Experimentally derived detection distances from audio recordings and human observers enable integrated analysis of point count data

Point counts are one of the most commonly used methods for assessing bird abundance. Autonomous recording units (ARUs) are increasingly being used as a replacement for human-based point counts. Previous studies have compared the relative benefits of human versus ARU-based point count methods, primar...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Daniel A. Yip, Lionel Leston, Erin M. Bayne, Péter Sólymos, Alison Grover
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Resilience Alliance 2017-06-01
Series:Avian Conservation and Ecology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.ace-eco.org/vol12/iss1/art11/
id doaj-4283422f53d84c94a7aa58285d3a828b
record_format Article
spelling doaj-4283422f53d84c94a7aa58285d3a828b2020-11-24T23:15:39ZengResilience AllianceAvian Conservation and Ecology1712-65682017-06-011211110.5751/ACE-00997-120111997Experimentally derived detection distances from audio recordings and human observers enable integrated analysis of point count dataDaniel A. Yip0Lionel Leston1Erin M. Bayne2Péter Sólymos3Alison Grover4Department of Biological Sciences, University of AlbertaDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of AlbertaDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of AlbertaDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of AlbertaDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of AlbertaPoint counts are one of the most commonly used methods for assessing bird abundance. Autonomous recording units (ARUs) are increasingly being used as a replacement for human-based point counts. Previous studies have compared the relative benefits of human versus ARU-based point count methods, primarily with the goal of understanding differences in species richness and the abundance of individuals over an unlimited distance. What has not been done is an evaluation of how to standardize these two types of data so that they can be compared in the same analysis, especially when there are differences in the area sampled. We compared detection distances between human observers in the field and four commercially available recording devices (Wildlife Acoustics SM2, SM3, RiverForks, and Zoom H1) by simulating vocalizations of various avian species at different distances and amplitudes. We also investigated the relationship between sound amplitude and detection to simplify ARU calibration. We used these data to calculate correction factors that can be used to standardize detection distances of ARUs relative to each other and human observers. In general, humans in the field could detect sounds at greater distances than an ARU although detectability varied depending on species song characteristics. We provide correction factors for four commonly used ARUs and propose methods for calibrating ARUs relative to each other and human observers.http://www.ace-eco.org/vol12/iss1/art11/autonomous recording unitbioacousticseffective detection radiusmaximum detection distancesurvey bias
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Daniel A. Yip
Lionel Leston
Erin M. Bayne
Péter Sólymos
Alison Grover
spellingShingle Daniel A. Yip
Lionel Leston
Erin M. Bayne
Péter Sólymos
Alison Grover
Experimentally derived detection distances from audio recordings and human observers enable integrated analysis of point count data
Avian Conservation and Ecology
autonomous recording unit
bioacoustics
effective detection radius
maximum detection distance
survey bias
author_facet Daniel A. Yip
Lionel Leston
Erin M. Bayne
Péter Sólymos
Alison Grover
author_sort Daniel A. Yip
title Experimentally derived detection distances from audio recordings and human observers enable integrated analysis of point count data
title_short Experimentally derived detection distances from audio recordings and human observers enable integrated analysis of point count data
title_full Experimentally derived detection distances from audio recordings and human observers enable integrated analysis of point count data
title_fullStr Experimentally derived detection distances from audio recordings and human observers enable integrated analysis of point count data
title_full_unstemmed Experimentally derived detection distances from audio recordings and human observers enable integrated analysis of point count data
title_sort experimentally derived detection distances from audio recordings and human observers enable integrated analysis of point count data
publisher Resilience Alliance
series Avian Conservation and Ecology
issn 1712-6568
publishDate 2017-06-01
description Point counts are one of the most commonly used methods for assessing bird abundance. Autonomous recording units (ARUs) are increasingly being used as a replacement for human-based point counts. Previous studies have compared the relative benefits of human versus ARU-based point count methods, primarily with the goal of understanding differences in species richness and the abundance of individuals over an unlimited distance. What has not been done is an evaluation of how to standardize these two types of data so that they can be compared in the same analysis, especially when there are differences in the area sampled. We compared detection distances between human observers in the field and four commercially available recording devices (Wildlife Acoustics SM2, SM3, RiverForks, and Zoom H1) by simulating vocalizations of various avian species at different distances and amplitudes. We also investigated the relationship between sound amplitude and detection to simplify ARU calibration. We used these data to calculate correction factors that can be used to standardize detection distances of ARUs relative to each other and human observers. In general, humans in the field could detect sounds at greater distances than an ARU although detectability varied depending on species song characteristics. We provide correction factors for four commonly used ARUs and propose methods for calibrating ARUs relative to each other and human observers.
topic autonomous recording unit
bioacoustics
effective detection radius
maximum detection distance
survey bias
url http://www.ace-eco.org/vol12/iss1/art11/
work_keys_str_mv AT danielayip experimentallyderiveddetectiondistancesfromaudiorecordingsandhumanobserversenableintegratedanalysisofpointcountdata
AT lionelleston experimentallyderiveddetectiondistancesfromaudiorecordingsandhumanobserversenableintegratedanalysisofpointcountdata
AT erinmbayne experimentallyderiveddetectiondistancesfromaudiorecordingsandhumanobserversenableintegratedanalysisofpointcountdata
AT petersolymos experimentallyderiveddetectiondistancesfromaudiorecordingsandhumanobserversenableintegratedanalysisofpointcountdata
AT alisongrover experimentallyderiveddetectiondistancesfromaudiorecordingsandhumanobserversenableintegratedanalysisofpointcountdata
_version_ 1716342509769064448