Back by popular demand!
I simply adore this article, because a group of experienced Researchers came to the same conclusions as I have: In a nutshell, the Batlogger M from Elekon and the USG116 Series from Avisoft out-perform several other detectors. Outstanding!
I've taken the liberty of pasting a portion of the (beginning) of the paper below:
And, below that - Please see the link, which will allow you to download the entire PDF.
I simply adore this article, because a group of experienced Researchers came to the same conclusions as I have: In a nutshell, the Batlogger M from Elekon and the USG116 Series from Avisoft out-perform several other detectors. Outstanding!
I've taken the liberty of pasting a portion of the (beginning) of the paper below:
And, below that - Please see the link, which will allow you to download the entire PDF.
'Do you hear what I hear? Implications of detector selection for acoustic monitoring of bats'
Amanda M. Adams, Meredith K. Jantzen, and Rachel M. Hamilton. The University of Western Ontario, London, ON
How do you begin to choose which bat detector is best suited for your needs? While budget is a major factor for many, there are numerous other features that contribute to a final decision (e.g. battery life, storage capacity, weatherproofing, etc.). The purpose of this study was to compare ultrasonic call detection in five different bat detectors: AnaBat SD2 (Titley Scientific), Avisoft UltraSoundGate 116Hme CM16/CMPA (Avisoft Bioacoustics), Batcorder 2.0 (ecoObs), Batlogger (Elekon AG), and Songmeter SM2 BAT (Wildlife Acoustics). We used playback of synthetic calls to optimize detection settings for each detector. We played synthetic constant-frequency calls at four frequencies (25, 55, 85, 115 kHz) at five meter intervals (5-40 m) and three angles (0°, 45°, 90°) from the detectors. Detection was most affected by call frequency and distance, while the effect of angle was less apparent. Avisoft and Batlogger outperformed other detectors, while Batcorder and Songmeter performed similarly. Batlogger performed better than the other detectors at angles off-center (45° and 90°). AnaBat detected the fewest calls, none at the higher frequencies (85kHz and 115kHz). We also compared recordings made in the presence of free-flying bats, comparing the number of calls detected by each detector in 27 passes. On average, Batlogger recorded 93% relative to Avisoft, while AnaBat, Batcorder, and Songmeter recorded 40- 50% of the calls. These results suggest that detector performance differs among brands. This factor should be taken into account both when making purchasing decisions, as well as considering bat activity levels reported in studies using different detectors.
Direct link to PDF File
How do you begin to choose which bat detector is best suited for your needs? While budget is a major factor for many, there are numerous other features that contribute to a final decision (e.g. battery life, storage capacity, weatherproofing, etc.). The purpose of this study was to compare ultrasonic call detection in five different bat detectors: AnaBat SD2 (Titley Scientific), Avisoft UltraSoundGate 116Hme CM16/CMPA (Avisoft Bioacoustics), Batcorder 2.0 (ecoObs), Batlogger (Elekon AG), and Songmeter SM2 BAT (Wildlife Acoustics). We used playback of synthetic calls to optimize detection settings for each detector. We played synthetic constant-frequency calls at four frequencies (25, 55, 85, 115 kHz) at five meter intervals (5-40 m) and three angles (0°, 45°, 90°) from the detectors. Detection was most affected by call frequency and distance, while the effect of angle was less apparent. Avisoft and Batlogger outperformed other detectors, while Batcorder and Songmeter performed similarly. Batlogger performed better than the other detectors at angles off-center (45° and 90°). AnaBat detected the fewest calls, none at the higher frequencies (85kHz and 115kHz). We also compared recordings made in the presence of free-flying bats, comparing the number of calls detected by each detector in 27 passes. On average, Batlogger recorded 93% relative to Avisoft, while AnaBat, Batcorder, and Songmeter recorded 40- 50% of the calls. These results suggest that detector performance differs among brands. This factor should be taken into account both when making purchasing decisions, as well as considering bat activity levels reported in studies using different detectors.
Direct link to PDF File
--- Also ---
Another great article, this one resides on the Bat Call ID Site (makers of BCID software): It covers sampling technology: Link
Happy Bat Detecting!
No comments:
Post a Comment