Variability in sensitivity of Anabat II bat detectors and a method of calibration

• Autorzy: Larson D.J. , Hayes J. P.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Use of bat detectors can be an effective method of comparing relative amounts of activity of bats among areas. If multiple detectors are used, differences in sensitivity of detectors could bias results. We investigated the variability in sensitivity and field of detection of 14 Anabat II bat detectors. Levels of sensitivity varied among detectors, greatly affecting relative sizes of the fields of detection. Calibration using an ultrasonic signal source can minimize variability in sensitivity among detectors.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Chiropterologica
• Rocznik: 2000
• Tom: 02
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.209-213,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Larson D.J.

• Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA

autor

Hayes J. P.

Bibliografia

• De Oliveira, M. C. 1998. Anabat system practical guide: survey techniques, collection and characterisation of reference bat echolocation calls, common field problems and problem solving. Department of Natural Resources, Queensland, Australia, 60 pp.
• Downes, C. 1982. A comparison of sensitivities of three bat detectors. Journal of Mammalogy, 63: 345-347.
• Fenton, M. B. 1970. A technique for monitoring bat activity with results obtained from different environments in southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 48: 847-851.
• Fenton, M. B., and G. P. Bell. 1981. Recognition of species of insectivorous bats by their echolocation calls. Journal of Mammalogy, 62: 233-243.
• Hayes, J. P. 2000. Assumptions and practical considerations in the design and interpretation of echolocation-monitoring studies. In Contributions to the study of bats: field use of acoustic detectors (W. L. Gannon and W. Bogdanowicz, eds.). Acta Chiropterologica, 225-236.
• Hayes, J. P., and M. A. Adam. 1996. The influence of logging riparian areas on habitat utilization by bats in western Oregon. Pp. 185-198, in Bats and Forests Symposium (R. M. R. Barclay and R. M. Brigham, eds.). British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, xiv + 292 pp.
• Humes, M. L., J. P. Hayes, and M. Collopy. 1999. Activity of bats in thinned, unthinned, and oldgrowth forests in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management, 63: 553-561.
• Krusic, R. A., M. Yamasaki, C. D. Neefus, and P. J. Perkins. 1996. Bat habitat use in White Mountain National Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management, 60: 625-631.
• O’Farrell, M. J., B. W. Miller, and W. L. Gannon. 1999. Qualitative identification of free-flying bats using the Anabat detector. Journal of Mammology, 80: 11-23.
• Pettersson. L. 1993. Ultrasound detectors: different techniques, purposes and methods. Pp. 11-19, in Proceedings of the First European Bat Detector Workshop (K. Kapteyn, ed.). Netherlands Bat Research Foundation, Amsterdam, 128 pp.
• Thomas, D. W., and S. D. West. 1984. On the use of ultrasonic detectors for bat species identification and the calibration of QMC Mini Bat Detectors. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 62: 2677-2679.
• Thomas, D. W., and S. D. West. 1989. Sampling methods for bats. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-243, 20 pp.
• Waters, D. A., and A. L. Walsh. 1994. The influence of bat detector brand on the quantitative estimation of bat activity. Bioacoustics, 5: 205-221.
• Zimmerman, G. S., and W. E. Glanz. 2000. Habitat use by bats in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management, 64: 1032-1040.

Uwagi

rekord w opracowaniu