Menu
×
Main Library
9 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 805-6930
Wando Mount Pleasant Library
9 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 805-6888
St. Paul's/Hollywood Library
2 p.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 889-3300
Otranto Road Library
9 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 572-4094
Mt. Pleasant Library
9 a.m. – 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 849-6161
McClellanville Library
9 a.m. - 6 p.m.
Phone: (843) 887-3699
John's Island Library
12 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 559-1945
Hurd/St. Andrews Library
Closed (Toddler Storytime)
Phone: (843) 766-2546
Folly Beach Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 588-2001
Edisto Library
2 p.m. - 6 p.m.
Phone: (843) 869-2355
Dorchester Road Library
9 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 552-6466
Baxter-Patrick James Island
9 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 795-6679
Bees Ferry West Ashley Library
9 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 805-6892
Village Library
9 a.m. - 1 p.m.
Phone: (843) 884-9741
Edgar Allan Poe/Sullivan's Island Library
9 a.m. - 1 p.m.
Phone: (843) 883-3914
Keith Summey North Charleston Library
9 a.m. – 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 744-2489
West Ashley Library
Closed for renovations
Phone: (843) 766-6635
John L. Dart Library
Closed for renovations
Phone: (843) 722-7550
Mobile Library
9 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Phone: (843) 805-6909
Today's Hours
Main Library
9 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 805-6930
Wando Mount Pleasant Library
9 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 805-6888
St. Paul's/Hollywood Library
2 p.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 889-3300
Otranto Road Library
9 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 572-4094
Mt. Pleasant Library
9 a.m. – 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 849-6161
McClellanville Library
9 a.m. - 6 p.m.
Phone: (843) 887-3699
John's Island Library
12 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 559-1945
Hurd/St. Andrews Library
Closed (Toddler Storytime)
Phone: (843) 766-2546
Folly Beach Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 588-2001
Edisto Library
2 p.m. - 6 p.m.
Phone: (843) 869-2355
Dorchester Road Library
9 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 552-6466
Baxter-Patrick James Island
9 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 795-6679
Bees Ferry West Ashley Library
9 a.m. - 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 805-6892
Village Library
9 a.m. - 1 p.m.
Phone: (843) 884-9741
Edgar Allan Poe/Sullivan's Island Library
9 a.m. - 1 p.m.
Phone: (843) 883-3914
Keith Summey North Charleston Library
9 a.m. – 8 p.m.
Phone: (843) 744-2489
West Ashley Library
Closed for renovations
Phone: (843) 766-6635
John L. Dart Library
Closed for renovations
Phone: (843) 722-7550
Mobile Library
9 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Phone: (843) 805-6909
Patron Login
menu
Item request has been placed!
×
Item request cannot be made.
×

Comparing the sampling performance of sound recorders versus point counts in bird surveys: A meta‐analysis.
Item request has been placed!
×
Item request cannot be made.
×

- Author(s): Darras, Kevin1 ; Batáry, Péter1,2; Furnas, Brett3; Celis‐Murillo, Antonio4; Van Wilgenburg, Steven L.5; Mulyani, Yeni A.6; Tscharntke, Teja1; Willis, Steve
- Source:
Journal of Applied Ecology. Nov2018, Vol. 55 Issue 6, p2575-2586. 12p. 3 Charts, 2 Graphs.- Subject Terms:
- Source:
- Additional Information
- Abstract: 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Abstract: Copyright of Journal of Applied Ecology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
- Abstract:
Contact CCPL
Copyright 2022 Charleston County Public Library Powered By EBSCO Stacks 3.3.0 [350.3] | Staff Login
No Comments.