How Can We Understand Freshwater Soundscapes Without Fish Sound Descriptions?

Rountree, Rodney A.; Bolgan, Marta; Juanes, Francis

doi:10.1002/fsh.10190

Cited by 33 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(70 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While ecoacoustic analysis using indices or spectrograms is still feasible (Gottesman et al, ; Linke, Decker, Gifford & Desjonquères, ), even when not all sounds are resolved, interpretation can sometimes be difficult. We, therefore, concur with Rountree, Bolgan and Juanes (): in many cases, it is imperative to know and catalogue the source of the sounds. Example applications that cannot work without detailed characterisations are monitoring endangered species or tracking invasion front by soniferous species such as tilapia or brown bullhead catfish.…”

Section: Characterising Sounds and Linking Occurrences To Organisms Asupporting

confidence: 68%

Six steps towards operationalising freshwater ecoacoustic monitoring

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Applications in bioacoustics and its sister discipline ecoacoustics have increased exponentially over the last decade. However, despite knowledge about aquatic bioacoustics dating back to the times of Aristotle and a vast amount of background literature to draw upon, freshwater applications of ecoacoustics have been lagging to date. In this special issue, we present nine studies that deal with underwater acoustics, plus three acoustic studies on water‐dependent birds and frogs. Topics include automatic detection of freshwater organisms by their calls, quantifying habitat change by analysing entire soundscapes, and detecting change in behaviour when organisms are exposed to noise. We identify six major challenges and review progress through this special issue. Challenges include characterisation of sounds, accessibility of archived sounds as well as improving automated analysis methods. Study design considerations include characterisation analysis challenges of spatial and temporal variation. The final key challenge is the so far largely understudied link between ecological condition and underwater sound. We hope that this special issue will raise awareness about underwater soundscapes as a survey tool. With a diverse array of field and analysis tools, this issue can act as a manual for future monitoring applications that will hopefully foster further advances in the field.

show abstract

Section: Characterising Sounds and Linking Occurrences To Organisms Asupporting

confidence: 68%

Six steps towards operationalising freshwater ecoacoustic monitoring

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although there has been a dramatic increase in awareness and attention to soundscapes in marine systems in the last decade, and in particular the effects of noise [25], attention has only recently begun to trickle over to freshwater systems. Furthermore, the lack of familiarity with biological sounds in freshwater habitats [8] contributes to their being overlooked.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fortunately, after long neglect there has been a recent surge in interest in the potential impacts of anthropogenic noise on freshwater ecosystems [3–7], but efforts to understand such impacts are hampered by the paucity of data on the natural soundscape composition. The paucity of data on the sound production of freshwater fishes was highlighted in our recent review of the literature which found that sounds have been reported in only 87 species in North America and Europe, but detailed descriptions of sound characteristics are known for only 30 species [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Freshwater soundscapes: a cacophony of undescribed biological sounds now threatened by anthropogenic noise

Rountree¹,

Juanes

Bolgan

2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

14The soundscape composition of freshwater habitats is poorly understood. Our goal was 15 to document the occurrence of biological sounds in a large variety of freshwater habitats over a 16 large geographic area. The underwater soundscape was sampled in freshwater habitat categorized 17 as brook/creek, pond/lake, or river, from five major river systems in North America 18 (Connecticut, Kennebec, Merrimack, Presumpscot, and Saco) over a five-week period in the 19 spring of 2008. Over 7,000 sounds were measured from 2,750 minutes of recording in 173 20 locations, and classified into major anthropophony (airplane, boat, traffic, train and other noise) 21 and biophony (fish air movement, also known as air passage, other fish, insect-like, bird, and 22 other biological) sound categories. Anthropogenic noise dominated the soundscape of all 23 habitats averaging 15 % of time per recording compared to less than 2 % for biological sounds.24 Anthropophony occurred in 79 % of recordings and was mainly due to traffic and boat sounds, 25 which exhibited significant differences among habitats and between non-tidal and tidal river 26 regions. Most biophonic sounds were from unidentified insect-like, air movement fish, and other 27 fish sound sources that occurred in 57 % of recordings. Mean frequencies of anthropogenic 28 noises overlapped strongly with the biophony, and comparisons of spectra suggest that insect-29 like and air movement sounds may be more susceptible to masking than other fish sounds. There 30 was a significant decline in biodiversity and biophony with increasing ambient sound levels.31 Our poor understanding of the biophony of freshwater ecosystems, together with an apparent 32 high temporal exposure to anthropogenic noise across all habitats, suggest a critical need for 33 studies aimed at identification of biophonic sound sources and assessment of potential threats 34 from anthropogenic noises. 35 3 36 Introduction 37 Fish sounds were first seriously studied in North America by Abbot [1] who lamented 38 that "the little fishes of our inland brooks and more pretentious denizens of our rivers are looked 39 upon as voiceless creatures…" and concluded that "certain sounds made by these fishes are 40 really vocal efforts….". However, Stober [2] was the first to describe the underwater noise 41 spectra in relation to freshwater fish sounds. He also pointed out the critical lack of data on the 42 ambient noise and fish sounds in freshwater systems. Fortunately, after long neglect there has 43 been a recent surge in interest in the potential impacts of anthropogenic noise on freshwater 44 ecosystems [3-7], but efforts to understand such impacts are hampered by the paucity of data on 45 the natural soundscape composition. The paucity of data on the sound production of freshwater 46 fishes was highlighted in our recent review of the literature which found that sounds have been 47 reported in only 87 species in North America and Europe, but detailed descriptions of sound 48 characteristics are known for only 30 specie...

show abstract

“…The most extensive and well known of them is the Macaulay Library hosted at Cornell University. These sound archives are also valuable tools to share species specific sounds; however, too few freshwater sounds are available in existing archives (Linke, Gifford, et al., ; Rountree, Bolgan, & Juanes, ).…”

Section: How To Undertake Pam In Freshwatermentioning

confidence: 99%

Passive acoustic monitoring as a potential tool to survey animal and ecosystem processes in freshwater environments

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity in freshwater habitats is decreasing faster than in any other type of environment, mostly as a result of human activities. Monitoring these losses can help guide mitigation efforts. In most studies, sampling strategies predominantly rely on collecting animal and vegetal specimens. Although these techniques produce valuable data, they are invasive, time‐consuming and typically permit only limited spatial and temporal replication. There is need for the development of complementary methods. As observed in other ecosystems, freshwater environments host animals that emit sounds, either to communicate or as a by‐product of their activity. The main freshwater soniferous groups are amphibians, fish, and macroinvertebrates (mainly Coleoptera and Hemiptera, but also some Decapoda, Odonata, and Trichoptera). Biophysical processes such as flow or sediment transport also produce sounds, as well as human activities within aquatic ecosystems. Such animals and processes can be recorded, remotely and autonomously, and provide information on local diversity and ecosystem health. Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is an emerging method already deployed in terrestrial environments that uses sounds to survey environments. Key advantages of PAM are its non‐invasive nature, as well as its ability to record autonomously and over long timescales. All these research topics are the main aims of ecoacoustics, a new scientific discipline investigating the ecological role of sounds. In this paper, we review the sources of sounds present in freshwater environments. We then underline areas of research in which PAM may be helpful emphasising the role of PAM for the development of ecoacoustics. Finally, we present methods used to record and analyse sounds in those environments. Passive acoustics represents a potentially revolutionary development in freshwater ecology, enabling continuous monitoring of dynamic bio‐physical processes to inform conservation practitioners and managers.

show abstract

How Can We Understand Freshwater Soundscapes Without Fish Sound Descriptions?

Cited by 33 publications

References 43 publications

Six steps towards operationalising freshwater ecoacoustic monitoring

Six steps towards operationalising freshwater ecoacoustic monitoring

Freshwater soundscapes: a cacophony of undescribed biological sounds now threatened by anthropogenic noise

Passive acoustic monitoring as a potential tool to survey animal and ecosystem processes in freshwater environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About