2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2015.03.036
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automated acoustic detection of Vanellus chilensis lampronotus

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
25
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
(40 reference statements)
1
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Many studies use Frogloggers (construction manual given by Peterson & Dorcas 1994;e.g., Acevedo & Villanueva-Rivera 2006;Akmentins et al 2014) or the Songmeter recorders (Wildlife Acoustics Inc.; e.g., Lehmann et al 2014;Zwart et al 2014;Ganchev et al 2015;Jansen et al 2016b). For the automatic detection of particular animal sounds there is a variety of algorithms that can be used, and several programs on the market have already implemented species identification tools for several taxonomic groups (Ganchev et al 2015). Although it is not in the focus of this paper to evaluate this increasing body of software, algorithms or machine learning techniques for signal detection (Acevedo et al 2009;Huang et al 2009), we will give some commonly used examples -without evaluating their efficiency.…”
Section: Automated Recording and Signal Recognitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many studies use Frogloggers (construction manual given by Peterson & Dorcas 1994;e.g., Acevedo & Villanueva-Rivera 2006;Akmentins et al 2014) or the Songmeter recorders (Wildlife Acoustics Inc.; e.g., Lehmann et al 2014;Zwart et al 2014;Ganchev et al 2015;Jansen et al 2016b). For the automatic detection of particular animal sounds there is a variety of algorithms that can be used, and several programs on the market have already implemented species identification tools for several taxonomic groups (Ganchev et al 2015). Although it is not in the focus of this paper to evaluate this increasing body of software, algorithms or machine learning techniques for signal detection (Acevedo et al 2009;Huang et al 2009), we will give some commonly used examples -without evaluating their efficiency.…”
Section: Automated Recording and Signal Recognitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the change feature learning methods, physically-meaningful features and learned change features both lead to a good performance and have been applied in various domains. As physically-meaningful features, vegetation indices, forest canopy variables and water indices are often extracted to identify changes in specific ground-object types [12,13]. For learned features and transformations, various features or transformed feature spaces are learned to highlight the change information to detect a changed region more easily than when using the original spectral information of multi-temporal images, such as in Principal Component Analysis (PCA) [14], Multivariate Alteration Detection (MAD) [15], subspace learning [16,17], sparse learning [18] and slow features [19].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Between July 2012 and October 2014 we used Song Meter SM2+ recorders (Wildlife Acoustics 5 ) for soundscape collection in 24/7 mode, in total ca. 90 TB of audio recordings with a file duration of 14-30 min, 48-kHz sampling rate, and 16-bit resolution [34]. We completed one annual cycle of recordings each at Fazenda Pouso Alegre (À16.50303 S, À56.74533 W; 115-126 m a.s.l.…”
Section: Study Areamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…manually, and thus contain competing sounds from multiple species and certain interferences of abiotic origin. Each recording was time-stamped and tagged on the level of V. chilensis call series by a bird-sound expert [34]. In brief, the annotation procedure can be summarized as follows:…”
Section: Chilensis Validation Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation