Aviso: para depositar documentos, por favor, inicia sesión e identifícate con tu cuenta de correo institucional de la UCM con el botón MI CUENTA UCM. No emplees la opción AUTENTICACIÓN CON CONTRASEÑA
 

Different bat detectors and processing software… Same results?

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Full text at PDC

Publication date

2020

Advisors (or tutors)

Editors

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

SECEMU (Asociación Española para la conservación y el Estudio de los Murciélagos)
Citations
Google Scholar

Citation

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.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Description

UCM subjects

Unesco subjects

Keywords

Collections