Next Article in Journal
Seabream Larval Physiology under Ocean Warming and Acidification
Previous Article in Journal
Drift of Larval Darters (Family Percidae) in the Upper Roanoke River Basin, USA, Characterized Using Phenotypic and DNA Barcoding Markers
Article

Detection Range of Acoustic Receivers in a Large Hydropower Reservoir

1
Canadian Rivers Institute, Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, NB E3B 5A3, Canada
2
The Michener Institute, 222 St. Patrick Street, Toronto, Ontario, ON T6G 2R3, Canada
3
Canadian Rivers Institute, Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, NB E3B 5A3, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 6 November 2019 / Revised: 6 December 2019 / Accepted: 9 December 2019 / Published: 11 December 2019
Acoustic telemetry manufacturers report estimated detection ranges under idealized conditions, but environmental conditions such as water depth, substrate type, and turbulence can affect the range of reliable detection. Range testing of low (Vemco V7 136 dB re 1µ[email protected]) and high power (V13 147 dB re 1µ[email protected]) acoustic transmitters (tags) was performed near a hydropower generating station and its associated reservoir using both active (mobile; VR100) and passive (stationary; VR2W/VR2Tx) receivers. Low power tags are typically used to track small fish such as juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), whereas high power tags are typically used to track larger fish such as adult salmon. The results found herein were applied to concurrent salmon telemetry studies. Detection ranges of the low power tags were within 246–351 ± 20–70 m (mean ± SE), and the high power tags were within 537–1106 ± 53–272 m. Observed detection ranges were comparable or higher to manufacturer estimates for both tag types being detected by passive receivers, and were lower than expected for both tag types being detected by active receivers. Passive receivers were further tested by mooring a fixed sentinel tag (low power) on a receiver line at the hydropower site for 50 days. The sentinel tag detection range of 212 m was less than the expected range of 280–292 m, and was not found to be significantly impacted by wind speed. There was evidence of a hydropower effect on detection probability (up to 95% reduction) of both tag types for the active receiver, and detection ranges were significantly lower at the hydropower site than the reservoir site for the high power tag. The results of this study give insight to the initial design of acoustic telemetry studies beyond what can be gathered from manufacturer’s estimates, but rather near hydropower facilities and within large reservoirs; however, detection ranges reported herein do not replace the importance of range testing in site-specific conditions. View Full-Text
Keywords: telemetry; range test; hydropower; reservoir; lentic telemetry; range test; hydropower; reservoir; lentic
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Babin, A.; Fitzpatrick, L.; Linnansaari, T.; Curry, R.A. Detection Range of Acoustic Receivers in a Large Hydropower Reservoir. Fishes 2019, 4, 60. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/fishes4040060

AMA Style

Babin A, Fitzpatrick L, Linnansaari T, Curry RA. Detection Range of Acoustic Receivers in a Large Hydropower Reservoir. Fishes. 2019; 4(4):60. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/fishes4040060

Chicago/Turabian Style

Babin, Amanda, Lauren Fitzpatrick, Tommi Linnansaari, and R. A. Curry 2019. "Detection Range of Acoustic Receivers in a Large Hydropower Reservoir" Fishes 4, no. 4: 60. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/fishes4040060

Find Other Styles

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop