Variability in sensitivity of Anabat II bat detectors and a method of calibration
By D. Larson, J. Hayes. 2000
94 citations recorded by the source corpus.
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e616b12d26fc541511dfc93a351b98befcb07d2a
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
Citations in the corpus
- Do you hear what I hear? Implications of detector selection for acoustic monitoring of bats (2012, methodology): “Even when comparing multiple detectors of the same model, the microphones must be calibrated to ensure comparable performance (Larson & Hayes 2000).”
- Range Extent and Stand Selection for Roosting and Foraging in Forest-Dwelling Northern Long-Eared Bats and Little Brown Bats in the Greater Fundy Ecosystem, New Brunswick (2006, methodology): “We standardized the reception areas for all detectors (Krusic et al. 1996, Larson and Hayes 2000) at a sensitivity level of ’ 6.”
- Sampling period, size and duration influence measures of bat species richness from acoustic surveys (2012, background): “While our levels of species richness may reflect our sampling methodology, for example the sensitivity of Anabat detectors (Larson & Hayes 2000), they clearly show that even long-term acoustic data sets can be inconclusive for some species.”
- Bat activity in relation to fire and fire surrogate treatments in southern pine stands (2008, unknown): “Detectors were calibrated prior to each field season and the sensitivity of each detector was set to reduce the amount of variability among detectors (Larson and Hayes, 2000).”
- Bats as bioindicators – the need of a standardized method for acoustic bat activity surveys (2012, methodology): “The units can be calibrated against each other by using an external ultrasonic sound (e.g. Larson & Hayes 2000 for the Anabat II system), but fine-scale adjustments require a signal generator in a controlled laboratory environment.”