Autonomous acoustic recorders reveal complex patterns in avian detection probability
ABSTRACT Avian point‐count surveys are typically designed to occur during periods when birds are consistently active and singing, but seasonal and diurnal patterns of detection probability are often not well understood and may vary regionally or between years. We deployed autonomous acoustic recorde...
| Published in: | The Journal of Wildlife Management |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21285 https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fjwmg.21285 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/jwmg.21285/fullpdf |
| Summary: | ABSTRACT Avian point‐count surveys are typically designed to occur during periods when birds are consistently active and singing, but seasonal and diurnal patterns of detection probability are often not well understood and may vary regionally or between years. We deployed autonomous acoustic recorders to assess how avian availability for detection (i.e., the probability that a bird signals its presence during a recording) varied during the breeding season with time of day, date, and weather‐related variables at multiple subarctic tundra sites in Alaska, USA, 2013–2014. A single observer processed 2,692 10‐minute recordings across 11 site‐years. We used time‐removal methods to assess availability and used generalized additive models to examine patterns of detectability (joint probability of presence, availability, and detection) for 16 common species. Despite lack of distinct dawn or dusk, most species displayed circadian vocalization patterns, with detection rates generally peaking between 0800 hours and 1200 hours but remaining high as late as 2000 hours for some species. Between 2200 hours and 0500 hours, most species’ detection rates dropped to near 0, signaling a distinctive rest period. Detectability dropped sharply for most species in early July. For all species considered, time‐removal analysis indicated nearly 100% likelihood of detection during a 10‐minute recording conducted in June, between 0500 hours and 2000 hours. This indicates that non‐detections during appropriate survey times and dates were attributable to the species’ absence or that silent birds were unlikely to initiate singing during a 10‐minute interval, whereas vocally active birds were singing very frequently. Systematic recordings revealed a gradient of species’ presence at each site, from ubiquitous to incidental. Although the total number of species detected at a site ranged from 16 to 27, we detected only 4 to 15 species on ≥5% of the site's recordings. Recordings provided an unusually detailed and consistent dataset that allowed us ... |
|---|