Comparison of acoustic recorders and field observers for monitoring tundra bird communities

ABSTRACT Acoustic recorders can be useful for studying bird populations but their efficiency and accuracy should be assessed in pertinent ecological settings before use. We investigated the utility of an acoustic recorder for monitoring abundance of tundra‐breeding birds relative to point‐count surv...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Wildlife Society Bulletin
Main Authors: Vold, Skyler T., Handel, Colleen M., McNew, Lance B.
Other Authors: US Geological Survey
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2017
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wsb.785
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fwsb.785
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wsb.785
id crwiley:10.1002/wsb.785
record_format openpolar
spelling crwiley:10.1002/wsb.785 2024-09-15T18:39:41+00:00 Comparison of acoustic recorders and field observers for monitoring tundra bird communities Vold, Skyler T. Handel, Colleen M. McNew, Lance B. US Geological Survey 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wsb.785 https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fwsb.785 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wsb.785 en eng Wiley http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor Wildlife Society Bulletin volume 41, issue 3, page 566-576 ISSN 1938-5463 journal-article 2017 crwiley https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.785 2024-07-02T04:10:03Z ABSTRACT Acoustic recorders can be useful for studying bird populations but their efficiency and accuracy should be assessed in pertinent ecological settings before use. We investigated the utility of an acoustic recorder for monitoring abundance of tundra‐breeding birds relative to point‐count surveys in northwestern Alaska, USA, during 2014. Our objectives were to 1) compare numbers of birds and species detected by a field observer with those detected simultaneously by an acoustic recorder; 2) evaluate how detection probabilities for the observer and acoustic recorder varied with distance of birds from the survey point; and 3) evaluate whether avian guild‐specific detection rates differed between field observers and acoustic recorders relative to habitat. Compared with the observer, the acoustic recorder detected fewer species (β Method = −0.39 ± 0.07) and fewer individuals (β Method = −0.56 ± 0.05) in total and for 6 avian guilds. Discrepancies were attributed primarily to differences in effective area surveyed (91% missed by device were >100 m), but also to nonvocal birds being missed by the recorder (55% missed <100 m were silent). The observer missed a few individuals and one species detected by the device. Models indicated that relative abundance of various avian guilds was associated primarily with maximum shrub height and less so with shrub cover and visual obstruction. The absence of a significant interaction between survey method (observer vs . acoustic recorder) and any habitat characteristic suggests that traditional point counts and acoustic recorders would yield similar inferences about ecological relationships in tundra ecosystems. Pairing of the 2 methods could increase survey efficiency and allow for validation and archival of survey results. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Article in Journal/Newspaper Tundra Alaska Wiley Online Library Wildlife Society Bulletin 41 3 566 576
institution Open Polar
collection Wiley Online Library
op_collection_id crwiley
language English
description ABSTRACT Acoustic recorders can be useful for studying bird populations but their efficiency and accuracy should be assessed in pertinent ecological settings before use. We investigated the utility of an acoustic recorder for monitoring abundance of tundra‐breeding birds relative to point‐count surveys in northwestern Alaska, USA, during 2014. Our objectives were to 1) compare numbers of birds and species detected by a field observer with those detected simultaneously by an acoustic recorder; 2) evaluate how detection probabilities for the observer and acoustic recorder varied with distance of birds from the survey point; and 3) evaluate whether avian guild‐specific detection rates differed between field observers and acoustic recorders relative to habitat. Compared with the observer, the acoustic recorder detected fewer species (β Method = −0.39 ± 0.07) and fewer individuals (β Method = −0.56 ± 0.05) in total and for 6 avian guilds. Discrepancies were attributed primarily to differences in effective area surveyed (91% missed by device were >100 m), but also to nonvocal birds being missed by the recorder (55% missed <100 m were silent). The observer missed a few individuals and one species detected by the device. Models indicated that relative abundance of various avian guilds was associated primarily with maximum shrub height and less so with shrub cover and visual obstruction. The absence of a significant interaction between survey method (observer vs . acoustic recorder) and any habitat characteristic suggests that traditional point counts and acoustic recorders would yield similar inferences about ecological relationships in tundra ecosystems. Pairing of the 2 methods could increase survey efficiency and allow for validation and archival of survey results. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
author2 US Geological Survey
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Vold, Skyler T.
Handel, Colleen M.
McNew, Lance B.
spellingShingle Vold, Skyler T.
Handel, Colleen M.
McNew, Lance B.
Comparison of acoustic recorders and field observers for monitoring tundra bird communities
author_facet Vold, Skyler T.
Handel, Colleen M.
McNew, Lance B.
author_sort Vold, Skyler T.
title Comparison of acoustic recorders and field observers for monitoring tundra bird communities
title_short Comparison of acoustic recorders and field observers for monitoring tundra bird communities
title_full Comparison of acoustic recorders and field observers for monitoring tundra bird communities
title_fullStr Comparison of acoustic recorders and field observers for monitoring tundra bird communities
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of acoustic recorders and field observers for monitoring tundra bird communities
title_sort comparison of acoustic recorders and field observers for monitoring tundra bird communities
publisher Wiley
publishDate 2017
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wsb.785
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fwsb.785
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wsb.785
genre Tundra
Alaska
genre_facet Tundra
Alaska
op_source Wildlife Society Bulletin
volume 41, issue 3, page 566-576
ISSN 1938-5463
op_rights http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.785
container_title Wildlife Society Bulletin
container_volume 41
container_issue 3
container_start_page 566
op_container_end_page 576
_version_ 1810484032423591936