A review of acoustic telemetry in Europe and the need for a regional aquatic telemetry network
Abstract Background Globally, there are a large and growing number of researchers using biotelemetry as a tool to study aquatic animals. In Europe, this community lacks a formal network structure. The aim of this study is to review the use of acoustic telemetry in Europe and document the contributio...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2018-09-01
|
| Series: | Animal Biotelemetry |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40317-018-0156-0 |
| _version_ | 1818524561043357696 |
|---|---|
| author | David Abecasis Andre Steckenreuter Jan Reubens Kim Aarestrup Josep Alós Fabio Badalamenti Lenore Bajona Patrick Boylan Klaas Deneudt Larry Greenberg Niels Brevé Francisco Hernández Nick Humphries Carl Meyer David Sims Eva B. Thorstad Alan M. Walker Fred Whoriskey Pedro Afonso |
| author_facet | David Abecasis Andre Steckenreuter Jan Reubens Kim Aarestrup Josep Alós Fabio Badalamenti Lenore Bajona Patrick Boylan Klaas Deneudt Larry Greenberg Niels Brevé Francisco Hernández Nick Humphries Carl Meyer David Sims Eva B. Thorstad Alan M. Walker Fred Whoriskey Pedro Afonso |
| author_sort | David Abecasis |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Globally, there are a large and growing number of researchers using biotelemetry as a tool to study aquatic animals. In Europe, this community lacks a formal network structure. The aim of this study is to review the use of acoustic telemetry in Europe and document the contribution of cross-boundary studies and inter-research group collaborations. Based on this, we explore the potential benefits and challenges of a network approach to identify future priorities and best practices for aquatic biotelemetry research in Europe. Results Over the past decade, there was an approximately sevenfold increase in the number of acoustic telemetry studies published on marine and diadromous species in Europe compared to a sixfold increase globally. Over 90% of these studies were conducted on fishes and undertaken in coastal areas, estuaries, or rivers. 75% of these studies were conducted by researchers based in one of five nations (Norway, UK, France, Portugal, and Spain) and, even though 34% were based on collaborations between scientists from several countries, there was only one study with an acoustic receiver array that extended beyond the borders of a single country. In recent years, acoustic telemetry in European waters has evolved from studying behavioural aspects of animals (82.2%), into more holistic approaches addressing management-related issues (10%), tagging methods and effects (5%), and technology and data analysis development (2.8%). Conclusions Despite the increasing number of publications and species tracked, there is a prominent lack of planned and structured acoustic telemetry collaborations in Europe. A formal pan-European network structure would promote the development of (1) a research platform that could benefit the acoustic telemetry community through capacity building, (2) a centralized database, and (3) key deployment sites and studies on priority species requiring research in Europe. A network may increase efficiency, expand the scope of research that can be undertaken, promote European science integration, enhance the opportunities and success of acquiring research funding and, ultimately, foster regional and transatlantic collaborations. It may also help address research priorities such as the large-scale societal challenges arising from climate change impacts and assist the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive via identification of good environmental status of endangered or commercially important species. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T05:58:43Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-dba563a4f35b4220aa2883965655338b |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2050-3385 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T05:58:43Z |
| publishDate | 2018-09-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Animal Biotelemetry |
| spelling | doaj.art-dba563a4f35b4220aa2883965655338b2022-12-22T01:18:35ZengBMCAnimal Biotelemetry2050-33852018-09-01611710.1186/s40317-018-0156-0A review of acoustic telemetry in Europe and the need for a regional aquatic telemetry networkDavid Abecasis0Andre Steckenreuter1Jan Reubens2Kim Aarestrup3Josep Alós4Fabio Badalamenti5Lenore Bajona6Patrick Boylan7Klaas Deneudt8Larry Greenberg9Niels Brevé10Francisco Hernández11Nick Humphries12Carl Meyer13David Sims14Eva B. Thorstad15Alan M. Walker16Fred Whoriskey17Pedro Afonso18Centre of Marine Sciences (CCMAR), University of the AlgarveMARE/IMAR/OKEANOS - University of the AzoresFlanders Marine InstituteDTUInstituto Mediterráneo de Estudios Avanzados (CSIC-UIB)CNR-IAMCOcean Tracking Network, Dalhousie UniversityLoughs AgencyFlanders Marine InstituteRiver Ecology and Management Research Group, Department of Environmental and Life Science, Karlstad UniversitySportfisserij NederlandFlanders Marine InstituteThe Marine Biological Association of the U.KHawai’i Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawai’i at MānoaUniversity of Southampton, National Oceanography CentreNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas)Ocean Tracking Network, Dalhousie UniversityMARE/IMAR/OKEANOS - University of the AzoresAbstract Background Globally, there are a large and growing number of researchers using biotelemetry as a tool to study aquatic animals. In Europe, this community lacks a formal network structure. The aim of this study is to review the use of acoustic telemetry in Europe and document the contribution of cross-boundary studies and inter-research group collaborations. Based on this, we explore the potential benefits and challenges of a network approach to identify future priorities and best practices for aquatic biotelemetry research in Europe. Results Over the past decade, there was an approximately sevenfold increase in the number of acoustic telemetry studies published on marine and diadromous species in Europe compared to a sixfold increase globally. Over 90% of these studies were conducted on fishes and undertaken in coastal areas, estuaries, or rivers. 75% of these studies were conducted by researchers based in one of five nations (Norway, UK, France, Portugal, and Spain) and, even though 34% were based on collaborations between scientists from several countries, there was only one study with an acoustic receiver array that extended beyond the borders of a single country. In recent years, acoustic telemetry in European waters has evolved from studying behavioural aspects of animals (82.2%), into more holistic approaches addressing management-related issues (10%), tagging methods and effects (5%), and technology and data analysis development (2.8%). Conclusions Despite the increasing number of publications and species tracked, there is a prominent lack of planned and structured acoustic telemetry collaborations in Europe. A formal pan-European network structure would promote the development of (1) a research platform that could benefit the acoustic telemetry community through capacity building, (2) a centralized database, and (3) key deployment sites and studies on priority species requiring research in Europe. A network may increase efficiency, expand the scope of research that can be undertaken, promote European science integration, enhance the opportunities and success of acquiring research funding and, ultimately, foster regional and transatlantic collaborations. It may also help address research priorities such as the large-scale societal challenges arising from climate change impacts and assist the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive via identification of good environmental status of endangered or commercially important species.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40317-018-0156-0European tracking networkAcoustic telemetryFlagship speciesAcoustic arraysAnimal movementSpatio-temporal movement |
| spellingShingle | David Abecasis Andre Steckenreuter Jan Reubens Kim Aarestrup Josep Alós Fabio Badalamenti Lenore Bajona Patrick Boylan Klaas Deneudt Larry Greenberg Niels Brevé Francisco Hernández Nick Humphries Carl Meyer David Sims Eva B. Thorstad Alan M. Walker Fred Whoriskey Pedro Afonso A review of acoustic telemetry in Europe and the need for a regional aquatic telemetry network Animal Biotelemetry European tracking network Acoustic telemetry Flagship species Acoustic arrays Animal movement Spatio-temporal movement |
| title | A review of acoustic telemetry in Europe and the need for a regional aquatic telemetry network |
| title_full | A review of acoustic telemetry in Europe and the need for a regional aquatic telemetry network |
| title_fullStr | A review of acoustic telemetry in Europe and the need for a regional aquatic telemetry network |
| title_full_unstemmed | A review of acoustic telemetry in Europe and the need for a regional aquatic telemetry network |
| title_short | A review of acoustic telemetry in Europe and the need for a regional aquatic telemetry network |
| title_sort | review of acoustic telemetry in europe and the need for a regional aquatic telemetry network |
| topic | European tracking network Acoustic telemetry Flagship species Acoustic arrays Animal movement Spatio-temporal movement |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40317-018-0156-0 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT davidabecasis areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT andresteckenreuter areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT janreubens areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT kimaarestrup areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT josepalos areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT fabiobadalamenti areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT lenorebajona areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT patrickboylan areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT klaasdeneudt areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT larrygreenberg areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT nielsbreve areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT franciscohernandez areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT nickhumphries areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT carlmeyer areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT davidsims areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT evabthorstad areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT alanmwalker areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT fredwhoriskey areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT pedroafonso areviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT davidabecasis reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT andresteckenreuter reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT janreubens reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT kimaarestrup reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT josepalos reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT fabiobadalamenti reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT lenorebajona reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT patrickboylan reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT klaasdeneudt reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT larrygreenberg reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT nielsbreve reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT franciscohernandez reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT nickhumphries reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT carlmeyer reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT davidsims reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT evabthorstad reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT alanmwalker reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT fredwhoriskey reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork AT pedroafonso reviewofacoustictelemetryineuropeandtheneedforaregionalaquatictelemetrynetwork |