Different bat detectors and processing software… Same results?

Impacto

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Perea, Santiago and Tena, Elena (2020) Different bat detectors and processing software… Same results? Journal of Bat Research & Conservation, 13 (1). pp. 1-5. ISSN 1576 – 9720

[thumbnail of Perea, Santiago et al. 2020. Different bat detectors and processing....pdf]
Preview
PDF
Creative Commons Attribution.

790kB

Official URL: http://secemu.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Perea_et_al_2020.pdf



Abstract

There has been an increase in commercial bat detectors and noise filtering software for monitoring bat activity. In this study, we compare the recording efficiency of three bat detectors from the popular brand Wildlife Acoustics (Echo Meter 3, Echo Meter Touch Pro 1 and Song Meter 2 BAT) and the effectiveness of two noise filtering software (Kaleidoscope and SonoBat Batch Scrubber). To do so, we recorded 7513 files from 13 urban parks in Madrid in 2017, that were manually identified to species level. The results show that the Echo Meter 3 records significantly less activity than the Echo Meter Touch Pro 1 and Song Meter 2 BAT. Our results also identify SonoBat Batch Scrubber as more reliable than Kaleidoscope for preventing false negatives. Therefore, our study demonstrates that different bat detectors, and different noise filtering software, can provide different results.


Item Type:Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:Acoustic; Chiroptera; Detection; Echolocation; Noise filtering
Subjects:Medical sciences > Biology > Mammals
ID Code:59946
Deposited On:15 Apr 2020 10:57
Last Modified:16 Apr 2020 10:49

Origin of downloads

Repository Staff Only: item control page