### Comparison of Technologies Based on Information They can Provide  
In Table 1 we compare the previously reviewed sensors in terms of their ability to provide the aforementioned spatio-temporal features. The field under a feature is marked with a (\(\left/\right.\)) if the results of previous researches show that this technology is applicable for the purpose of obtaining spatio-temporal features in wildlife monitoring applications. Otherwise, it is marked with (-). Most of the technologies which we identified for the Eulerian approach can detect presence. If the purpose is to detect the presence of a warm-blooded animal, PIR sensors are particularly useful. Radar, geophones, and microphones are capable to extract all above-mentioned spatio-temporal features. By performing image processing techniques on the images collected by thermal cameras some spatio-temporal features can be extracted. Since most of the visual biometrics are not shown in thermal images, the applicability of thermal cameras in identification is low. As mentioned above, electric noses are theoretically able to identify individual/species but the plausibility of current electric noses is not yet proved for wildlife monitoring approaches (due to the low amount of organic compounds). The Lagrangian based technologies are more useful in extracting spatio-temporal features from individuals. RFID tags work on the basis of transmitting an ID number. The devices which are \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Technology**} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{**Animals**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Humans**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-6}  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mammals**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Birds**} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{**Amphibian**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Reptiles**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Fish**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Humans**} \\  & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**s**} & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{RFID} & Badgers & Salamander & Corn snake & \multirow{4}{*}{[104]} \\  & [98] (Presence 2010) & Tern [95] & s [97] & & [96] \\  & Farm animals & (Presence 1997) & (Presence & (Presence & (Presence 2000) & [100] (Presence 2005) \\  & [99] (Presence 2006) & & 2007) & 2000) & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{GPS} & Livestock & \multirow{4}{*}{Migratory birds} & \multirow{4}{*}{[113] (Track 2009)} & \multirow{4}{*}{[113] (Track 2009)} & \multirow{4}{*}{[112] (Track 2012)} \\  & [126] (Track 2004) & & & & \\  & [127] (Track 2009) & [113] (Track & & & \\  & Zebra & 2009) & & & \\  & [123] (Track 2002) & [112] (Track & - & - & - & [145] (Track 2009) \\  & Caprocorn & 2009) & & & & \\  & [143] (Track 2012) & [144] (Track & & & \\  & Mountain lions & 2008) & & & & \\  & [124] (Track 2011) & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Inertial sensors} & Rats & \multirow{4}{*}{[130](Track 2008)} & \multirow{4}{*}{[131](Track 2009)} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} \\  & [130](Track 2008) & & & & & \\  & [131](Track 2009) & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Cows & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} \\ \cline{1-1}  & [134] (Activity 2008) & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & [84] (Activity 2008) & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Different species & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} \\ \cline{1-1}  & [133] (Activity 2008) & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Radio transmitters} & Cows & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} \\ \cline{1-1}  & [135] (Tracking 2010) & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._equipped with GPS, radio transmitters, and inertial sensors can be programmed to send a unique ID number periodically. Being able to extract the individual identity, presence and species type of the tagged individual can also be inferred. Therefore, all these technologies are marked with \(+\) indicating their ability to provide presence, species type, identity, and location information.