02372nas a2200181   4500008004100000022001400041245016100055210006900216260001600285490000800301520173600309100002102045700001902066700001602085700001602101700001802117856005502135       2018                        eng d  a0025-316200aSeen or heard? A comparison of visual and acoustic autonomous monitoring methods for investigating temporal variation in occurrence of southern right whales0 aSeen or heard A comparison of visual and acoustic autonomous mon  cJan-01-20180 v1653 aPassive acoustic detectors are widely used for monitoring distribution of cetaceans. Autonomous visual methods are less frequently employed; they are limited to detections during daylight and good weather, but offer potential advantages due to certainty of species’ identification and longevity of deployment. To compare performance of acoustic and visual methods, temporal changes in distribution of southern right whales, Eubalaena australis, were monitored in the remote sub-Antarctic Auckland Islands (50°31′S, 166°16′E). A time-lapse camera was deployed for 2 years from August 2010, taking an image every 70 min. The presence of whales was scored for each image taken during daylight (n = 8295). A passive acoustic recorder was deployed in August 2011, recording for 3.75 min every hour until battery life expired after 10 months. Each recording (n = 6978) was aurally reviewed. Both methods revealed a similar seasonal distribution; maximum detection rates were in the austral winter and no whales were detected in January or February. However, at the peak of right whale occurrence, the proportion of samples with whales detected was much higher for the acoustic recorder (93.9% in August) than the time-lapse camera (14.8%). A generalised additive model fitted to the visual data revealed significant effects of sea state and visibility. Acoustic detection rates were higher, probably because detection range is greater, and less affected by weather. The solar-powered time-lapse camera system, however, functioned effectively for much longer. We discuss the relative merits of visual and acoustic detectors and attempt to draw conclusions about their efficacy for different focal species and monitoring locations.1 aRayment, William1 aWebster, Trudi1 aBrough, Tom1 aJowett, Tim1 aDawson, Steve  uhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00227-017-3264-0