Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/38971
COMPARTIR / EXPORTAR:
logo share SHARE logo core CORE BASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE

Invitar a revisión por pares abierta
Campo DC Valor Lengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorSoutullo, Álvaro-
dc.contributor.authorCadahía, Luis-
dc.contributor.authorUrios, Vicente-
dc.contributor.authorFerrer, Miguel-
dc.contributor.authorNegro, Juan J.-
dc.date.accessioned2011-08-26T07:05:53Z-
dc.date.available2011-08-26T07:05:53Z-
dc.date.issued2007-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Wildlife Management, 71(3):1010-1015. 2007.es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/38971-
dc.description.abstractHere we provide the first assessment of the accuracy of lightweight satellite transmitters (,80 g) under actual operating conditions and the performance of the Argos system in southern Europe. To estimate transmitter accuracy we used transmitters equipped with a Global Positioning System (GPS) and compared the location estimates provided by Argos with the estimates provided by the GPS. Using the 68th percentile to define the accuracy of locations estimates, observed accuracy was 4 km for Location Class (LC) 1, 15 km for LC 0, 20 km for LC A, and 59 km for LC B, which is in line with estimates reported by other authors. Yet, the error of the remaining 32% of the data ranged between 4 km and 11 km, 15 km and 217 km, 20 km and 145 km, and 59 km and 493 km, respectively, suggesting that using the 68th percentile to estimate accuracies might give misleading confidence on the accuracy of location estimates. Using the 90th percentile is probably more appropriate. Less than 10% of the locations we obtained corresponded to the more accurate LCs (3, 2, and 1), with Argos failing to provide a position estimate in 45% of the attempts. The low number of high-quality location estimates is likely a consequence of the electromagnetic interference reported for our study area, rather than a defect of the Platform Transmitter Terminals (PTTs), which under good conditions of signal reception seem to be as reliable as heavier ones. The recent advent of lightweight GPS transmitters overrides most of these problems. Yet, whereas the smallest Argos-GPS PTTs weigh 30 g, which restricts their use to animals weighting .1,000 g, conventional PTTs can be as small as 9.5 g, allowing their use with animals weighting 250–300 g. ( JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 71(3):1010– 1015; 2007)es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherWildlife Societyes_ES
dc.rightsopenAccesses_ES
dc.subjectAccuracyes_ES
dc.subjectArgoses_ES
dc.subjecterrores_ES
dc.subjectEuropees_ES
dc.subjectPlatformes_ES
dc.subjectTransmitter Terminales_ES
dc.subjectsatellite telemetryes_ES
dc.subjectsatellite trackinges_ES
dc.titleAccuracy of Lightweight Satellite Telemetry: a Case Study in the Iberian Peninsulaes_ES
dc.typeartículoes_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.2193/2006-042-
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer reviewedes_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttp://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.2193/2006-042es_ES
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501es_ES
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.openairetypeartículo-
Aparece en las colecciones: (EBD) Artículos
Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato
80.pdf170,66 kBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir
Show simple item record

CORE Recommender

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

46
checked on 20-abr-2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

44
checked on 22-feb-2024

Page view(s)

360
checked on 23-abr-2024

Download(s)

592
checked on 23-abr-2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.