2018
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4088
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Weather conditions determine attenuation and speed of sound: Environmental limitations for monitoring and analyzing bat echolocation

Abstract: Echolocating bats are regularly studied to investigate auditory‐guided behaviors and as important bioindicators. Bioacoustic monitoring methods based on echolocation calls are increasingly used for risk assessment and to ultimately inform conservation strategies for bats. As echolocation calls transmit through the air at the speed of sound, they undergo changes due to atmospheric and geometric attenuation. Both the speed of sound and atmospheric attenuation, however, are variable and determined by weather cond… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
46
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
1
46
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…On all nights, the SM4Bat detectors were programed with the following settings: gain = 12 dB, sampling rate = 256 kHz, minimum duration = 1.5 ms, minimum trigger frequency = 16 kHz, trigger level = 12 dB, trigger window = 3 s, maximum length = 5 s. This resulted in 744 detector-hours-408 in 2015 and 240 at ground level and 96 at 50 m in 2016. While the detection distance from the microphones will vary depending on bat source levels and their orientation to the microphone [58], microphone sensitivity, and environmental conditions (temperature and relative humidity) [59], we can safely assume that we were only detecting bats < 50 m above the rice. For example, the SMM-U1 microphone theoretically can detect a 40 kHz-calling bat with a 94 dB SPL source level at around 20 m when it is flying on-axis with the microphone [60].…”
Section: Acoustic Samplingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On all nights, the SM4Bat detectors were programed with the following settings: gain = 12 dB, sampling rate = 256 kHz, minimum duration = 1.5 ms, minimum trigger frequency = 16 kHz, trigger level = 12 dB, trigger window = 3 s, maximum length = 5 s. This resulted in 744 detector-hours-408 in 2015 and 240 at ground level and 96 at 50 m in 2016. While the detection distance from the microphones will vary depending on bat source levels and their orientation to the microphone [58], microphone sensitivity, and environmental conditions (temperature and relative humidity) [59], we can safely assume that we were only detecting bats < 50 m above the rice. For example, the SMM-U1 microphone theoretically can detect a 40 kHz-calling bat with a 94 dB SPL source level at around 20 m when it is flying on-axis with the microphone [60].…”
Section: Acoustic Samplingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, detection distance could be calculated if the environmental conditions are known, in open areas at least (Goerlitz 2018). In both aquatic and aerial surveys, however, physical obstacles such as vegetation will also limit detectability; Patriquin et al (2003), for example, estimated that detection distance in a thinned forest was 12% higher than in an intact forest, and the attenuation of sound reduced the detectability of high frequencies (40 kHz) more than that of low frequencies (25 kHz),making the estimation of detection distance much more complicated (Weller and Zabel 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A list of data sources and numbers of bats recorded is provided in Table A.1 (Appendix). In spite of these checks, we are aware that "measurement errors" would exist, and cannot be estimated for the different devices and methods used (Adams et al, 2012;Kelly, 2008;Goerlitz, 2018). As they would affect our ability to compare multisource RF data in the same statistical analysis, we used the data only to qualitatively assess patterns that could hint at acoustic divergence.…”
Section: Rf Data From Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the numerous studies reporting environmentally driven variation in acoustic frequency, atmospheric humidity has received the most attention (Chen et al 2009;Flanders et al 2011;Guillen et al, 2000;Jiang et al 2013Jiang et al , 2010aJiang et al , 2010bSun et al 2013;Xu et al 2008). As per the sensory drive framework (that includes the acoustic adaptation hypothesis: Sun et al, 2013;Wilkins et al, 2013), greater atmospheric humidity is thought to alter Rhinolophus bat frequencies , as it can directly affect signal transmission, sound absorption, and echo reception (Goerlitz, 2018;Snell-Rood, 2012). However, others have disputed the influence of humidity in driving frequency attenuation, showing that acoustic transmission at fine scales remains unaffected despite changes in humidity up to 10% (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation