Cargando…

Does detection range matter for inferring social networks in a benthic shark using acoustic telemetry?

Accurately estimating contacts between animals can be critical in ecological studies such as examining social structure, predator–prey interactions or transmission of information and disease. While biotelemetry has been used successfully for such studies in terrestrial systems, it is still under dev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mourier, Johann, Bass, Nathan Charles, Guttridge, Tristan L., Day, Joanna, Brown, Culum
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Royal Society Publishing 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5627096/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28989756
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170485
_version_ 1783268656058204160
author Mourier, Johann
Bass, Nathan Charles
Guttridge, Tristan L.
Day, Joanna
Brown, Culum
author_facet Mourier, Johann
Bass, Nathan Charles
Guttridge, Tristan L.
Day, Joanna
Brown, Culum
author_sort Mourier, Johann
collection PubMed
description Accurately estimating contacts between animals can be critical in ecological studies such as examining social structure, predator–prey interactions or transmission of information and disease. While biotelemetry has been used successfully for such studies in terrestrial systems, it is still under development in the aquatic environment. Acoustic telemetry represents an attractive tool to investigate spatio-temporal behaviour of marine fish and has recently been suggested for monitoring underwater animal interactions. To evaluate the effectiveness of acoustic telemetry in recording interindividual contacts, we compared co-occurrence matrices deduced from three types of acoustic receivers varying in detection range in a benthic shark species. Our results demonstrate that (i) associations produced by acoustic receivers with a large detection range (i.e. Vemco VR2W) were significantly different from those produced by receivers with smaller ranges (i.e. Sonotronics miniSUR receivers and proximity loggers) and (ii) the position of individuals within their network, or centrality, also differed. These findings suggest that acoustic receivers with a large detection range may not be the best option to represent true social networks in the case of a benthic marine animal. While acoustic receivers are increasingly used by marine ecologists, we recommend users first evaluate the influence of detection range to depict accurate individual interactions before using these receivers for social or predator–prey studies. We also advocate for combining multiple receiver types depending on the ecological question being asked and the development of multi-sensor tags or testing of new automated proximity loggers, such as the Encounternet system, to improve the precision and accuracy of social and predator–prey interaction studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5627096
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher The Royal Society Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56270962017-10-08 Does detection range matter for inferring social networks in a benthic shark using acoustic telemetry? Mourier, Johann Bass, Nathan Charles Guttridge, Tristan L. Day, Joanna Brown, Culum R Soc Open Sci Biology (Whole Organism) Accurately estimating contacts between animals can be critical in ecological studies such as examining social structure, predator–prey interactions or transmission of information and disease. While biotelemetry has been used successfully for such studies in terrestrial systems, it is still under development in the aquatic environment. Acoustic telemetry represents an attractive tool to investigate spatio-temporal behaviour of marine fish and has recently been suggested for monitoring underwater animal interactions. To evaluate the effectiveness of acoustic telemetry in recording interindividual contacts, we compared co-occurrence matrices deduced from three types of acoustic receivers varying in detection range in a benthic shark species. Our results demonstrate that (i) associations produced by acoustic receivers with a large detection range (i.e. Vemco VR2W) were significantly different from those produced by receivers with smaller ranges (i.e. Sonotronics miniSUR receivers and proximity loggers) and (ii) the position of individuals within their network, or centrality, also differed. These findings suggest that acoustic receivers with a large detection range may not be the best option to represent true social networks in the case of a benthic marine animal. While acoustic receivers are increasingly used by marine ecologists, we recommend users first evaluate the influence of detection range to depict accurate individual interactions before using these receivers for social or predator–prey studies. We also advocate for combining multiple receiver types depending on the ecological question being asked and the development of multi-sensor tags or testing of new automated proximity loggers, such as the Encounternet system, to improve the precision and accuracy of social and predator–prey interaction studies. The Royal Society Publishing 2017-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5627096/ /pubmed/28989756 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170485 Text en © 2017 The Authors. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Biology (Whole Organism)
Mourier, Johann
Bass, Nathan Charles
Guttridge, Tristan L.
Day, Joanna
Brown, Culum
Does detection range matter for inferring social networks in a benthic shark using acoustic telemetry?
title Does detection range matter for inferring social networks in a benthic shark using acoustic telemetry?
title_full Does detection range matter for inferring social networks in a benthic shark using acoustic telemetry?
title_fullStr Does detection range matter for inferring social networks in a benthic shark using acoustic telemetry?
title_full_unstemmed Does detection range matter for inferring social networks in a benthic shark using acoustic telemetry?
title_short Does detection range matter for inferring social networks in a benthic shark using acoustic telemetry?
title_sort does detection range matter for inferring social networks in a benthic shark using acoustic telemetry?
topic Biology (Whole Organism)
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5627096/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28989756
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170485
work_keys_str_mv AT mourierjohann doesdetectionrangematterforinferringsocialnetworksinabenthicsharkusingacoustictelemetry
AT bassnathancharles doesdetectionrangematterforinferringsocialnetworksinabenthicsharkusingacoustictelemetry
AT guttridgetristanl doesdetectionrangematterforinferringsocialnetworksinabenthicsharkusingacoustictelemetry
AT dayjoanna doesdetectionrangematterforinferringsocialnetworksinabenthicsharkusingacoustictelemetry
AT brownculum doesdetectionrangematterforinferringsocialnetworksinabenthicsharkusingacoustictelemetry