Coral Reefs

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 693–702 | Cite as

Performance of remote acoustic receivers within a coral reef habitat: implications for array design

  • J. Q. Welsh
  • R. J. Fox
  • D. M. Webber
  • D. R. Bellwood
Report

Abstract

Remote monitoring technologies are increasingly being implemented in the marine environment to better understand the movement patterns of taxa. Coral reefs are no exception. However, there is a paucity of information relating to the performance of acoustic receivers on coral reefs. Our results suggest that the detection performance of acoustic receivers may be significantly impacted by the unique nature of the reef environment. This study assessed the performance of passive acoustic receivers on a typical inner-shelf fringing reef, Orpheus Island, on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. The detection range and diel performance variability of acoustic receivers was assessed using two parallel lines of 5 VR2W receivers spanning 125 m, deployed on the reef base and reef crest. Two 9-mm acoustic transmitters were moored at opposite ends of each receiver line. The working detection range for receivers was found to be approximately 90 m for the transmitter moored on the reef base and just 60 m for the transmitter moored on the reef crest. However, the detection range on the reef crest increased to 90 m when just the reef crest receivers were considered, highlighting importance of optimal receiver deployment. No diel patterns in receiver performance or detection capacities were detected, suggesting that no corrections are required when interpreting nocturnal versus diurnal activity patterns. We suggest that studies aiming for complete coverage of a site within a reef environment will require receivers in close (<100 m) proximity, and that the placement depth of receivers must be a major consideration, with shallow receivers exhibiting a greater detection range than those on the reef slope. Our results highlight the challenges imposed by coral reefs for acoustic telemetry and the importance of receiver placement for studies conducted within these habitats.

Keywords

Acoustic telemetry Passive monitoring Detection range Detection efficiency Coral reef 

Supplementary material

338_2012_892_MOESM1_ESM.docx (54 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 53 kb)

References

  1. Afonso P, Fontes J, Holland KN, Santos RS (2008) Social status determines behaviour and habitat usage in a temperate parrotfish: implications for marine reserve design. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 359:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afonso P, Fontes J, Holland KN, Santos RS (2009) Multi-scale patterns of habitat use in a highly mobile reef fish, the white trevally Pseudocaranx dentex, and their implications for marine reserve design. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 381:273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Au WW, Banks K (1998) The acoustics of the snapping shrimp Synalpheus parneomeris in Kaneohe Bay. J Acoust Soc Am 103:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardyshev VI (2007) Underwater ambient noise in shallow-water areas of the Indian Ocean within the tropical zone. Acoust Phys 53:167–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cato DH (1978) Marine biological choruses observed in tropical waters near Australia. J Acoust Soc Am 64:736–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clements S, Jepsen D, Karnowski M (2005) Optimization of an acoustic telemetry array for detecting transmitter-implanted fish. N Am J Fish Manag 25:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Egli DP, Babcock RC (2004) Ultrasonic tracking reveals multiple behavioural modes of snapper (Pagrus auratus) in a temperate no-take marine reserve. ICES J Mar Sci 61:1137–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fish MP (1964) Biological sources of sustained ambient sea noise. In: Tavolga WN (ed) Marine bio-acoustics. Pergamon Press, New York, pp 175–194Google Scholar
  9. Fox RJ, Bellwood DR (2007) Quantifying herbivory across a coral reef depth gradient. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 339:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hartill BW, Morrison MA, Smith MD, Boubée J, Parsons DM (2003) Diurnal and tidal movements of snapper (Pagrus auratus, Sparidae) in an estuarine environment. Mar Freshw Res 54:931–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA, Heuter RE (2004) Estimation of shark home ranges using passive monitoring techniques. Environ Biol Fish 71:135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heupel MR, Semmens JM, Hobday AJ (2006) Automated acoustic tracking of aquatic animals: scales, design and deployment of listening station arrays. Mar Freshw Res 57:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heupel MR, Reiss KL, Yeiser BG, Simpfendorfer CA (2008) Effects of biofouling on performance of moored data logging acoustic receivers. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 6:327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klimley AP, Voegeli F, Beavers SC, Le Boeuf BJ (1998) Automated listening stations for tagged marine fish. J Mar Technol Soc 32:94–101Google Scholar
  15. Lacroix GL, Voegeli FA, (2000) Development of Automated Monitoring Systems for Ultrasonic Transmitters. In: Moore A, Russell I (eds) Fish telemetry: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Fish Telemetry in Europe. CEFAS: Lowestoft, UK, pp 37–50Google Scholar
  16. Leis JM, Carson-Ewart BM, Cato DH (2002) Sound detection in situ by the larvae of a coral-reef damselfish (Pomacentridae). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 232:259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. March D, Palmer M, Alós 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 reserve. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 400:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marshell A, Mills JS, Rhodes KL, McIlwain J (2011) Passive acoustic telemetry reveals highly variable home range and movement patterns among unicornfish within a marine reserve. Coral Reefs 3:631–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCauley RD, Cato DH (2000) Patterns of fish calling in a nearshore environment in the Great Barrier Reef. Philos Trans R Soc B 355:1289–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meyer CG, Papastamatiou YP, Timothy CB (2010) Differential movement patterns and site fidelity among trophic groups of reef fishes in a Hawaiian marine protected area. Mar Biol 157:1499–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Murchie KJ, Schwager E, Cooke SJ, Danylchuk A, Danylchuk S, Goldberg T, Suski C, Philipp D (2010) Spatial ecology of juvenile lemon sharks (Negaprion brevirostris) in tidal creeks and coastal waters of Eleuthera, The Bahamas. Environ Biol Fish 89:95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Toole AC, Danylchuk AJ, Goldberg TL, Suski CD, Philipp DP, Brooks E, Cooke SJ (2011) Spatial ecology and residency patterns of adult great barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda) in coastal waters of the Bahamas. Mar Biol 158:2227–2237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Payne NL, Gillanders BM, Webber DM, Semmens JM (2010) Interpreting diel activity patterns from acoustic telemetry: the need for controls. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 419:295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Radford CA, Jeffs AG, Tindle CT, Montgomery JC (2008) Temporal patterns in ambient noise of biological origin from a shallow water temperate reef. Oecologia 156:921–929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Semmens JM, Buxton CD, Forbes E, Phelan MJ (2010) Spatial and temporal use of spawning aggregation sites by the tropical sciaenid Protonibea diacanthus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 403:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simpfendorfer CA, Heupel MR, Collins AB (2008) Variation in the performance of acoustic receivers and its implications for positioning algorithms in a riverine setting. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:482–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simpfendorfer CA, Yeiser BG, Wiley TR, Poulakis GR, Stevens PW, Heupel MR (2011) Environmental influences on the spatial ecology of juvenile smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata): results from acoustic monitoring. PLoS ONE 6:e16918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simpson SD, Meekan MG, Jeffs A, Montgomery JC, McCauley RD (2008a) Settlement-stage coral reef fish prefer the higher-frequency invertebrate-generated audible component of reef noise. Anim Behav 75:1861–1868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Simpson SD, Jeffs A, Montgomery JC, McCauley RD, Meekan MG (2008b) Nocturnal relocation of adult and juvenile coral reef fishes in response to reef noise. Coral Reefs 27:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Voegeli FA, Pincock DG (1996) Overview of underwater acoustics as it applies to telemetry. In: Baras E, Philippart JC (eds) Underwater biotelemetry. University of Liege, Liege, pp 23–30Google Scholar
  31. Winter HV, Jansen HM, Bruijs MCM (2006) Assessing the impact of hydropower and fisheries on downstream migrating silver eel, Anguilla anguilla, by telemetry in the River Meuse. Ecol Freshw Fish 15:221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Q. Welsh
    • 1
  • R. J. Fox
    • 1
  • D. M. Webber
    • 2
  • D. R. Bellwood
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and School of Marine and Tropical BiologyJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Vemco, Amirix Systems Inc.HalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations