@article {53255,
	title = {Optimization of sensor deployment for acoustic detection and localization in terrestrial environments},
	journal = {Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation},
	year = {2018},
	month = {Jun-10-2019},
	abstract = {<p>The rapid evolution in miniaturization, power efficiency and affordability of acoustic sensors, combined with new innovations in smart capability, are vastly expanding opportunities in ground-level monitoring for wildlife conservation at a regional scale using massive sensor grids. Optimal placement of environmen- tal sensors and probabilistic localization of sources have previously been consid- ered only in theory, and not tested for terrestrial acoustic sensors. Conservation applications conventionally model detection as a function of distance. We developed probabilistic algorithms for near-optimal placement of sensors, and for localization of the sound source as a function of spatial variation in sound pressure. We employed a principled-GIS tool for mapping soundscapes to test the methods on a tropical-forest case study using gunshot sensors. On hilly ter- rain, near-optimal placement halved the required number of sensors compared to a square grid. A test deployment of acoustic devices matched the predicted success in detecting gunshots, and traced them to their local area. The methods are applicable to a broad range of target sounds. They require only an empirical estimate of sound-detection probability in response to noise level, and a sound- scape simulated from a topographic habitat map. These methods allow conser- vation biologists to plan cost-effective deployments for measuring target sounds, and to evaluate the impacts of sub-optimal sensor placements imposed by access or cost constraints, or multipurpose uses.</p>
},
	keywords = {acoustic monitoring, acoustic sensors, AudioMoth, Biodiversity monitoring, ecosystem management, optimisation, Soundscape, submodularity},
	doi = {10.1002/rse2.97},
	url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/rse2.97},
	author = {Pi{\~n}a-Covarrubias, Evelyn and Hill, Andrew P. and Prince, Peter and Snaddon, Jake L. and Rogers, Alex and Doncaster, C. Patrick},
	editor = {Pettorelli, Nathalie and Guillard, Jean}
}
@article {52613,
	title = {Catching insects while recording bats: impacts of light trapping on acoustic sampling},
	journal = {Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation},
	year = {2018},
	month = {Apr-01-2020},
	abstract = {<p>Collecting information on bat prey availability usually involves the use of light traps to capture moths and flies that constitute the main prey items of most insectivorous bats. However, despite the recent awareness on the adverse effects of light on bats, little is known regarding the potential impacts of light trapping on the bat sampling outcomes when passive acoustic sampling and light trap- ping are implemented simultaneously. Using a before\&ndash;after experimental design that involved the installation of a 6 W actinic light trap 1 m away from the bat detector, we tested the predictions that (1) slow-flying bat species will be less active when the light trap is present, while the opposite will be true for fast-fly- ing species; and (2) bat species richness will be lower at lit conditions compared to dark ones. Our results suggest that the use of light traps in combination with bat detectors may considerably influence the outcomes of acoustic sampling. Although the activity of fast-flying bat species did not differ between the two treatments, we found that the activity of slow-flying ones such as Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and Rhinolophus hipposideros decreased significantly at lit condi- tions. Furthermore, we recorded fewer bat species when the light trap was deployed. To overcome this issue, we strongly recommend either (1) placing light traps at a considerable distance from bat detectors; or (2) using light traps during the night that follows the bat sampling if sampling needs to be at the same position; or (3) deploying non-attractant insect traps such as Malaise traps if Lepidoptera is not the main order targeted.</p>
},
	doi = {10.1002/rse2.71},
	url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/rse2.71},
	author = {Froidevaux, J{\'e}r{\'e}my S. P. and Fialas, Penelope C. and Jones, Gareth},
	editor = {Pettorelli, Nathalie and Merchant, Nathan}
}
