02273nas a2200205 4500008004100000245010700041210006900148520160100217653001601818653001801834653002001852653001401872653002901886653001601915653001701931653002901948100002301977700002302000856004402023 2020 eng d00aDoes the presence of an observer affect a bird's occurrence rate or singing rate during a point count?0 aDoes the presence of an observer affect a birds occurrence rate 3 a

The approach or presence of an observer may affect the behavior of nearby birds, rendering them either more or less detectable than when no observer is present due to a change in singing rates. To test whether there are systematic detection biases associated with the presence of an observer during point count bird surveys, we compared the occurrence and singing rates of birds during a 10‐min period immediately preceding the time when an observer arrived to conduct a count and during the formal count itself by extracting song information from autonomous sound recorders. We obtained recordings of 36 species of birds detected at ≥5 locations in one of three vegetation types, including burned conifer forest, green conifer/riparian streamside forest, and riparian bottomland/marshland. We found that species richness and both the probability of occurrence and singing rate for any of the species recorded were unaffected by the presence of an observer. In addition, the probability of occurrence did not differ significantly among four 2.5‐min recording sessions during 10‐min counts when an observer was present. Thus, the presence of an observer did not appear to introduce any detectable systematic bias that would make bird lists or unadjusted occurrence rates inaccurate on that basis alone. In addition, rates of bird occurrence across 2.5‐min temporal subsets of a 10‐min count did not vary in a systematic way that would violate the assumption of equal occupancy across adjacent time periods as sometimes used to build detection histories in occupancy modeling.

10abird survey10adetectability10aobserver effect10aoccupancy10apassive acousticsampling10apoint count10asinging rate10autonomous recording unit1 aHutto, Richard, L.1 aHutto, Russell, R. uhttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jofo.1232902160nas a2200145 4500008004100000245011200041210006900153260002000222300001100242490000600253520167400259100002301933700001701956856004101973 2017 eng d00aVocalizing during gaps in anthropogenic noise is an uncommon trait for enhancing communication in songbirds0 aVocalizing during gaps in anthropogenic noise is an uncommon tra cJul-06-20172238 aTLP16D0 v13 a

Mounting evidence suggests that anthropogenic noise negatively impacts many wildlife species, including songbirds. One mechanism by which noise affects songbirds may be through acoustic obstruction to their systems of vocal communication. However, many species increase the amplitude or pitch of their vocalizations, which may partially mitigate the impact of high noise levels. When the amplitude of anthropogenic noise varies over time, such as near a moderate-use highway, short gaps between noise events may also provide an important opportunity for communication. But, whether songbirds adjust vocalization rates rapidly to avoid overlap with noise is unknown for most species. We used acoustic playback to expose songbirds to simulated road noise during the dawn chorus in otherwise quiet habitats. We measured vocalization rates under ambient conditions and during quiet gaps embedded within playback of road noise to assess whether a community of songbirds, and nineteen individual species, vocalize more regularly during noise gaps. There were no significant differences in community-wide acoustic output. Species-specific analysis revealed that only four species altered their vocal rates during quiet gaps in noise, but that the direction of the effect varied by species. Point count results revealed that birds generally remained on site for the duration of the experiment, suggesting that abandonment of noisy locations was unlikely to confound our results. In sum, increasing vocal output during short gaps in noise occurred in only a handful of species, perhaps contributing to the limited number of species that are found within noisy habitats.

1 aProppe, Darren, S.1 aFinch, Emily uhttps://bio.acousti.ca/sv/node/5259702887nas a2200181 4500008004100000245007200041210006900113260001600182300001400198490000800212520232400220100002602544700002202570700001902592700002402611700001502635856005502650 2017 eng d00aDo birds differentiate between white noise and deterministic chaos?0 aDo birds differentiate between white noise and deterministic cha cJan-12-2017 a966 - 9730 v1233 a

Noisy, unpredictable sounds are often present in the vocalizations of fearful and stressed animals across many taxa. A variety of structural characteristics, called nonlinear acoustic phenomena, that include subharmonics, rapid frequency modulations, and deterministic chaos are responsible for the harsh sound quality of these vocalizations. Exposure to nonlinear sound can elicit increased arousal in birds and mammals. Past experiments have used white noise to test for effects of deterministic chaos on perceivers. However, deterministic chaos differs structurally from white noise (i.e., random signal with equal energy at all frequencies), and unlike white noise, may differ dramatically depending on how it is produced. In addition, the subtle structural variation of chaos may not be distinguishable in the environment due to the attenuation and degradation of sound over distance and different habitat types. We designed two experiments to clarify whether American robins (Turdus migratorius) and warbling vireos (Vireo gilvus) discriminate between white noise and deterministic chaos. We broadcast and re-recorded white noise and two exemplars of deterministic chaos—one generated with a Chua oscillator and the other generated using a logistic equation—at 1, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 80 m across open and forested habitat and used spectrogram correlations to compare stimuli along this degradational gradient. We found that sounds degraded similarly in both habitats when compared to a reference distance of 1 m. Comparing pairs of stimuli across distances suggested that Chua chaos was more easily distinguishable from noise and logistic chaos. In addition, all stimuli became more distinctive over increased distance. The second experiment tested behavioral responses of robins and warbling vireos to control sounds of tropical kingbird (Quiscalus mexicanus), white noise, and two exemplars of deterministic chaos (Chua and logistic). Neither American robins nor warbling vireos responded differently to at least two types of deterministic chaos and white noise, validating previous playback studies that used white noise as a surrogate for deterministic chaos. Uniform responses to a variety of nonlinear features in these birds possibly reflect error management in alarm signal detection.

1 aBlumstein, Daniel, T.1 aWhitaker, Jessica1 aKennen, Judith1 aBryant, Gregory, A.1 aKoenig, W. uhttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/eth.2017.123.issue-12