Evaluation of an automated recording device for monitoring forest birds
Abstract Monitoring of forest songbirds via auditory detections during point surveys can be enhanced by using preprogrammed recording devices. During May–July 2008, we compared boreal forest bird surveys conducted with SM‐1 bird song recorders (Wildlife Acoustics, Inc.) with field surveys by observe...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2012-03-01
|
| Series: | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.88 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850256859633549312 |
|---|---|
| author | Lisa A. Venier Stephen B. Holmes George W. Holborn Kenneth A. Mcilwrick Glen Brown |
| author_facet | Lisa A. Venier Stephen B. Holmes George W. Holborn Kenneth A. Mcilwrick Glen Brown |
| author_sort | Lisa A. Venier |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Monitoring of forest songbirds via auditory detections during point surveys can be enhanced by using preprogrammed recording devices. During May–July 2008, we compared boreal forest bird surveys conducted with SM‐1 bird song recorders (Wildlife Acoustics, Inc.) with field surveys by observers and surveys recorded with the E3A Bio‐Acoustic Monitor Kit (River Forks Research Corp.) in Ontario, Canada, to evaluate the utility of the SM‐1 to generate reliable detections of forest birds. The SM‐1 surveys identified, on average, 8.95 species, 0.76 fewer species per 10‐min point count than field surveys (${ar {x}}$ = 9.71 species) and 1.26 fewer species than the E3A (${ar {x}}$ = 10.21 species). SM‐1 surveys also identified on average 11.6 individuals per 10‐min count, 2.5 fewer than field surveys (${ar {x}}$ = 14.1) and 2.3 fewer than E3A surveys (${ar {x}}$ = 13.9), respectively. The lower number of SM‐1 detections, however, was less than the reduction in detections made by field surveys later as compared to earlier in the breeding season. This suggests that SM‐1 recorders set up early in the season would detect more birds than field surveys stretching late into the season. Moreover, lower detections with the SM‐1 could be easily offset by collecting an additional 10‐min sample on another day. Most species were detected equally well by all 3 methods with a few exceptions. Unattended recording devices are especially advantageous in situations where the number of experienced observers is limited, where access difficult, where multiple samples at the same site are desirable, and where it is desirable to eliminate inter‐observer, time‐of‐day and time‐of‐season effects. © 2011 The Wildlife Society. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-5072003647694b368e085eba07e9f6ac |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2328-5540 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2012-03-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| spelling | doaj-art-5072003647694b368e085eba07e9f6ac2025-08-20T01:56:33ZengWileyWildlife Society Bulletin2328-55402012-03-01361303910.1002/wsb.88Evaluation of an automated recording device for monitoring forest birdsLisa A. Venier0Stephen B. Holmes1George W. Holborn2Kenneth A. Mcilwrick3Glen Brown4Canadian Forest Service, 1219 Queen Street E, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada P6A 2E5Canadian Forest Service, 1219 Queen Street E, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada P6A 2E5Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 25th Sideroad, RR No. 1, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada P7T 4T9Canadian Forest Service, 1219 Queen Street E, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada P6A 2E5Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1235 Queen Street E, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada P6A 2E5Abstract Monitoring of forest songbirds via auditory detections during point surveys can be enhanced by using preprogrammed recording devices. During May–July 2008, we compared boreal forest bird surveys conducted with SM‐1 bird song recorders (Wildlife Acoustics, Inc.) with field surveys by observers and surveys recorded with the E3A Bio‐Acoustic Monitor Kit (River Forks Research Corp.) in Ontario, Canada, to evaluate the utility of the SM‐1 to generate reliable detections of forest birds. The SM‐1 surveys identified, on average, 8.95 species, 0.76 fewer species per 10‐min point count than field surveys (${ar {x}}$ = 9.71 species) and 1.26 fewer species than the E3A (${ar {x}}$ = 10.21 species). SM‐1 surveys also identified on average 11.6 individuals per 10‐min count, 2.5 fewer than field surveys (${ar {x}}$ = 14.1) and 2.3 fewer than E3A surveys (${ar {x}}$ = 13.9), respectively. The lower number of SM‐1 detections, however, was less than the reduction in detections made by field surveys later as compared to earlier in the breeding season. This suggests that SM‐1 recorders set up early in the season would detect more birds than field surveys stretching late into the season. Moreover, lower detections with the SM‐1 could be easily offset by collecting an additional 10‐min sample on another day. Most species were detected equally well by all 3 methods with a few exceptions. Unattended recording devices are especially advantageous in situations where the number of experienced observers is limited, where access difficult, where multiple samples at the same site are desirable, and where it is desirable to eliminate inter‐observer, time‐of‐day and time‐of‐season effects. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.88boreal forestdetection probabilitymonitoringOntariosongbirds |
| spellingShingle | Lisa A. Venier Stephen B. Holmes George W. Holborn Kenneth A. Mcilwrick Glen Brown Evaluation of an automated recording device for monitoring forest birds Wildlife Society Bulletin boreal forest detection probability monitoring Ontario songbirds |
| title | Evaluation of an automated recording device for monitoring forest birds |
| title_full | Evaluation of an automated recording device for monitoring forest birds |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of an automated recording device for monitoring forest birds |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of an automated recording device for monitoring forest birds |
| title_short | Evaluation of an automated recording device for monitoring forest birds |
| title_sort | evaluation of an automated recording device for monitoring forest birds |
| topic | boreal forest detection probability monitoring Ontario songbirds |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.88 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lisaavenier evaluationofanautomatedrecordingdeviceformonitoringforestbirds AT stephenbholmes evaluationofanautomatedrecordingdeviceformonitoringforestbirds AT georgewholborn evaluationofanautomatedrecordingdeviceformonitoringforestbirds AT kennethamcilwrick evaluationofanautomatedrecordingdeviceformonitoringforestbirds AT glenbrown evaluationofanautomatedrecordingdeviceformonitoringforestbirds |