4.0 Article

The potential of bioacoustics for surveying carrion insects

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00450618.2023.2295447

Keywords

Forensic entomology; bioacoustics; acoustic identification

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Identification of species through wing beat sounds of insects can build local databases and improve PMI estimation. However, challenges exist due to multiple factors influencing wing beat frequency and background noise and multitude of species in the field.
Knowledge of the sequential cadaver colonization by carrion insects is fundamental for post-mortem interval (PMI) estimation. Creating local empirical data on succession by trapping insects is time consuming, dependent on accessibility/environmental conditions and can be biased by sampling practices including disturbance to decomposing remains and sampling interval. To overcome these limitations, audio identification of species using their wing beats is being evaluated as a potential tool to survey and build local databases of carrion species. The results could guide the focus of forensic entomologists for further developmental studies on the local dominant species, and ultimately to improve PMI estimations. However, there are challenges associated with this approach that must be addressed. Wing beat frequency is influenced by both abiotic and biotic factors including temperature, humidity, age, size, and sex. The audio recording and post-processing must be customized for different species and their influencing factors. Furthermore, detecting flight sounds amid background noise and a multitude of species in the field can pose an additional challenge. Nonetheless, previous studies have successfully identified several fly species based on wing beat sounds. Combined with advances in machine learning, the analysis of bioacoustics data is likely to offer a powerful diagnostic tool for use in species identification.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available