Different bat detectors and processing software… Same results?

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 eff...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Perea, Santiago, Tena, Elena
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2020
País:España
Institución:Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)
Repositorio:Docta Complutense
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/6149
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/6149
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:599.4
Acoustic
Chiroptera
Detection
Echolocation
Noise filtering
Mamíferos
2401.18 Mamíferos
id ES_bf69f38cd38ac260e2d52fbe3284df2f
oai_identifier_str oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/6149
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Different bat detectors and processing software… Same results?Perea, SantiagoTena, Elena599.4AcousticChiropteraDetectionEcholocationNoise filteringMamíferos2401.18 MamíferosThere 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.SECEMU (Asociación Española para la conservación y el Estudio de los Murciélagos)Universidad Complutense de Madrid20202020-01-0120202020-01-01journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/6149reponame:Docta Complutenseinstname:Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)Inglésengopen accesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Atribución 3.0 Españahttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/61492026-06-02T12:44:21Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Different bat detectors and processing software… Same results?
title Different bat detectors and processing software… Same results?
spellingShingle Different bat detectors and processing software… Same results?
Perea, Santiago
599.4
Acoustic
Chiroptera
Detection
Echolocation
Noise filtering
Mamíferos
2401.18 Mamíferos
title_short Different bat detectors and processing software… Same results?
title_full Different bat detectors and processing software… Same results?
title_fullStr Different bat detectors and processing software… Same results?
title_full_unstemmed Different bat detectors and processing software… Same results?
title_sort Different bat detectors and processing software… Same results?
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Perea, Santiago
Tena, Elena
author Perea, Santiago
author_facet Perea, Santiago
Tena, Elena
author_role author
author2 Tena, Elena
author2_role author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidad Complutense de Madrid
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv 599.4
Acoustic
Chiroptera
Detection
Echolocation
Noise filtering
Mamíferos
2401.18 Mamíferos
topic 599.4
Acoustic
Chiroptera
Detection
Echolocation
Noise filtering
Mamíferos
2401.18 Mamíferos
description 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.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020
2020-01-01
2020
2020-01-01
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv journal article
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.type.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/6149
url https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/6149
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
eng
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Atribución 3.0 España
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/
dc.rights.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Atribución 3.0 España
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv SECEMU (Asociación Española para la conservación y el Estudio de los Murciélagos)
publisher.none.fl_str_mv SECEMU (Asociación Española para la conservación y el Estudio de los Murciélagos)
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Docta Complutense
instname:Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)
instname_str Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)
reponame_str Docta Complutense
collection Docta Complutense
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869418367986696193
score 15,301603

Similares en LA Referencia