Using extended‐duration audio recordings to survey avian species

Abstract Point‐count surveys are widely used to infer avian presence and estimate species richness. Advancements in bioacoustic technology enable automated surveys that can supplement human‐based point‐count surveys with expanded temporal and spatial coverage. We surveyed birds in 13 Sierra Nevada a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Amy K. Tegeler, Michael L. Morrison, Joseph M. Szewczak
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2012-03-01
Series:Wildlife Society Bulletin
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.112
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1846120420543037440
author Amy K. Tegeler
Michael L. Morrison
Joseph M. Szewczak
author_facet Amy K. Tegeler
Michael L. Morrison
Joseph M. Szewczak
author_sort Amy K. Tegeler
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Point‐count surveys are widely used to infer avian presence and estimate species richness. Advancements in bioacoustic technology enable automated surveys that can supplement human‐based point‐count surveys with expanded temporal and spatial coverage. We surveyed birds in 13 Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range (CA, USA) montane meadows from May to August 2006 using 8 point‐count surveys and automated audio recorders (ARU) to compare species richness between the 2 methods and evaluate the use of ARUs as a monitoring tool. We analyzed species richness using 30 minutes of ARU data per point and 2 point‐count surveys. Automated audio‐recorder data revealed 14 species per meadow (56 species total) while point counts detected 16 species per meadow (67 species total). Automated audio recorders provided >1,100 additional hours of data with personnel effort similar to 2 point‐count surveys. An asymptote in species richness was reached for every meadow using ARU data and 8 of 13 meadows using 2 point‐count surveys. We detected 81 species during all 8 point‐count surveys. We used SonoBird (DNDesign, Arcata, CA) software to search for 24 species detected by point‐count surveys but not in the manually sampled subset of audio files. We detected 22 additional species, bringing the total audio‐file species detections to 85, 4 more than detected by 8 point‐count surveys. We conclude that audio recordings and analysis provide an alternative to avian point‐count surveys or as a supplement to increase their accuracy, particularly over larger temporal and spatial scales, or for species with low detectability. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.
format Article
id doaj-art-468d56ee1c754fa58df22c9f64acabbe
institution Kabale University
issn 2328-5540
language English
publishDate 2012-03-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Wildlife Society Bulletin
spelling doaj-art-468d56ee1c754fa58df22c9f64acabbe2024-12-16T11:15:41ZengWileyWildlife Society Bulletin2328-55402012-03-01361212910.1002/wsb.112Using extended‐duration audio recordings to survey avian speciesAmy K. Tegeler0Michael L. Morrison1Joseph M. Szewczak2Department of Biology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA 95521, USADepartment of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USADepartment of Biology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA 95521, USAAbstract Point‐count surveys are widely used to infer avian presence and estimate species richness. Advancements in bioacoustic technology enable automated surveys that can supplement human‐based point‐count surveys with expanded temporal and spatial coverage. We surveyed birds in 13 Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range (CA, USA) montane meadows from May to August 2006 using 8 point‐count surveys and automated audio recorders (ARU) to compare species richness between the 2 methods and evaluate the use of ARUs as a monitoring tool. We analyzed species richness using 30 minutes of ARU data per point and 2 point‐count surveys. Automated audio‐recorder data revealed 14 species per meadow (56 species total) while point counts detected 16 species per meadow (67 species total). Automated audio recorders provided >1,100 additional hours of data with personnel effort similar to 2 point‐count surveys. An asymptote in species richness was reached for every meadow using ARU data and 8 of 13 meadows using 2 point‐count surveys. We detected 81 species during all 8 point‐count surveys. We used SonoBird (DNDesign, Arcata, CA) software to search for 24 species detected by point‐count surveys but not in the manually sampled subset of audio files. We detected 22 additional species, bringing the total audio‐file species detections to 85, 4 more than detected by 8 point‐count surveys. We conclude that audio recordings and analysis provide an alternative to avian point‐count surveys or as a supplement to increase their accuracy, particularly over larger temporal and spatial scales, or for species with low detectability. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.112accumulation curveautonomous recording unitbioacousticsmontane meadowpoint countSierra Nevada
spellingShingle Amy K. Tegeler
Michael L. Morrison
Joseph M. Szewczak
Using extended‐duration audio recordings to survey avian species
Wildlife Society Bulletin
accumulation curve
autonomous recording unit
bioacoustics
montane meadow
point count
Sierra Nevada
title Using extended‐duration audio recordings to survey avian species
title_full Using extended‐duration audio recordings to survey avian species
title_fullStr Using extended‐duration audio recordings to survey avian species
title_full_unstemmed Using extended‐duration audio recordings to survey avian species
title_short Using extended‐duration audio recordings to survey avian species
title_sort using extended duration audio recordings to survey avian species
topic accumulation curve
autonomous recording unit
bioacoustics
montane meadow
point count
Sierra Nevada
url https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.112
work_keys_str_mv AT amyktegeler usingextendeddurationaudiorecordingstosurveyavianspecies
AT michaellmorrison usingextendeddurationaudiorecordingstosurveyavianspecies
AT josephmszewczak usingextendeddurationaudiorecordingstosurveyavianspecies