Do you hear what I hear? Implications of detector selection for acoustic monitoring of bats

By A. M. Adams, M. K. Jantzen, Rachel M Hamilton, M. B. Fenton. 2012

187 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental Biology, Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/50a0df4a60787d30dbb3e13f0ad536aee3f55adb

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental Biology

1. Paul Glover‐Kapfer
2. Rory Gibb
3. Kate E. Jones
4. P. Racey
5. Ella Browning

In Ecology

1. K. Haysom
2. Paul Glover‐Kapfer
3. Rory Gibb
4. Kate E. Jones
5. P. Racey
6. Ella Browning

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. K. Haysom
2. P. Racey
3. Gareth J. F. Jones
4. E. Kalko
5. C. Brühl
6. P. Stahlschmidt

Citations in the corpus

• Citizen science reveals trends in bat populations: The National Bat Monitoring Programme in Great Britain (2015, methodology): “The various models of bat detectors used in surveys have a range of different microphone types, each with a unique frequency response leading to differences between detectors in detectability of different bat species (Adams et al., 2012).”
• Emerging opportunities and challenges for passive acoustics in ecological assessment and monitoring (2018, background): “…& Obrist, 2014; Van Parijs et al., 2009), quantifying sensitivity differences between sensor models and over time due to environmental degradation (Adams et al., 2012; Merchant et al., 2015), and quantifying effects of sensor proximity to habitat features (e.g., vegetation, water surface,…”