Variation in the performance of acoustic receivers and its implication for positioning algorithms in a riverine setting

By C. Simpfendorfer, M. Heupel, A. Collins. 2008

169 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1f088b3b3fc9437d401021461b02c04ccfd66693

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Quantifying movement patterns for shark conservation at remote coral atolls in the Indian Ocean (2011, methodology): “We assessed the detection range of the receivers following the technique of VEMCO (2010) and detection efficiency (Simpfendorfer et al. 2008), and the procedures and analyses are outlined in ESM.”
The optimized interpolation of fish positions and speeds in an array of fixed acoustic receivers (2008, background): “The range of the transmitter varies between 200 and 700 m, depending on background noise and the parameters of the transmitter deployment (see Simpfendorfer et al., 2008, for a discussion of the issues relating to transmitter range).”
Phylogeography and conservation of the bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) inferred from mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA (2011, background): “…in the northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, have uncovered a great amount of information regarding habitat use, home range, and movement patterns of juvenile bull sharks (Heupel et al. 2006; Simpfendorfer et al. 2008; Yeiser et al. 2008; Ortega 2008; Ortega et al. 2009; Heupel et al. 2010).”
Long-term presence and movement patterns of juvenile bull sharks, Carcharhinus leucas, in an estuarine river system (2010, methodology): “The location of each individual was estimated every 30 min using the river distance algorithm described by Simpfendorfer et al. (2008).”
Spatial and temporal movement patterns of a multi-species coastal reef shark aggregation (2011, unknown): “We used 3 metrics developed by Simpfendorfer et al. (2008): (1) code detection efficiency, (2) rejection coefficient and (3) noise quotient.”
Interpreting diel activity patterns from acoustic telemetry: the need for controls (2010, background): “…the publisher Mar Ecol Prog Ser 419: 295–301, 2010 strongly influence detection frequency (e.g. wind speed, biological noise, current speeds; Heupel et al. 2006, Simpfendorfer et al. 2008) typically occur with diel, tidal or lunar frequency, so it is likely that one may detect rhythmic patterns…”
Importance of environmental and biological drivers in the presence and space use of a reef‑associated shark (2014, background): “The second approach was to consider Heron Island Reef as a linear system (e.g. Simpfendorfer et al. 2008).”
Habitat use, movements and site fidelity of the gray smooth-hound shark (Mustelus californicus Gill 1863) in a newly restored southern California estuary (2011, methodology): “These data allowed for comparison of water temperatures inside and outside the FTB. Range tests were conducted prior to tagging and deployment of telemetry equipment to determine the acoustic range and detection efficiency of each receiver (Simpfendorfer et al., 2008).”
Environmental influence on transmitter detection probability in biotelemetry: developing a general model of acoustic transmission (2013, methodology): “The receiver signal detection performance was evaluated using the code detection efficiency Ce, calculated from the receiver log reports as the number of detected complete codes divided by the number of detected syncs (Simpfendorfer et al. 2008).”