007/s12562-009-0142-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. O’Dor R, Andrade Y, Webber D, Sauer W, Roberts M, Smale M, Voegeli F (1998) Applications and performance of Radio-Acoustic Positioning and Telemetry (RAPT) systems. Hydrobiologia 371–372:1–8. doi: 10.1023/a:1017006701496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. O’Dor RK, Aitken JP, Babcock RC, Bolden SK, Seino S, Zeller DC, Jackson GD (2001) Using radio-acoustic positioning and telemetry (RAPT) to define and assess marine protected areas (MPAs). In: Sibert JR, Nielsen JL (eds) Electronic tagging and tracking in marine fisheries. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp 147–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Parsons DM, Babcock RC, Hankin RKS, Willis TJ, Aitken JP, O’Dor RK, Jackson GD (2003) Snapper Pagrus auratus (Sparidae) home range dynamics: acoustic tagging studies in a marine reserve. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 262:253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sauer WHH, Roberts MJ, Lipinski MR, Smale MJ, Hanlon RT, Webber DM, O’Dor RK (1997) Choreography of the squid’s “nuptial dance”. Biol Bull 192(2):203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Simpfendorfer CA, Heupel MR, Collins AB (2008) Variation in the performance of acoustic receivers and its implication for positioning algorithms in a riverine setting. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65(3):482–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tolimieri N, Andrews KS, Williams GD, Katz SL, Levin PS (2009) Home range size and patterns of space use by lingcod, copper rockfish and quillback rockfish in relation to diel and tidal cycles. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 380:229–243. doi: 10.3354/Meps0793 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Topping DT, Lowe CG, Caselle JE (2005) Home range and habitat utilization of adult California sheephead, Semicossyphus pulcher (Labridae), in a temperate no-take marine reserve. Mar Biol 147:301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Topping DT, Lowe CG, Caselle JE (2006) Site fidelity and seasonal movement patterns of adult California sheephead Semicossyphus pulcher (Labridae): an acoustic monitoring study. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 326:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70(1):164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zamora L, Moreno-Amich R (2002) Quantifying the activity and movement of perch in a temperate lake by integrating acoustic telemetry and a geographic information system. Hydrobiologia 483(1):209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag (outside the USA) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelly S. Andrews
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nick Tolimieri
    • 1
  • Greg D. Williams
    • 1
  • Jameal F. Samhouri
    • 1
  • Chris J. Harvey
    • 1
  • Phillip S. Levin
    • 1
  1. 1.Northwest Fisheries Science CenterSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations