Methods for assessment of short-term coral reef fish movements within an acoustic array

Movement Ecology

Erik C Franklin¹  Steven G Smith²  Jerald S Ault²  Nicholas A Farmer³ 

[1] University of Hawai’i at Manoa, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology, PO Box 1346, Kaneohe, HI 96744, USA;Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries, University of Miami, Rosenstiel School for Marine and Atmospheric Science, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149, USA;NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Ave South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701, USA

关键词: Reef fish;    Dry Tortugas;    Fish movements;    Coral reef;    Acoustic array;    Marine reserves;    Acoustic telemetry;   

Others  :  802938
DOI  :  10.1186/2051-3933-1-7

 received in 2013-01-02, accepted in 2013-06-21,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Arrays of passive receivers are a widely used tool for tracking the movements of acoustically-tagged fish in marine ecosystems; however, the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of coral reef environments pose challenges for the interpretation of tag detection data. To improve this situation for reef fishes, we introduced a novel response variable method that treats signal detections as proportions (i.e., percent transmissions detected or “detection rates”) and compared this against prior approaches to examine the influence of array and transmitter performance, signal distance and environmental factors on detection rates. We applied this method to tagged snappers and groupers in the Florida reef ecosystem and controlled range-tests on static targets in Bayboro Harbor, Florida, to provide methodological guidance for the planning and evaluation of passive array studies for coral reef fishes.

Results

Logistic regression analysis indicated detection rates were primarily a non-linear function of tag distance from receiver. A ‘model-weighted’ function was developed to incorporate the non-linear relationship between detection rate and distance to provide robust positioning estimates and allow for easy extension to tags with different ping rates.

Conclusions

Optimal acoustic array design requires balancing the interplay between receiver spacing, detection rates, and positioning error. Spacing receivers at twice the distance of the modeled 50% detection rate may be appropriate when quantification of overall space use is a priority, and would provide a minimum of 75% detection rate. However, for research where missing detections within the array is unacceptable or time-at-arrival based fine-scale positioning is needed, tighter receiver spacing may be required to maintain signal detection probability near 100%.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Farmer et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Farmer NA, Ault JS: Grouper and snapper movements and habitat use in Dry Tortugas, Florida. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2011, 433:169-184.
• [2]Heupel MR, Semmens JM, Hobday AJ: Automated acoustic tracking of aquatic animals: scales, design, and deployment of listening station arrays. Mar Freshw Res 2006, 57:1-13.
• [3]Topping DT, Lowe CG, Caselle JE: Site fidelity and seasonal movement patterns of adult California sheephead Semicossyphus pulcher Labridae: an acoustic monitoring study. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2006, 326:257-267.
• [4]Dresser BK, Kneib RT: Site fidelity and movement patterns of wild subadult red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus Linnaeus, within a salt marsh-dominated estuarine landscape. Fisheries Manage Ecol 2007, 143:183-190.
• [5]Hedger RD, Martin F, Dodson JJ, Hatin D, Caron F, Whoriskey FG: The optimized interpolation of fish positions and speeds in an array of fixed acoustic receivers. ICES J Mar Sci 2008, 65:1248-1259.
• [6]Hedger RD, Martin F, Hatin D, Caron F, Whoriskey FG, Dodson JJ: Active migration of wild Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smolt through a coastal embayment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2008, 355:235-246.
• [7]Simpfendorfer CA, Heupel MR, Hueter RE: Estimation of short-term centers of activity from an array of omnidirectional hydrophones and its use in studying animal movements. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2002, 59:23-32.
• [8]How JR, de LeStang S: Acoustic tracking: issues affecting design, analysis and interpretation of data from movement studies. Mar Freshw Res 2012, 63:321-324.
• [9]Giacalone VM, D’Anna G, Garofalo G, Collins K, Badalamenti F: Estimation of positioning error from an array of automated omni-directional receivers in an artificial reef area. In Aquatic telemetry: advances and applications: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Fish Telemetry held in Europe, Ustica, Italy, 9–13 June 2003. Edited by Spedicato MT, Lembo G, Marmulla G. Rome, Italy: FAO/COISPA; 2005:245-253.
• [10]Hobday AJ, Pincock D: Estimating detection probabilities for linear acoustic monitoring arrays. In Advances in Fish Tagging and Marking Technology, Section 3. 76th edition. Edited by McKenzie J, Parsons B, Seitz A, Keller Kopf K, Mesa M, Phelps Q. Bethesda, Maryland, USA: American Fisheries Society; 2012. [American Fisheries Society: American Fisheries Society Symposium]
• [11]Marshell A, Mills J, Rhodes K, Mcilwain J: Passive acoustic telemetry reveals highly variable home range and movement patterns among unicornfish within a marine reserve. Coral Reefs 2011, 30:631-642.
• [12]Espinoza M, Farrugia TJ, Webber DM, Smith F, Lowe CG: Testing a new acoustic telemetry technique to quantify long-term, fine-scale movements of aquatic animals. Fish Res 2011, 108:364-371.
• [13]Andrews KS, Tolimieri N, Williams GD, Samhouri JF, Harvey CJ, Levin PS: Comparison of fine-scale acoustic monitoring systems using home range size of a demersal fish. Mar Biol 2011, 158:2377-2387.
• [14]Dean MJ, Hoffman WS, Armstrong MP: Disruption of an Atlantic Cod Spawning Aggregation Resulting from the Opening of a Directed Gill-Net Fishery. North Am J Fisheries Manage 2012, 32:124-134.
• [15]Carroll RJ, Ruppert D: Power transformations when fitting theoretical models to data. J Am Stat Assoc 1984, 79:321-328.
• [16]Akaike H: A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automatic Control 1974, 196:716-723.
• [17]Burnham KP, Anderson DR: Model selection and multi-model inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2002.
• [18]MacDonald D, Ball F, Hough N: The evaluation of home range size and configuration using radio tracking data. In A handbook on bio-telemetry and radio tracking. Edited by Amlaner C, MacDonald D. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1980:405-424.
• [19]Worton BJ: Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 1989, 701:164-168.
• [20]Franklin EC, Ault JS, Smith SG, Luo J, Meester GA, Diaz GA, Chiappone M, Swanson DW, Miller SL, Bohnsack JA: Benthic habitat mapping in the Tortugas region. Mar Geod 2003, 26:19-34.
• [21]Simpfendorfer CA, Heupel MR, Collins AB: Variation in the performance of acoustic receivers and its implication for positioning algorithms in a riverine setting. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2008, 65:482-492.
• [22]Pincock DG, Voegeli FW: A Quick Course in Underwater Telemetry Systems. Nova Scotia, Canada: VEMCO Ltd.; 2002.
• [23]Wenz GM: Acoustic ambient noise in the ocean: Spectra and sources. J Acoust Soc Am 1962, 34:1936-1956.
• [24]Wenz GM: Curious noises and the sonic environment in the ocean. In Marine Bio-Acoustics. Edited by Tavolga WN. New York, NY: Pergammon Press; 1964:101-119.
• [25]Cato DH: Some unusual sounds of apparent biological origin responsible for sustained noise in the Timor Sea. J Acoust Soc Am 1980, 68:1056-1060.
• [26]McCauley RD: Distributions and levels of snapping shrimp noise in northern Australia. Report for the Defense Science and Technology Organization; 1994.
• [27]Leichter JJ, Wing SR, Miller SL, Denny MW: Pulsed delivery of subthermocline water to Conch Reef Florida Keys by internal tidal bores. Limnol Oceanogr 1996, 417:1490-1501.
• [28]Leichter JJ, Stewart HL, Miller SL: Episodic nutrient transport to Florida coral reefs. Limnol Oceanogr 2003, 484:1394-1407.
• [29]Clay CS, Medwin H: Acoustical Oceanography: Principles and Applications. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1977.
• [30]Voegeli FA, Pincock DG: Overview of underwater acoustics as it applies to telemetry. In Underwater Biotelemetry. Edited by Baras E, Philippart JC. Liege, Belgium: University of Liege; 1996:23-30.
• [31]Clements S, Jepsen D, Karnowski M, Schreck CB: Optimization of an acoustic telemetry array for detecting transmitter-implanted fish. North Am J Fisheries Manag 2005, 25:429-436.
• [32]Jenness J: Surface Tools surf_tools.avx extension for ArcView 3.x, v. 1.6b. Jenness Enterprises; 2008. http://www.jennessent.com webcite
• [33]Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Neter J, Li W: Applied linear statistical models. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2005.
• [34]Jonckheere AR: A distribution-free k-sample test against ordered alternatives. Biometrica 1954, 41S:133-145.
• [35]Beyer HL: Hawth’s Analysis Tools for ArcGIS. 2011. http://www.spatialecology.com/htools webcite