Changes on soundscapes reveal impacts of wildfires in the fauna of a Brazilian savanna

Duarte, Marina H. L.; Sousa‐Lima, Renata S.; Young, Robert J.; Vasconcelos, Marcelo Ferreira de; Bittencourt, E.; Scarpelli, Marina D. A.; Farina, Almo; Pieretti, Nadia

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.144988

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The amount of minutes manually reviewed was similar or higher than that considered in most prior research using acoustic indices and sonotypes (e.g. 228 min or 0.4% of the total in [35], 672 min or 0.7% of the total in [36], 63 min or 0.03% of the total in [18] and 1342 min or 47% of the total in [31]).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Time and habitat structure shape insect acoustic activity in the Amazon

Do Nascimento,

Pérez-Granados,

Alencar

et al. 2024

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insects are the most diverse animal taxon on Earth and play a key role in ecosystem functioning. However, they are often neglected by ecological surveys owing to the difficulties involved in monitoring this small and hyper-diverse taxon. With technological advances in biomonitoring and analytical methods, these shortcomings may finally be addressed. Here, we performed passive acoustic monitoring at 141 sites (eight habitats) to investigate insect acoustic activity in the Viruá National Park, Brazil. We first describe the frequency range occupied by three soniferous insect groups (cicadas, crickets and katydids) to calculate the acoustic evenness index (AEI). Then, we assess how AEI varies spatially and temporally among habitat types, and finally we investigate the relationship between vegetation structure variables and AEI for each insect category. Overall, crickets occupied lower and narrower frequency bands than cicadas and katydids. AEI values varied among insect categories and across space and time. The highest acoustic activity occurred before sunrise and the lowest acoustic activity was recorded in pastures. Canopy cover was positively associated with cricket acoustic activity but not with katydids. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the role of time, habitat and vegetation structure in shaping insect activity within diverse Amazonian ecosystems. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Towards a toolkit for global insect biodiversity monitoring’.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Time and habitat structure shape insect acoustic activity in the Amazon

Do Nascimento,

Pérez-Granados,

Alencar

et al. 2024

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This has also been termed the 'objective soundscape' and is the focus of the current paper. This contrasts with the 'subjective soundscape', which refers to the acoustic environment as perceived by individual organisms within it, see Farina et al (2021) and Grinfeder et al (2022) Spectrogram A visual representation of the matrix derived by converting a raw audio recording using a Fast Fourier Transform, with time on the x-axis, frequency on the y-axis and amplitude values in each cell reflected with a colour or intensity gradient (Sueur, 2018) Sousa -Lima, et al, 2021;Gasc et al, 2018;Gottesman et al, 2021;Rappaport et al, 2022), track habitat recovery following restoration (Borker et al, 2020;Lamont et al, 2022;Müller et al, 2022) and assess the suitability of that habitat for particular species in the future (Znidersic & Watson, 2022).…”

Section: Soundscapementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Acoustic indices characterise the soundscape or facets of the acoustic community and have successfully provided ecological insights without requiring species‐specific identifications. For example, using acoustic indices it is possible to discriminate among habitat types (Bradfer‐Lawrence et al, 2019; Do Nascimento et al, 2020; Eldridge et al, 2018; Metcalf et al, 2021), monitor the impacts of habitat disturbance (Burivalova et al, 2021, 2022; Duarte, Sousa‐Lima, et al, 2021; Gasc et al, 2018; Gottesman et al, 2021; Rappaport et al, 2022), track habitat recovery following restoration (Borker et al, 2020; Lamont et al, 2022; Müller et al, 2022) and assess the suitability of that habitat for particular species in the future (Znidersic & Watson, 2022).…”

Section: Introduction To Soundscapes and Acoustic Indicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise of passive acoustic monitoring and the rapid growth in large audio datasets is driving the development of analysis methods that allow ecological inferences to be drawn from acoustic data. Acoustic indices are currently one of the most widely applied tools in ecoacoustics. These numerical summaries of the sound energy contained in digital audio recordings are relatively straightforward and fast to calculate but can be challenging to interpret. Misapplication and misinterpretation have produced conflicting results and led some to question their value. To encourage better use of acoustic indices, we provide nine points of guidance to support good study design, analysis and interpretation. We offer practical recommendations for the use of acoustic indices in the study of both whole soundscapes and individual taxa and species, and point to emerging trends in ecoacoustic analysis. In particular, we highlight the critical importance of understanding the links between soundscape patterns and acoustic indices. Acoustic indices can offer insights into the state of organisms, populations, and ecosystems, complementing other ecological research techniques. Judicious selection, appropriate application and thorough interpretation of existing indices is vital to bolster robust developments in ecoacoustics for biodiversity monitoring, conservation and future research.

show abstract

“…In both terrestrial and underwater studies, soundscapes have been shown to be reliable indicators of biodiversity and species distributions (e.g., Rodriguez et al, 2014;Kaplan et al, 2015), making acoustic tools an appealing alternative to traditional survey methods that are often prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. Previous studies have also established clear connections between the geophysical setting and the soundscape, showing that diverse factors such as human land use, wildfire disturbance, and/or habitat fragmentation can affect soundscape properties (Fuller et al, 2015;Dooley and Brown, 2020;Gasc et al, 2018;Duarte et al, 2021). As soundscape scholarship continues to advance, the development of conceptual frameworks that incorporate acoustic monitoring into broader ecological research contexts is also projected to expand.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%