Comparing the performance of C-PODs and SoundTrap/PAMGUARD in detecting the acoustic activity of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena)
The C-POD logger is a widely used instrument for passive acoustic monitoring of harbor porpoises, but the absence of a continuous recording in this device makes it difficult to verify its performance. An alternative but more labor-intensive approach is to use a wideband sound recorder and off-line d...
| Published in: | Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://pure.au.dk/portal/da/publications/comparing-the-performance-of-cpods-and-soundtrappamguard-in-detecting-the-acoustic-activity-of-harbor-porpoises-phocoena-phocoena(c527898c-de5e-4739-9cc5-32f5dfa6e1c8).html https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000288 |
| Summary: | The C-POD logger is a widely used instrument for passive acoustic monitoring of harbor porpoises, but the absence of a continuous recording in this device makes it difficult to verify its performance. An alternative but more labor-intensive approach is to use a wideband sound recorder and off-line detection software. Here we compare the performance of the C-POD with that of a HF SoundTrap recorder analysed with PAMGUARD software. Seven deployments were made with C-PODs and SoundTraps in the Danish Great and Little Belts between June and November, 2015. There was a positive but generally poor correlation between PAMGUARD and C-POD detections, with the C-PODs detecting only about 21-94% of the click trains detected by PAMGUARD based on the broadband recordings. The main explanation behind this poor correspondence is likely that PAMGUARD performs classification on single clicks, whereas the C-POD classifies groups of clicks ('trains') collectively. Such poor correlation between two common methods can have severe implications for conclusions reached in effect and abundance studies. |
|---|