Using maintenance records from a long-term sensor monitoring network to evaluate the relationship between maintenance schedule and data quality
Sensor-based environmental monitoring networks are beginning to provide the large-scale, long-term data required to address important fundamental and applied questions in ecology. However, the data quality from deployed sensors can be difficult and costly to ensure. In this study, we use maintenance records from the 12-year history of Louisiana’s Coastwide Reference Monitoring System (CRMS) to assess the relationship between various dimensions of data quality and the frequency of field visits to the sensors. We use hierarchical Bayesian models to estimate the probability of missing data, the probability that a corrective offset of the sensor is required, and the magnitude of required offsets for water elevation and salinity data. We compared these estimates to predetermined risk thresholds to the help identify maintenance schedules that balanced the efficient use of labor resources without sacrificing data quality. We found that the relationship between data quality and increasing maintenance interval varied across metrics. Additionally, for most metrics, the maintenance interval when the metric’s credible interval and risk threshold intersected varied throughout the year and with wetland type. These results suggest that complex maintenance schedules, in which field visits vary in frequency throughout the year and with environmental context, are likely to provide the best tradeoff between labor cost and data quality. This analysis demonstrates that quantitative assessment of maintenance records can positively impact the sustainability of long-term data collection projects by helping identify new potential efficiencies in monitoring program management.
KeywordsHydrological recorders Data integrity Coastwide Reference Monitoring System Program management Hierarchical Bayes
This work was supported by the CRMS Program, which is administered by CPRA and USGS and is funded through Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act, the State of Louisiana, with federal resource agencies including the USFWS, NMFS, NRCS, EPA, and USACOE.
Compliance with ethical standards
Any use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
- Bandari, S., Bergmann, N., Jurdak, R., Kusy, B. (1221). Time series data analysis of wireless sensor network measurements of temperature. Sensors, 17.Google Scholar
- Campbell, J.L., Rustad, L.E., Porter, J.H., Taylor, J.R., Dereszynski, E.W., Shanley, J.B., Gries, C., Henshaw, D.L., Martin, M.E., Sheldon, W.M., Boorse, E.R. (2013). Quantity is nothing without quality: automated QA/QC for streaming environmental sensor data. Bioscience, 63(7), 574–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. (2017). Louisiana’s comprehensive master plan for a sustainable coast. Baton Rouge: Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana.Google Scholar
- Folse, T.M., Sharp, L.A., West, J.L., Hymel, M.K., Troutman, J.P., McGinnis, T.E., Weifenbach, D., Boshart, W.M., Rodrigue, L.B., Richardi, D.C., Wood, W.B., Miller, C.M. (2018). A Standard operating procedures manual for the coast-wide reference monitoring system-wetlands: methods for site establishment, data collection, and quality assurance/quality control, (p. 226). Baton Rouge: Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority.Google Scholar
- Plummer, M. (2016). rjags: Bayesian graphical models using MCMC. R package version 4-6.Google Scholar
- Plummer, M., Best, N., Cowles, K., Vines, K. (2006). CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News, 6, 7–11.Google Scholar
- Rode, M., Wade, A.J., Cohen, M.J., Hensley, R.T., Bowes, M.J., Kirchner, J.W., Arhonditsis, G.B., Jordan, P., Kronvang, B., Halliday, S.J., Skeffington, R.A., Rozemeijer, J.C., Aubert, A.H., Rinke, K., Jomaa, S. (2016). Sensors in the stream: the high-frequency wave of the present. Environmental Science & Technology, 50, 10297–10307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wagner, R.J., Boulger, R.W., Oblinger, C.J., Smith, B.A. (2006). Guidlines and standard procedures for continuous water-quality monitors: station operation, record computation, and data reporting. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods.Google Scholar