A major uncertainty in automated radio‐telemetry studies of small birds is the detection range of receiving antennas. We compared simultaneous daytime detections (± 30 s) by automated and manual radio‐telemetry to assess detection probability and the proportion of transmissions detected for birds on migratory stopover as a function of distance, foraging guild (Black‐throated Blue Warblers, Setophaga caerulescens, and Yellow‐rumped Warblers, Dendroica coronata coronata, represented mid‐canopy foliage gleaners and White‐throated Sparrows, Zonotrichia albicollis, represented a ground forager), habitat type, meteorological variables, tower antenna number (1–4), and the position of a bird relative to the receiving antenna's bearing (offset angle). Our study was conducted at a migratory stopover site in southern Ontario, Canada. Most detections were in dense to sparse forest, and all individuals were within 1.03 km of the automated receiving station. Daily detection probability was near 100% for both foraging guilds. However, within 30 s before and after a manual radio‐telemetry location was made, detection probability and the proportion of transmissions detected by automated radio‐telemetry declined with distance, was higher for warblers than sparrows, and was lowest for 90° offset angles. Our results suggest that when research goals do not require detections with high temporal frequency, e.g., estimation of departure date or daily departure probability, our study design had an effective detection range of at least 1 km. However, where temporal precision is required, e.g., to investigate movements and changes in activity levels during stopover, detection range was ~300 m for ground‐foraging sparrows and 600 m for mid‐canopy foraging warblers, which is much lower than the presumed detection range of antennas under optimal conditions (15 km). This corresponds to a spatial area of coverage for forest‐dwelling birds of ~0.3–1.1 km². Our results suggest that to optimally configure an automated radio‐telemetry array at the regional scale, investigators should carefully consider detection range and its underlying covariates, including species type, the habitat matrix, and the orientation of antennas relative to preferred habitat.

中文翻译：

---

使用中转站通过自动无线电遥测技术检测鸣禽的范围

小型鸟类的自动无线电遥测研究中的主要不确定因素是接收天线的检测范围。我们比较了自动和手动无线电遥测仪同时进行的白天探测（±30 s），以评估探测概率和候鸟在距离中途觅食的传播比例，作为距离的函数，觅食行会（黑喉蓝莺，Setophaga caerulescens，和黄腰莺，Dendroica coronata coronata，代表中冠层的拾叶器和白喉麻雀，Zonotrichia albicollis，代表地面觅食者），栖息地类型，气象变量，塔天线数量（1-4），以及鸟类相对于接收天线方位的位置（偏移角度）。我们的研究是在加拿大安大略省南部的一个中途停留地点进行的。大部分检测都在茂密而稀疏的森林中进行，所有个体都在自动接收站的1.03公里范围内。两个觅食行会的每日检测概率接近100％。但是，在进行手动无线电遥测定位的前后30 s内，自动无线电遥测的检测概率和传输比例随距离而降低，鸣鸟比麻雀要高，而90°偏角则最低。我们的结果表明，当研究目标不需要高时间频率的检测时，例如，在估计出发日期或每日出发概率时，我们的研究设计的有效探测范围至少为1 km。但是，在需要时间精确度的情况下（例如，调查中途停留的运动和活动水平的变化），地面觅食麻雀的探测范围为〜300 m，而中层觅食鸣莺的探测范围为600 m，远低于假定的探测范围最佳条件下的天线范围（15公里）。这对应于约0.3–1.1 km的森林栖居鸟类覆盖的空间区域 地面觅食麻雀的探测距离约为300 m，中冠觅食鸣鸟的探测距离为600 m，这远低于在最佳条件（15 km）下假定的天线探测距离。这对应于约0.3–1.1 km的森林栖居鸟类覆盖的空间区域 地面觅食麻雀的探测距离约为300 m，中冠觅食鸣鸟的探测距离为600 m，这远低于在最佳条件（15 km）下假定的天线探测距离。这对应于约0.3–1.1 km的森林栖居鸟类覆盖的空间区域²。我们的结果表明，为了在区域范围内最佳配置自动无线电遥测阵列，研究人员应仔细考虑检测范围及其潜在的协变量，包括物种类型，生境矩阵以及相对于首选生境的天线方向。