The soundscape of Arctic Charr spawning grounds in lotic and lentic environments: can passive acoustic monitoring be used to detect spawning activities?

Bolgan, Marta; O’Brien, Joanne; Chorazyczewska, Emilia; Winfield, Ian J.; McCullough, P. R.; Gammell, Martin P.

doi:10.1080/09524622.2017.1286262

Cited by 21 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, there has been a surge in interest in documenting noise impacts on freshwater ecosystems (Holt and Johnston 2015;Bolgan et al 2017;Linke et al 2018), but these are Table 1. Number of species reported to produce sounds by taxonomic order and family.…”

Section: How Can We Understand Anthropogenic Noise Impacts If We Don'mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Can We Understand Freshwater Soundscapes Without Fish Sound Descriptions?

Rountree¹,

Bolgan

Juanes

2019

Fisheries

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ecological importance of the freshwater soundscape is just beginning to be recognized by society. Scientists are beginning to apply Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) methods that are well established in marine systems to freshwater systems to map spatial and temporal patterns of behaviors associated with fish sounds as well as noise impacts on them. Unfortunately, these efforts are greatly hampered by a critical lack of data on the sources of sounds that make up the soundscape of freshwater habitats. A review of the literature finds that only 87 freshwater species have been reported to produce sounds in North America and Europe over the last 200 years, accounting for 5% of the known freshwater fish diversity. The problem is exacerbated by the general failure of researchers to report the detailed statistical descriptions of fish sound characteristics that are necessary to develop PAM programs. We suggest that publishers and editors should do more to encourage reporting of statistical properties of fish sounds. In addition, we call for research, academic, and government agencies to develop regional libraries of fish sounds to aid in PAM and anthropogenic noise impact studies.

show abstract

Section: How Can We Understand Anthropogenic Noise Impacts If We Don'mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Can We Understand Freshwater Soundscapes Without Fish Sound Descriptions?

Rountree¹,

Bolgan

Juanes

2019

Fisheries

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recordings were made from 1 to 49 minutes duration (mean = 12.5) during day and 3 to 119 minutes (mean = 35.5 minutes) during night sampling (S1 Table). Night recordings were longer on average than day recordings because we expected increased biological activity around sunset based on previous experience [7, 9–10, 12], and to avoid travel in unfamiliar and often remote locations after dark.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Biological sounds were largely unidentified and subjectively classified into broad categories based on our previous experience [7, 9–10, 12]. Sound type categories included: Fast Repetitive Ticks and other air movement sounds [sensu 10], other fish, insect-like, surface, bird and other biological sounds.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…He also pointed out the critical lack of data on the ambient noise and fish sounds in freshwater systems. 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%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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 ACIt f measure has been extensively validated at different temporal resolutions [83] in terrestrial [74,84] and aquatic systems [75,[85][86][87][88]. Moreover, ACIt f has been used to investigate animal phenology [89,90] and to estimate the effect of anthropogenic noise [91].…”

Section: Characteristics Of Acit F and Acif Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecoacoustics: A Quantitative Approach to Investigate the Ecological Role of Environmental Sounds

Farina

2018

Mathematics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecoacoustics is a recent ecological discipline focusing on the ecological role of sounds. Sounds from the geophysical, biological, and anthropic environment represent important cues used by animals to navigate, communicate, and transform unknown environments in well-known habitats. Sounds are utilized to evaluate relevant ecological parameters adopted as proxies for biodiversity, environmental health, and human wellbeing assessment due to the availability of autonomous audio recorders and of quantitative metrics. Ecoacoustics is an important ecological tool to establish an innovative biosemiotic narrative to ensure a strategic connection between nature and humanity, to help in-situ field and remote-sensing surveys, and to develop long-term monitoring programs. Acoustic entropy, acoustic richness, acoustic dissimilarity index, acoustic complexity indices (ACItf and ACIft and their evenness), normalized difference soundscape index, ecoacoustic event detection and identification routine, and their fractal structure are some of the most popular indices successfully applied in ecoacoustics. Ecoacoustics offers great opportunities to investigate ecological complexity across a full range of operational scales (from individual species to landscapes), but requires an implementation of its foundations and of quantitative metrics to ameliorate its competency on physical, biological, and anthropic sonic contexts.

show abstract

The soundscape of Arctic Charr spawning grounds in lotic and lentic environments: can passive acoustic monitoring be used to detect spawning activities?

Cited by 21 publications

References 47 publications

How Can We Understand Freshwater Soundscapes Without Fish Sound Descriptions?

How Can We Understand Freshwater Soundscapes Without Fish Sound Descriptions?

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

Ecoacoustics: A Quantitative Approach to Investigate the Ecological Role of Environmental Sounds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About