Spatial and temporal variation in positioning probability of acoustic telemetry arrays: fine-scale variability and complex interactions

AbstractBackground As popularity of positional acoustic telemetry systems increases, so does the need to better understand how they perform in real-world applications, where variation in performance can bias study conclusions. Studies assessing variability in positional telemetry system performance have focused primarily on position accuracy, or comparing performance inside and outside the array. Here, we explored spatial and temporal variation in positioning probability within a 140-receiver Vemco Positioning System (VPS) array used to monitor lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush, spawning behavior over 23 km2 in Lake Huron, North America.MethodsVariability in VPS positioning probability was assessed between August and November from 2012 to 2014 using 43 stationary transmitters distributed throughout the array. Various analyses were used to relate positioning probability to number of fish transmitters in the array, wave height, and thermal stratification. We also assessed the prevalence of ‘close proximity detection interference’ (CPDI) in our array by analyzing detection probability of 35 transmitters on collocated receivers.ResultsPositioning probability of the VPS array varied greatly over time and space. Number of fish transmitters present in the array was a significant driver of reduced positioning probability, especially during lake trout spawning period when the fish were aggregated. Relationships between positioning probability and environmental variables were complex and varied over small spatial and temporal scales. One possible confounding variable was the large range of water depth over which receivers were deployed. Another confounding factor was the high prevalence of CPDI, which decreased exponentially with water depth and was less evident when wave heights were higher than normal.ConclusionsSome variables that negatively influenced positioning can be minimized through careful planning (e.g., number of tagged fish released, transmitter power level). However, results suggested that the acoustic environment was highly variable over small spatial and temporal scales in response to complex interactions between many variables. Therefore, models that predict positioning or detection efficiencies as a function of environmental variables may not be attainable in most systems. The best defense against biased study conclusions is incorporation of in situ measures of system performance that allow for retrospective analysis of array performance after a study is completed.

[1]  M. Muggeo,et al.  segmented: An R package to Fit Regression Models with Broken-Line Relationships , 2008 .

[2]  Angela B. Collins,et al.  Variation in the performance of acoustic receivers and its implication for positioning algorithms in a riverine setting , 2008 .

[3]  A. Klimley,et al.  Estimating Survival and Migration Route Probabilities of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta , 2010 .

[4]  A. Klimley,et al.  Movement and home range of pink abalone Haliotis corrugata: implications for restoration and population recovery , 2013 .

[5]  Steven Degraer,et al.  Residency, site fidelity and habitat use of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) at an offshore wind farm using acoustic telemetry. , 2013, Marine environmental research.

[6]  H. Mitamura,et al.  Detection Range and Horizontal Accuracy of a Fine-Scale Positioning Telemetry System at Kaeng Krachan Reservoir, Thailand , 2014 .

[7]  G. L. Lacroix,et al.  Development of miniature pingers for tracking Atlantic salmon smolts at sea , 1998 .

[8]  D M Webber,et al.  Design and calibration of an acoustic telemetry system subject to upwelling events , 2009 .

[9]  A. Hearn,et al.  Performance of an ultrasonic telemetry positioning system under varied environmental conditions , 2014, Animal Biotelemetry.

[10]  F. M. Voegeli,et al.  Applications and performance of Radio-Acoustic Positioning and Telemetry (RAPT) systems , 1998, Hydrobiologia.

[11]  T. Beresford,et al.  CAGE , 1991, The Lancet.

[12]  W. Watson,et al.  A self-contained system for observing and quantifying the behavior of Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, in an offshore aquaculture cage , 2009 .

[13]  Christine Argillier,et al.  Testing the VEMCO Positioning System: spatial distribution of the probability of location and the positioning error in a reservoir , 2013, Animal Biotelemetry.

[14]  D. Webber,et al.  Close proximity detection interference with acoustic telemetry: the importance of considering tag power output in low ambient noise environments , 2015, Animal Biotelemetry.

[15]  C.,et al.  Detection Efficiency in Telemetry Studies: Definitions and Evaluation Methods , 2012 .

[16]  David B. Marx,et al.  Mitigating spatial differences in observation rate of automated telemetry systems , 1998 .

[17]  Richard D. Hedger,et al.  Environmental influence on transmitter detection probability in biotelemetry: developing a general model of acoustic transmission , 2013 .

[18]  S. C. Riley,et al.  Spawning site fidelity of wild and hatchery lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) in northern Lake Huron , 2016 .

[19]  H. Akima,et al.  Interpolation of Irregularly and Regularly Spaced Data , 2015 .

[20]  Jayson M. Semmens,et al.  Interpreting diel activity patterns from acoustic telemetry: the need for controls , 2010 .

[21]  S. C. Riley,et al.  Lake trout in northern Lake Huron spawn on submerged drumlins , 2014 .

[22]  Martin Wæver Pedersen,et al.  Performance Assessment of Two Whole-Lake Acoustic Positional Telemetry Systems - Is Reality Mining of Free-Ranging Aquatic Animals Technologically Possible? , 2015, PloS one.

[23]  Hervé Capra,et al.  Probability of detection and positioning error of a hydro acoustic telemetry system in a fast-flowing river: intrinsic and environmental determinants , 2012 .

[24]  D. Bates,et al.  Linear Mixed-Effects Models using 'Eigen' and S4 , 2015 .

[25]  A. T. Fisk,et al.  A review of detection range testing in aquatic passive acoustic telemetry studies , 2013, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.

[26]  Peter Dalgaard,et al.  R Development Core Team (2010): R: A language and environment for statistical computing , 2010 .

[27]  Christopher G. Lowe,et al.  Testing a new acoustic telemetry technique to quantify long-term, fine-scale movements of aquatic animals , 2011 .

[28]  Christopher G. Lowe,et al.  Habitat use, movements and site fidelity of the gray smooth-hound shark (Mustelus californicus Gill 1863) in a newly restored southern California estuary , 2011 .

[29]  Tracey W. Steig,et al.  A method for estimating the “position accuracy” of acoustic fish tags , 2002 .

[30]  Brian R. Lynch,et al.  Circatidal rhythm of free-roaming sub-tidal green crabs, Carcinus maenas , revealed by radio-acoustic positional telemetry , 2007 .

[31]  M. Power,et al.  Forebay use and entrainment rates of resident adult fish in a large hydropower reservoir , 2013 .

[32]  Colin A. Simpfendorfer,et al.  Effects of biofouling on performance of moored data logging acoustic receivers , 2008 .

[33]  Chris J. Harvey,et al.  Comparison of fine-scale acoustic monitoring systems using home range size of a demersal fish , 2011 .

[34]  Jonathan H. Grabowski,et al.  Using acoustic telemetry to observe the effects of a groundfish predator (Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua) on movement of the American lobster (Homarus americanus)1 , 2013 .

[35]  Thomas M. Grothues,et al.  Testing an autonomous acoustic telemetry positioning system for fine-scale space use in marine animals , 2013 .

[36]  Steven J. Cooke,et al.  Use of CDMA Acoustic Telemetry to Document 3-D Positions of Fish: Relevance to the Design and Monitoring of Aquatic Protected Areas , 2005 .