| Literature DB >> 35946234 |
Melissa N Staines1, David T Booth1, Jacques-Oliver Laloë2, Ian R Tibbetts1, Graeme C Hays2.
Abstract
The implications of logger accuracy and precision are rarely considered prior to their application in many ecological studies. We assessed the accuracy and precision of three temperature data loggers widely used in ecological studies (Hobo®, iButton® and TinyTag®). Accuracy was highest in TinyTags (95% of readings were within 0.23°C of the true temperature) and lowest in HOBOs and iButtons (95% of were readings within 0.43°C and 0.49°C of the true temperature, respectively). The precision (standard deviation of the repeat measurements) was greatest in TinyTags (0.04°C), followed by iButtons (0.17°C) and then HOBOs (0.22°C). As a case study, we then considered how modelled estimates of sea turtle hatchling sex ratios (derived from temperature), could vary as a function of logger accuracy. For example, at 29°C when the mean sex ratio derived was 0.47 female, the sex ratio estimate from a single logger could vary between 0.40 and 0.50 for TinyTags and 0.29 and 0.56 for both HOBOs and iButtons. Our results suggest that these temperature loggers can provide reliable descriptions of sand temperature if they are not over-interpreted. Logger accuracy must be considered in future ecological studies in which temperature thresholds are important.Entities:
Keywords: climate warming; data loggers; sea turtles; sex ratios; temperature-dependent sex determination
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35946234 PMCID: PMC9364146 DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2022.0263
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biol Lett ISSN: 1744-9561 Impact factor: 3.812
Device specifications provided by the manufacturers (M) and calculated in the present study (P) for three brands of temperature data loggers. (P) Accuracy values represent 95% of temperature readings from 27°C to 33°C, and (P) precision was calculated from the mean standard deviation of repeated measurements at each temperature.
| iButton® data logger by Maxim Integrated | pendant HOBO® data logger by ONSET | TinyTag® data logger by Gemini | |
|---|---|---|---|
| model number | DS1922 L-F5 | MX2201 | TGP-4017 |
| mass (g) | 3.30 | 12.75 | 110.00 |
| (M) range (°C) | −40 to 85 | −20 to 70 | −40 to 85 |
| (M) accuracy (°C) | ± 0.5 | ± 0.5 | ± 0.5 |
| (P) accuracy (°C) | ± 0.47 | ± 0.43 | ± 0.23 |
| (P) precision (°C) | ± 0.17 | ± 0.22 | ± 0.04 |
| (M) resolution (°C) | 0.0625 | 0.04 | 0.01 |
| battery | finite | replaceable | replaceable |
| durability (IP) | water resistant (IP56) | waterproof (IP68) | waterproof (IP68) |
Figure 1Temperature differences from three brands of data loggers from the certified thermocouple (X) at water bath temperatures of 27–33°C. (a) TinyTag data loggers, (b) HOBO data loggers and (c) iButton data loggers.
Figure 2The predicted hatchling sex ratio at different temperatures as a function of temperature logger accuracy. (a) The relationship between temperature and sex ratio reported in Hays et al. [16]. The relationship between the modelled measured temperatures (X + random measurement error from figure 1) and the predicted sex ratio estimates for temperature data theoretically derived from (b) TinyTags, (c) HOBOs and (d) iButtons.