4.7 Article

The effectiveness of acoustic indices for forest monitoring in Atlantic rainforest fragments

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 91, 期 -, 页码 71-76

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.001

关键词

Acoustic landscape; Ecoacoustic indices; Bird inventory; Forest conservation; Soundscape

资金

  1. Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [130666/2015-7, 303589/2015-9]
  2. Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education
  3. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) [88881.119838/2016-01, 88881.119854/2016-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forest monitoring is essential to maintain the integrity of protected areas, which has become a more pressing issue due to anthropogenic pressures and global climate change. Birds are widely used for this purpose, and as bird diversity is correlated with acoustic indices, it has been suggested that sounds can be used as an ecological indicator of ecosystem complexity and environmental changes. However, previous studies yield controversial results. Thus, we evaluated the effectiveness of six acoustic indices compared with the results obtained from a traditional point-counts survey for forest monitoring in an Atlantic rainforest fragment in Southern Bahia, Brazil. We also determined differences between acoustic indices calculated in the presence and absence of the researcher in the field to quantify the bias caused by human presence during data collection. There was a moderate correlation between the number of bird species just with the acoustic evenness index, from the six acoustic indices evaluated. We also determined that the presence of the researcher in the field at the point-count survey caused bias in acoustic indices. Therefore, more research must be done with autonomous recording units and the acoustic indices before they can be widely adopted for monitoring purposes in complex and diverse habitats such as the Atlantic tropical rainforest.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据