European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 459–463 | Cite as

Performance and accuracy of Argos transmitters for wildlife monitoring in Southern Russia

  • Maxim Dubinin
  • Anna Lushchekina
  • Volker C. Radeloff
Short Communication

Abstract

Satellite telemetry is a powerful tool for monitoring animal movements, and Argos transmitters have been widely used. Unfortunately, only few studies have systematically evaluated the performance of Argos satellite collars for wildlife monitoring. We tested Argos satellite telemetry transmitters at two power levels in Southern Russia (five transmitters at 0.5 W and three at 1 W). Performance metrics were derived from the number and accuracy of location estimates and the number of days on which collars transmitted or failed to transmit data. Our results suggest that the performance of Argos collars in our study region was poor. At the power level of 0.5 W, 55% of the sessions resulted in at least one transmission, but only 21% provided a location estimate. The percentage of successful sessions did not increase much after setting the power level to 1.0 W (63%), but the increase in the number of location estimates was considerable (54%). At either power level, the majority of the location estimates were in the low quality classes though (80% nonstandard locations with 0.5 W and 45% with 1 W). Positional accuracies were 0.5, 0.7, 1.5, and 4.6 km for location classes 3, 2, 1, and 0, respectively. For nonstandard location classes A and B, positional accuracies were 2.1 and 18.3 km. Careful testing of transmitters is recommended before deployment, as the location of the study area can seriously affect performance.

Keywords

Argos Satellite telemetry Accuracy Performance 

References

  1. Boyce WM, Weisenberger ME (2005) The rise and fall of psoroptic scabies in bighorn sheep in the San Andres Mountains, New Mexico. J Wildl Dis 41:525–531PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Britten MW, Kennedy PL, Ambrose S (1999) Performance and accuracy evaluation of small satellite transmitters. J Wildl Manage 63:1349–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CLS. (2007) Argos user’s manual. Available at: http://www.argos-system.org/manual. Last accessed: January, 2008.
  4. Fancy SG, Pank LF, Douglas DC, Curby CH, Garner GW, Amstrup SC, Regelin WL (1988) Satellite telemetry: a new tool for wildlife research and management. US Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication: 1–54Google Scholar
  5. Grigg GC, Pople AR, Beard LA (1995) Movements of feral camels in central Australia determined by satellite telemetry. J Arid Environ 31:459–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gros P, Malardé J-P, Woodward B (2006) Argos performance in Europe. Tracker News 7:8Google Scholar
  7. Hays GC, Akesson S, Godley BJ, Luschi P, Santidrian P (2001) The implications of location accuracy for the interpretation of satellite-tracking data. Anim Behav 61:1035–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ito TY, Miura N, Lhagvasuren B, Enkhbileg D, Takatsuki S, Tsunekawa A, Jiang Z (2006) Satellite tracking of Mongolian gazelles (Procapra gutturosa) and habitat shifts in their seasonal ranges. J Zool 269:291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaczensky P, Walzer C (2006). Asiatic Wild Ass collaring mission for the Great Gobi, a strictly protected area in Mongolia. Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, University of Veterinary MedicineGoogle Scholar
  10. Keating KA, Brewster WG, Key CH (1991) Satellite telemetry—performance of animal-tracking systems. J Wildl Manage 55:160–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Potapov E, Dubinin M (2005) Argos-tools manual. The Falcon Research Institute, National Avian Research Center, Carmarthen, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  12. Soutullo A, Cadahia L, Urios V, Ferrer M, Negro JJ (2007) Accuracy of lightweight satellite telemetry: a case study in the Iberian Peninsula. J Wildl Manage 71:1010–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tamstorf MP, Aastrup P, Cuyler LC (2005) Modelling critical caribou summer ranges in West Greenland. Polar Biol 28:714–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Microwave Telemetry (2007) Interference to the Argos system. Tracker News 8:6Google Scholar
  15. Vincent C, McConnell BJ, Ridoux V, Fedak MA (2002) Assessment of Argos location accuracy from satellite tags deployed on captive gray seals. Mar Mamm Sci 18:156–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. White NA, Sjoberg M (2002) Accuracy of satellite positions from free-ranging grey seals using ARGOS. Polar Biol 25:629–631Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maxim Dubinin
    • 1
  • Anna Lushchekina
    • 2
  • Volker C. Radeloff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest and Wildlife EcologyUniversity of Wisconsin–MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Ecology and EvolutionRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations