Autonomous sound recording is a promising sampling method for birds and other vocalizing terrestrial wildlife. However, while there are clear advantages of passive acoustic monitoring methods over classical point counts conducted by humans, it has been difficult to quantitatively assess how they compare in their sampling performance. Quantitative comparisons of species richness between acoustic recorders and human point counts in bird surveys have previously been hampered by the differing and often unknown detection ranges or sound detection spaces among sampling methods. We performed two meta‐analyses based on 28 studies where bird point counts were paired with sound recordings at the same sampling sites. We compared alpha and gamma richness estimated by both survey methods after equalizing their effective detection ranges. We further assessed the influence of technical sound recording specifications (microphone signal‐to‐noise ratio, height and number) on the bird sampling performance of sound recorders compared to unlimited radius point counts. We show that after standardizing detection ranges, alpha and gamma richness from both methods are statistically indistinguishable, while there might be an avoidance effect in point counts. Furthermore, we show that microphone signal‐to‐noise ratio (a measure of its quality), height and number positively affect performance through increasing the detection range, allowing sound recorders to match the performance of human point counts. Synthesis and applications. We demonstrate that when used properly, high‐end sound recording systems can sample terrestrial wildlife just as well as human observers conducting point counts. Correspondingly, we suggest a first standard methodology for sampling birds with autonomous sound recorders to obtain results comparable to point counts and enable practical sampling. We also give recommendations for carrying out effective surveys and making the most out of autonomous sound recorders.
Autonomous sound recording techniques have gained considerable traction in the last decade, but the question remains whether they can replace human observation surveys to sample sonant animals. For birds in particular, survey methods have been tested extensively using point counts and sound recording surveys. Here, we review the latest evidence for this taxon within the frame of a systematic map. We compare sampling effectiveness of these two survey methods, the output variables they produce, and their practicality. When assessed against the standard of point counts, autonomous sound recording proves to be a powerful tool that samples at least as many species. This technology can monitor birds in an exhaustive, standardized, and verifiable way. Moreover, sound recorders give access to entire soundscapes from which new data types can be derived (vocal activity, acoustic indices). Variables such as abundance, density, occupancy, or species richness can be obtained to yield data sets that are comparable to and compatible with point counts. Finally, autonomous sound recorders allow investigations at high temporal and spatial resolution and coverage, which are more cost effective and cannot be achieved by human observations alone, even though small‐scale studies might be more cost effective when carried out with point counts. Sound recorders can be deployed in many places, they are more scalable and reliable, making them the better choice for bird surveys in an increasingly data‐driven time. We provide an overview of currently available recorders and discuss their specifications to guide future study designs.
Autonomous sound recorders are increasingly used to survey birds, and other wildlife taxa. Species richness estimates from sound recordings are usually compared with estimates obtained from established methods like point counts, but so far the comparisons were biased: Detection ranges usually differ between the survey methods, and bird detection distance data are needed for standardizing data from sound recordings. We devised and tested a method for estimating bird detection distances from sound recordings, using a reference recording of test sounds at different frequencies, emitted from known distances. We used our method to estimate bird detection distances in sound recordings from tropical forest sites where point counts were also used. We derived bird abundance and richness measures and compared them between point counts and sound recordings using unlimited radius and fixed radius counts, as well as distance sampling modelling. First we show that it is possible to accurately estimate bird detection distances in sound recordings. We then demonstrate that these data can be used to standardize the detection ranges between point counts and sound recordings with a fixed‐radius approach, leading to higher abundance and richness estimates for sound recordings. Our distance‐sampling approach also revealed that sound recorders sampled significantly higher bird densities than human point counts. We show for the first time that it is possible to standardize detection ranges in sound recordings and that distance sampling can successfully be used too. We revealed that birds were flushed by human observers and that this possibly leads to lower density estimates in point counts, although sound recorders could also have sampled more birds because of their earlier deployment times. Sound recordings are more amenable to distance‐sampling modelling than point counts as they do not exhibit an observer‐induced avoidance effect, and they can easily collect more replicates for obtaining more accurate bird density estimates. Quantifying bird detection distances was so far one important shortcoming that hindered the adoption of modern autonomous sound recording methods for ecological surveys.
Rapid land-use change in the tropics causes dramatic losses in biodiversity and associated functions. In Sumatra, Indonesia, lowland rainforest has mainly been transformed by smallholders into oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) and rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) monocultures, interspersed with jungle rubber (rubber agroforests) and a few forest remnants. In two regions of the Jambi province, we conducted point counts in 32 plots of four different land-use types (lowland rainforest, jungle rubber, rubber plantation and oil palm plantation) as well as in 16 nearby homegardens, representing a small-scale, traditional agricultural system. We analysed total bird abundance and bird abundance in feeding guilds, as well as species richness per point count visit, per plot, and per land-use system, to unveil the conservation importance and functional responses of birds in the different land-use types. In total, we identified 71 species from 24 families. Across the different land-use types, abundance did not significantly differ, but both species richness per visit and per plot were reduced in plantations. Feeding guild abundances between land-use types were variable, but homegardens were dominated by omnivores and granivores, and frugivorous birds were absent from monoculture rubber and oil palm. Jungle rubber played an important role in harbouring forest bird species and frugivores. Homegardens turned out to be of minor importance for conserving birds due to their low sizes, although collectively, they are used by many bird species. Changes in functional composition with land-use conversion may affect important ecosystem functions such as biological pest control, pollination, and seed dispersal. In conclusion, maintaining forest cover, including degraded forest and jungle rubber, is of utmost importance to the conservation of functional and taxonomic bird diversity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.