30 



FISH AND WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT 30 



Table 16. Proportion of locations for each species obtained using Argos's location class zero (LCO) processing, and the 

 proportion among those in each of the location indicator (LI) categories. (See Table 3 for description of LCO 

 categories.) Percentages in LI 6 and 9 were zero for all projects. Sample sizes are for LCO locations only. Data were 

 collected from February through September 1988. 



greatly increased by adding these lower quality locations, 

 particularly along the longitudinal axis. Many locations 

 seemed to be in error of > 25 km the mean distance 

 between successive location estimates was 1 1 .2 km when 

 LCO location estimates were included. (For comparison, 

 the mean distance between successive normally calcu- 

 lated location estimates was 2.64 km, a figure which itself 

 probably included location error.) 



Local User Terminals (LUT's) 



Overview and System Description 



Local user terminals (LUT's) allow users to receive 

 data from PTT's as soon as each satellite overpass is 

 completed and, in some cases, to process data at a lower 

 cost than standard Argos processing. At our Fairbanks, 



10 



H 1- 



10 



10 



10 



B. 



10 



10 



10 



10 



Fig. 28. Precision of locations of a muskox in northern Alaska. A. Standard Argos processing. B. Including locations estimated using 

 Argos's location class zero (LCO) processing. Data courtesy of P. Reynolds, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 



