<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Linke, Simon</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gifford, Toby</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Desjonquères, Camille</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tonolla, Diego</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aubin, Thierry</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Barclay, Leah</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Karaconstantis, Chris</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kennard, Mark J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rybak, Fanny</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sueur, Jerome</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Freshwater ecoacoustics as a tool for continuous ecosystem monitoring</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">anthropogenic noise</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">fishes</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">freshwater</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">macroinvertebrates</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">monitoring</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">physicochemical</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2018</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">03/2018</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1779</style></url></web-urls></urls><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Abstract&lt;br /&gt;
	Passive acoustic monitoring is gaining popularity in ecology as a practical and non‐invasive approach to surveying ecosystems. This technique is increasingly being used to monitor terrestrial systems, particularly bird populations, given that it can help to track temporal dynamics of populations and ecosystem health without the need for expensive resampling. We suggest that underwater acoustic monitoring presents a viable, non‐invasive, and largely unexplored approach to monitoring freshwater ecosystems, yielding information about three key ecological elements of aquatic environments &amp;ndash; (1) fishes, (2) macroinvertebrates, and (3) physicochemical processes &amp;ndash; as well as providing data on anthropogenic noise levels. We survey the literature on this approach, which is substantial but scattered across disciplines, and call for more cross‐disciplinary work on recording and analysis techniques. We also discuss technical issues and knowledge gaps, including background noise, spatiotemporal variation, and the need for centralized reference collection repositories. These challenges need to be overcome before the full potential of passive acoustics in dynamic detection of biophysical processes can be realized and used to inform conservation practitioners and managers.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Desjonquères, Camille</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rybak, Fanny</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Depraetere, Marion</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gasc, Amandine</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Le Viol, Isabelle</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pavoine, Sandrine</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sueur, Jerome</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">First description of underwater acoustic diversity in three temperate ponds.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PeerJ</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PeerJ</style></alt-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">e1393</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The past decade has produced an increased ecological interest in sonic environments, or soundscapes. However, despite this rise in interest and technological improvements that allow for long-term acoustic surveys in various environments, some habitats&amp;#39; soundscapes remain to be explored. Ponds, and more generally freshwater habitats, are one of these acoustically unexplored environments. Here we undertook the first long term acoustic monitoring of three temperate ponds in France. By aural and visual inspection of a selection of recordings, we identified 48 different sound types, and according to the rarefaction curves we calculated, more sound types are likely present in one of the three ponds. The richness of sound types varied significantly across ponds. Surprisingly, there was no pond-to-pond daily consistency of sound type richness variation; each pond had its own daily patterns of activity. We also explored the possibility of using six acoustic diversity indices to conduct rapid biodiversity assessments in temperate ponds. We found that all indices were sensitive to the background noise as estimated through correlations with the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). However, we determined that the AR index could be a good candidate to measure acoustic diversities using partial correlations with the SNR as a control variable. Yet, research is still required to automatically compute the SNR in order to apply this index on a large data set of recordings. The results showed that these three temperate ponds host a high level of acoustic diversity in which the soundscapes were variable not only between but also within the ponds. The sources producing this diversity of sounds and the drivers of difference in daily song type richness variation both require further investigation. Such research would yield insights into the biodiversity and ecology of temperate ponds.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record></records></xml>