Comparisons Between Autonomous Acoustic Recordings and Avian Point Counts in Open Woodland Savanna

Alquezar, Renata Duarte; Machado, Ricardo B.

doi:10.1676/14-104.1

Cited by 69 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, there are known differences in counts between recording devices (Venier et al 2012, Rempel et al 2013, Alquezar and Machado 2015, Klingbeil and Willig 2015, La and Nudds 2016 and among years for a given microphone (Turgeon et al 2017). Although this source of variance can be problematic, it is probably similar to observer biases in detection of human-based surveys that have not been as well quantified.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential benefits of augmenting road-based breeding bird surveys with autonomous recordings

Mahon¹,

Haché²,

Sólymos³

et al. 2017

ACE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is one of the longest annual avian surveys and has the greatest spatiotemporally extensive coverage in the Western Hemisphere. Although this important survey provides trend estimates for more than 400 species, it has limited coverage in the boreal forest and biases in representation and detectability that complicate inference. Thus, there is a need to evaluate the potential of new technologies and analytical approaches to increase coverage and improve monitoring efficiency. We documented variation in counts between BBS surveys (hereafter "human BBS") and different on-road and forest-edge surveys using autonomous recording units (ARUs) from 3 routes in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Specifically, we quantified percent differences (i.e., bias in counts) in species richness, abundance indices of birds, and species-specific variation in counts between human BBS and ARU-based surveys conducted on-road and at the forest edge at different dates and times of day. We also generated on-road effective detection radius (EDR) estimates for 15 species and tested for species-specific differences in EDR to explain bias in counts between on-road and forest-edge ARU surveys. Overall, species richness and abundance indices in human BBS surveys were higher than forest-edge ARU surveys conducted simultaneously and when similar forest-edge ARU surveys were conducted at sunset and a week earlier in June. However, there was no difference when comparing values from human BBS with on-road ARU BBS and forest-edge ARU surveys conducted at sunrise. Extracting the maximum count per species from 4 types of 3-minute forest-edge surveys increased counts by 62% and 64% for species richness and abundance indices, respectively, relative to human BBS, but the importance of this bias differed considerably among the 10 most common species in the study area. Our results suggest that false-negative bias in species detection could be corrected with appropriate methods, and ARUs deployed at the forest edge near BBS stops could be used to increase data quality of on-road surveys. When combined with appropriate correction factors to adjust for surveys done at the forest edge, ARUs could also be used to increase the geographic coverage of boreal surveys by allowing inexperienced volunteers to collect BBS data along winter or secondary roads in remote locations. Avantages

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential benefits of augmenting road-based breeding bird surveys with autonomous recordings

Mahon¹,

Haché²,

Sólymos³

et al. 2017

ACE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies also suggested that using both methods in combination could be more effective than either method alone (Celis-Murillo et al 2009, 2012, Tegeler et al 2012, Digby et al 2013, Alquezar and Machado 2015). Only one study in which humans performed better than ARUs reported that ARUs were not cost effective compared to point counts, but acknowledged the utility of a permanent record and recommended the use of portable recorders when conducting point counts (Hutto and Stutzman 2009).…”

Section: Advantages and Disadvantages Of Autonomous Recording Units Imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…by visual cues only during point counts (Tegeler et al 2012, Alquezar andMachado 2015). ARUs may not always be able to "hear" as far as humans can, but this will depend on the sensitivity of the ARU model and microphones (Rempel et al 2013, Turgeon et al 2017.…”

Section: Advantages and Disadvantages Of Autonomous Recording Units Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Autonomous recording units in avian ecological research: current use and future applications

Shonfield¹,

Bayne²

2017

ACE

245

241

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Acoustic surveys are a widely used sampling tool in ecological research and monitoring. They are used to monitor populations and ecosystems and to study various aspects of animal behavior. Autonomous recording units (ARUs) can record sound in most environments and are increasingly used by researchers to conduct acoustic surveys for birds. In this review, we summarize the use of ARUs in avian ecological research and synthesize current knowledge of the benefits and drawbacks of this technology. ARUs enable researchers to do more repeat visits with less time spent in the field, with the added benefits of a permanent record of the data collected and reduced observer bias. They are useful in remote locations and for targeting rare species. ARUs are mostly comparable to human observers in terms of species richness, but in some cases, they detect fewer species and at shorter distances. Drawbacks of ARUs include the cost of equipment, storage of recordings, loss of data if units fail, and potential sampling trade-offs in spatial vs. temporal coverage. ARUs generate large data sets of audio recordings, but advances in automated species recognition and acoustic processing techniques are contributing to make the processing time manageable. Future applications of ARUs include biodiversity monitoring and studying habitat use, animal movement, and various behavioral ecology questions based on vocalization activity. ARUs have the potential to make significant advances in avian ecological research and to be used in more innovative ways than simply as a substitute for a human observer in the field. Unités d'enregistrement autonomes en écologie aviaire : utilisations actuelles et futuresRÉSUMÉ. Les relevés acoustiques sont largement employés comme outil d'échantillonnage pour la recherche et les suivis écologiques. Ils sont utilisés pour suivre les populations et les écosystèmes et étudier le comportement animal sous divers angles. Les unités d'enregistrement autonomes (ARU, pour autonomus recording units) peuvent enregistrer les sons dans la plupart des environnements et sont utilisés de plus en plus souvent par les chercheurs pour effectuer des relevés acoustiques d'oiseaux. Dans la présente revue, nous résumons l'utilisation d'ARU en écologie aviaire et synthétisons les avantages et désavantages connus de cette technologie. Les ARU permettent aux chercheurs de faire plus de visites répétées tout en passant moins de temps sur le terrain, avec l'avantage d'avoir un enregistrement permanent des données récoltées et de réduire le biais associé à l'observateur. Ils sont utiles en milieu éloigné et dans les cas où on cible des espèces rares. Les ARU sont comparables aux observateurs humains pour ce qui est de la richesse spécifique, mais dans certains cas, ils détectent moins d'espèces et à des distances plus courtes. Les désavantages des ARU comprennent le coût de l'équipement, la sauvegarde des enregistrements, la perte de données en cas de défaillance des unités, et le compromis possible à devoir faire sur le plan de la...

show abstract

“…It should be noted that although their ranges would not simply depend on the polar pattern and sensitivity of the microphones used but also on the recorder noise floor and microphone signal-to-noise ratio, and these specifications are implicitly taken into account when measuring detection spaces. The different detection areas sampled by different survey methods also have not been taken into account in several studies reporting the efficacy of point counts versus acoustic recordings (Acevedo and Villanueva-Rivera, 2006;Alquezar and Machado, 2015;Celis-Murillo et al, 2012): clearly, survey methods with larger detection spaces should yield more detections. Similarly, quantifying detection spaces of single species has high relevance for calculating species detection probability and their measured occurrence.…”

Section: Implications For Ecoacoustic Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring sound detection spaces for acoustic animal sampling and monitoring

Darras

Pütz

Fahrurrozi

et al. 2016

Biological Conservation

111

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparisons Between Autonomous Acoustic Recordings and Avian Point Counts in Open Woodland Savanna

Cited by 69 publications

References 88 publications

Potential benefits of augmenting road-based breeding bird surveys with autonomous recordings

Potential benefits of augmenting road-based breeding bird surveys with autonomous recordings

Autonomous recording units in avian ecological research: current use and future applications

Measuring sound detection spaces for acoustic animal sampling and monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About