02737nas a2200265 4500008004100000245012700041210006900168520174400237653002401981653002302005653001502028653001502043653002302058653002102081100003102102700002502133700002802158700002802186700002802214700003002242700002902272700001902301700002502320856012602345 2022 eng d00aComplementarity between mist-netting and low-cost acoustic recorders to sample bats in Amazonian rainforests and savannahs0 aComplementarity between mistnetting and lowcost acoustic recorde3 a

Effective survey methods are paramount to measure changes in species distribution, populations dynamics and to guide conservation. Mist-netting and passive acoustic monitoring are two of the most used techniques to sample bats assemblages. Yet, despite the great potential of low-cost autonomous ultrasound recorders in surveying bat assemblages, we lack thorough assessments of their performance in relation to more established survey methods. Taking advantage of the rich bat fauna of the northeastern Brazilian Amazon, we set out to i) investigate the complementarity of mist-netting and acoustic surveys in sampling bats in forest and savannah habitats in the Savannahs of Amapá and ii) undertake a cost-effectiveness evaluation of using one, two or three recorders per sampling site to simultaneously survey bat assemblages. The two methods show complementary, and overall species diversity recorded with mist nets was higher than with acoustic recorders. However, species diversity was higher with acoustic recorders than with mist nets when considering a reduced (n < 3) number of transects. In addition, we found a gain in species diversity when using more than one acoustic recorder in forest habitats, despite the low cost-effectiveness. However, there were no differences between the diversity using one, two or three acoustic recorders in savannah. Due to possible device malfunction, we recommend the use of at least two acoustic recorders in both habitats to reduce the likelihood of data loss. The use of low-cost bioacoustic recorders in bat surveys can help to address critical knowledge gaps for poorly known aerial-hawking insectivores and support evidence-based conservation strategies.

10aacoustic monitoring10aAmazonian savannah10aAudiomoths10aChiroptera10aMethods comparison10aNeotropical bats1 aCarvalho, William, Douglas1 aMiguel, João, David1 aXavier, Bruna, da Silva1 aLópez-Baucells, Adrià1 ade Castro, Isaí, Jorge1 aHilário, Renato, Richard1 ade Toledo, José, Júlio1 aRocha, Ricardo1 aPalmeirim, Jorge, M. uhttps://bio.acousti.ca/content/complementarity-between-mist-netting-and-low-cost-acoustic-recorders-sample-bats-amazonian02493nas a2200181 4500008004100000245020200041210006900243520164800312653002401960653002101984653002102005653000902026653001402035100003002049700002402079700002502103856018302128 2020 eng d00aAdvertisement call and diel pattern of Pseudisplatensis (Anura, Hylidae, Pseudinae) in the Brazilian Pantanal and a bioacoustical comparison with Pseudisparadoxa0 aAdvertisement call and diel pattern of emPseudisememplatensisem 3 a

Anuran advertisement calls are life history traits associated with sexual selection and reproduction, and they play an important role in premating isolation mechanisms between species. Comparative bioacoustical analyses of these calls can be useful for taxonomic purposes. Phylogenetic relationships within the genera Pseudis are controversial, especially those related to P. platensis, which is often considered a full species or a subspecies within P. paradoxa. The advertisement call of P. platensis has not been described in detail; therefore, call comparisons of these two conspecifics have not been possible. In this study, we describe the advertisement call and diel activity pattern of P. platensis in the Brazilian Pantanal and compare the calls of P. platensis and P. paradoxa to elucidate whether acoustical parameters may help resolve the present uncertain taxonomic treatment. The advertisement call of P. platensis lasted 0.21 ± 0.01 s and consisted of a short series of 8.05 ± 0.69 distinct pulses (9.34 ± 2.94 ms of pulse duration). The vocal activity of the species was largely restricted to a few hours after dusk (7–11 p.m.), which is inconsistent with the diurnal and nocturnal calling behavior described for other Pseudis congeners. The advertisement calls of P. platensis and P. paradoxa were similar in note duration, number of pulses per note and dominant frequency. The geographic variation of calls within species was similar to that found among species. This bioacoustical comparison does not provide new insights into whether P. platensis should be considered a distinct species.

10aacoustic monitoring10aActivity pattern10acalling activity10afrog10aPseudinae1 aPÉREZ-GRANADOS, CRISTIAN1 aSchuchmann, Karl-L.1 aMarques, Marinez, I. uhttps://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/issue/view/zootaxa.4768.2https://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.4768.2.5https://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/viewFile/61518/6097002715nas a2200229 4500008004100000245006800041210006600109520178800175653002401963653002301987653002402010653002302034653002202057653002002079100003102099700002702130700003002157700001802187700002502205700002102230856023402251 2019 eng d00aA roadmap for survey designs in terrestrial acoustic monitoring0 aroadmap for survey designs in terrestrial acoustic monitoring3 a

Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is increasingly popular in ecological research and conservation programs, with high-volume and long-term data collection provided by automatized acoustic sensors offering unprecedented opportunities for faunal and ecosystem surveys. Practitioners and newcomers interested in PAM can easily find technical specifications for acoustic sensors and microphones, but guidelines on how to plan survey designs are largely scattered over the literature. Here, we (i) review spatial and temporal sampling designs used in passive acoustic monitoring, (ii) provide a synthesis of the crucial aspects of PAM survey design and (iii) propose a workflow to optimize recording autonomy and recording schedules. From 1992 to 2018, most of the 460 studies applying PAM in terrestrial environments have used a single recor- der per site, covered broad spatial scales and rotated recorders between sites to optimize sampling effort. Continuous recording of specific diel periods was the main recording procedure used. When recording schedules were applied, a larger number of recordings per hour was generally associated with a smaller recording length. For PAM survey design, we proposed to (i) estimate mem- ory/battery autonomy and associated costs, (ii) assess signal detectability to optimize recording schedules in order to recover maximum biological infor- mation and (iii) evaluate cost-benefit scenarios between sampling effort and budget to address potential biases from a given PAM survey design. Establish- ing standards for PAM data collection will improve the quality of inferences over the broad scope of PAM research and promote essential standardization for cross-scale research to understand long-term biodiversity trends in a changing world.

10aacoustic monitoring10aacoustic recorders10arecording schedules10arecording settings10atemporal sampling10awildlife survey1 aSugai, Larissa, Sayuri Mor1 aDesjonquères, Camille1 aSilva, Thiago, Sanna Frei1 aLlusia, Diego1 aPettorelli, Nathalie1 aLecours, Vincent uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/rse2.131https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/rse2.131https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/rse2.131https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.1002/rse2.13102822nas a2200253 4500008004100000022001300041245010200054210006900156260001600225300001100241490000700252520184800259653002402107653003002131653001702161653001202178653002402190653002902214653002302243100002502266700002202291700002202313856023302335 2018 eng d a2351989400aPairing camera traps and acoustic recorders to monitor the ecological impact of human disturbance0 aPairing camera traps and acoustic recorders to monitor the ecolo cJan-10-2018 ae004930 v163 a

Over the past two decades, the use of camera traps and acoustic monitoring in the investigation of animal ecology have grown rapidly, with each technique enhancing broad-scale wildlife surveying. Camera traps are a cost-effective, noninvasive means of sampling communities of mid-to large-terrestrial species, and acoustic recording devices capture human sounds and sound-producing animals, including species of mammals, birds, anurans, and insects. Rarely are these techniques combined, despite the advantages of merging their respective strengths. Namely, camera traps paired with acoustic recorders can evaluate the abundance, distribution, and behavior of multiple guilds and trophic levels across landscapes while concurrently monitoring multiple human stressors in real time. Moreover, integrating these approaches enhances detection accuracy and strengthens statistical inference at multiple survey scales. We conducted a literature review, and found only 13 studies that combine camera traps and acoustic recorders, 8 of which either compared the ability of each technique to detect species of interest or discussed the advantages of each technique. We outline potential questions that can be addressed by pairing acoustic recorders and camera traps, including enabling the simultaneous assessment of noise pollution and its impacts on mammal and avian communities. Furthermore, we discuss how the analysis of data from each technique face similar challenges; thus, simultaneous innovation offers the ability to apply solutions to both techniques and amplify their respective strengths. Digital technologies and big data are changing nature conservation in increasingly profound ways and integration of camera traps and acoustic recorders will facilitate new, transformative discoveries to meet modern conservation challenges.

10aacoustic monitoring10aAnthropogenic disturbance10abiodiversity10aCameras10aCommunity structure10aInventory and monitoring10aMultiple stressors1 aLendrum, Patrick, E.1 aCrooks, Kevin, R.1 aWittemyer, George uhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2351989418303573https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S2351989418303573?httpAccept=text/xmlhttps://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S2351989418303573?httpAccept=text/plain02461nas a2200289 4500008004100000245010600041210006900147260001600216520156100232653002401793653002101817653001401838653002801852653002501880653001701905653001501922653001801937100003001955700002101985700001802006700002202024700001702046700002302063700002502086700001902111856004102130 2018 eng d00aOptimization of sensor deployment for acoustic detection and localization in terrestrial environments0 aOptimization of sensor deployment for acoustic detection and loc cJun-10-20193 a

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.

10aacoustic monitoring10aacoustic sensors10aAudioMoth10aBiodiversity monitoring10aecosystem management10aoptimisation10aSoundscape10asubmodularity1 aPiña-Covarrubias, Evelyn1 aHill, Andrew, P.1 aPrince, Peter1 aSnaddon, Jake, L.1 aRogers, Alex1 aDoncaster, Patrick1 aPettorelli, Nathalie1 aGuillard, Jean uhttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/rse2.9701373nas a2200229 4500008004100000245006900041210006800110260001600178300000700194490000600201520070600207653002400913653001800937653001500955653002900970653000900999653003101008653002101039100002301060700001901083856004101102 2018 eng d00aUnderwater Soundscape Monitoring and Fish Bioacoustics: A Review0 aUnderwater Soundscape Monitoring and Fish Bioacoustics A Review cJan-09-2018 a360 v33 a

Soundscape ecology is a rapidly growing field with approximately 93% of all scientific articles on this topic having been published since 2010 (total about 610 publications since 1985). Current acoustic technology is also advancing rapidly, enabling new devices with voluminous data storage and automatic signal detection to define sounds. Future uses of passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) include biodiversity assessments, monitoring habitat health, and locating spawning fishes. This paper provides a review of ambient sound and soundscape ecology, fish acoustic monitoring, current recording and sampling methods used in long-term PAM, and parameters/metrics used in acoustic data analysis.

10aacoustic monitoring10aambient noise10acoral reef10aEnvironmental monitoring10afish10apassive acoustic detection10aunderwater sound1 aLindseth, Adelaide1 aLobel, Phillip uhttp://www.mdpi.com/2410-3888/3/3/36