Acoustic telemetry array evolution: From species- and project-specific designs to large-scale, multispecies, cooperative networks

Abstract Acoustic telemetry is a powerful tool for investigating the movement ecology of aquatic animals. As the number of studies using passive acoustic telemetry technology has grown in recent years, so has membership in regional collaborative networks in which methodologies and detection data are shared among researchers. These networks can significantly augment research projects by increasing the geographic coverage of detection data beyond the initial monitored area, and encourage the development of research collaborations with the goal of improving aquatic research management. As tags expire and projects end, researchers must decide whether to maintain their receiver stations, adjust the configuration to accommodate a new scope of research, or remove the stations. We assessed telemetry data from two projects designed to monitor fishes in nearshore and offshore habitats of the eastern Gulf of Mexico to determine the configuration of receiver stations most informative for network scale monitoring. Modeled on the Index of Relative Importance commonly used to analyze fish diets, the Receiver Efficiency Index (REI) allowed us to reduce the size of the two arrays from 59 to 24 and 33 to 21 stations, reductions of 59% and 27%, while retaining more than 75% of all detections. The application of this method has general relevance to understanding the spatial dynamics of these arrays while providing researchers with a quantitative tool to guide decision making that can maximize spatial coverage at the lowest maintenance cost.

[1]  C. Dickman,et al.  The index of relative importance: an alternative approach to reducing bias in descriptive studies of animal diets , 2002 .

[2]  Simon de Lestang,et al.  Acoustic tracking: issues affecting design, analysis and interpretation of data from movement studies , 2012 .

[3]  J. Kocik,et al.  Aquatic animal telemetry: A panoramic window into the underwater world , 2015, Science.

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

[5]  L. Pinkas,et al.  Fish Bulletin 152. Food Habits of Albacore, Bluefin Tuna, and Bonito In California Waters , 1970 .

[6]  E. Leone,et al.  More Than Just a Spawning Location: Examining Fine Scale Space Use of Two Estuarine Fish Species at a Spawning Aggregation Site , 2017, Front. Mar. Sci..

[7]  H. L. Pratt,et al.  Partial migration of the nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum (Bonnaterre), from the Dry Tortugas Islands , 2018, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[8]  John T. Finn,et al.  Applying network methods to acoustic telemetry data: Modeling the movements of tropical marine fishes , 2014 .

[9]  M. Wetz,et al.  Moving Forward in a Reverse Estuary: Habitat Use and Movement Patterns of Black Drum (Pogonias cromis) Under Distinct Hydrological Regimes , 2018, Estuaries and Coasts.

[10]  J. Landsberg,et al.  Effects of Karenia brevis red tide on the spatial distribution of spawning aggregations of sand seatrout Cynoscion arenarius in Tampa Bay, Florida , 2013 .

[11]  S. Kessel,et al.  Philopatry and Regional Connectivity of the Great Hammerhead Shark, Sphyrna mokarran in the U.S. and Bahamas , 2017, Front. Mar. Sci..

[12]  Mark A. Pegg,et al.  Evaluation of acoustic telemetry grids for determining aquatic animal movement and survival , 2018 .

[13]  Christopher M Holbrook,et al.  Acoustic telemetry and fisheries management. , 2017, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

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

[15]  S. Lowerre‐Barbieri,et al.  Site fidelity and reproductive timing at a spotted seatrout spawning aggregation site: individual versus population scale behavior , 2013 .

[16]  E. Cortés.  A critical review of methods of studying fish feeding based on analysis of stomach contents: application to elasmobranch fishes , 1997 .

[17]  Shaun Clements,et al.  Optimization of an Acoustic Telemetry Array for Detecting Transmitter‐Implanted Fish , 2005 .

[18]  Jayson M. Semmens,et al.  Use of acoustic telemetry for spatial management of southern calamary Sepioteuthis australis, a highly mobile inshore squid species , 2006 .

[19]  Colin A. Simpfendorfer,et al.  Estimation of short-term centers of activity from an array of omnidirectional hydrophones and its use in studying animal movements , 2002 .

[20]  D. M. Webber,et al.  Performance of remote acoustic receivers within a coral reef habitat: implications for array design , 2012, Coral Reefs.

[21]  Alistair J. Hobday,et al.  Automated acoustic tracking of aquatic animals: scales, design and deployment of listening station arrays , 2006 .

[22]  S. Lowerre‐Barbieri,et al.  Assessing reproductive behavior important to fisheries management: a case study with red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus. , 2016, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[23]  Robert G. Harcourt,et al.  Optimising the design of large-scale acoustic telemetry curtains , 2017 .

[24]  Finn Økland,et al.  Positioning of aquatic animals based on time-of-arrival and random walk models using YAPS (Yet Another Positioning Solver) , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[25]  M. Heithaus,et al.  Can animal habitat use patterns influence their vulnerability to extreme climate events? An estuarine sportfish case study , 2017, Global change biology.

[26]  Nicholas A Farmer,et al.  Methods for assessment of short-term coral reef fish movements within an acoustic array , 2013, Movement ecology.

[27]  Edward J. Brooks,et al.  Developing a deeper understanding of animal movements and spatial dynamics through novel application of network analyses , 2012 .