Elsevier

Ecological Indicators

Volume 91, August 2018, Pages 71-76
Ecological Indicators

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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Forest monitoring is essential to maintain the integrity of protected areas.

  • Usually bird species richness is correlated to acoustic indices.

  • Just AEI showed correlation with the number of bird species in Atlantic rainforest.

  • Changes in AEI can be used to trigger actions to prevent environmental changes.

Abstract

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.

Introduction

Biodiversity monitoring is necessary to detect changes in ecosystem patterns (Noss, 1990, Hooper et al., 2012, Gardner, 2012, Siddig et al., 2016), which has become more pressing issue due to global climate change (Thuiller, 2007, Heller and Zavaleta, 2009, Urban, 2015, Ceballos et al., 2015). This monitoring supports the decision-making processes in public policies that aim for management actions to achieve goals established in international agreements on environmental conservation directives (UNEP, 2017). In this context, bird monitoring is considered as a suitable option (Koskimies, 1989, Bibby, 1999, Carignan and Villard, 2002, Krause and Farina, 2016), because birds are ecologically well studied (Birdlife, 2016) and respond to environmental changes over many spatial scales (Bregman et al., 2014). Changes in bird species composition and population dynamics might represent changes in environmental quality, as they respond to multiple environmental variables, such as natural resources supply, inter- and intra-specific interactions, habitat quality, and landscape configuration (Larsen et al., 2010, Carrara et al., 2015).

To establish an appropriate protocol for bird monitoring, it is necessary to consider characteristics such as team experience, equipment, permits, field effort, transport, and species detection by each method (Bispo et al., 2016). In tropical regions, the most used ornithological survey methods are audiovisual ones, such as point-counts, line transect, and complete list of species, which become more efficient when combined with sound recording (Larsen et al., 2016). Cost constraints, however, may be an obstacle to the implementation of such methods, which require logistic investments and specialists in fieldwork and statistics. Alternatively, there is an emerging method of bird monitoring, namely acoustic monitoring methods, using autonomous recording units (ARUs) (Brandes, 2008). The main advantage of ARU sampling is to simultaneously collect data at several points (Digby et al., 2013, Gasc et al., 2013). This automated technique also allows data collection in remote areas (Hutto and Stutzman, 2009), with minimum disturbance to wildlife (Acevedo and Villanueva-Rivera, 2006). Additionally, ARUs can be executed with a minimum of training, staff, and operative costs (Sueur et al., 2012).

By using ARUs the researcher can follow two approaches. The first is trying to identify the recorded species, using automated recognition software (Mammides et al., 2017). This approach, however, is relatively time-consuming in data processing (Hutto and Stutzman, 2009), and is not an appropriate approach for long-term community monitoring, because an automated recognizer is more restricted to the recognition of one or few species of interest (Alquezar and Machado, 2015, Mammides et al., 2017). The second approach, in turn, allows the researcher to determine acoustic indices from the ARU data.

Acoustic indices can be used for the determination of bird species diversity, based on the assumption that higher species diversity translates into higher acoustic complexity (Sueur et al., 2014). Usually, the studies using ARUs tried to compare species detection using this automated method with the data obtained when directed by researchers in the field (Shonfield and Bayne, 2017) and, so far, they have yielded controversial results. For instance, Boelman et al. (2007) recorded correlation between the bioacoustic index (BI) with direct ornithological survey methods in Hawaiian sub montane ecosystems. Pieretti et al. (2011) also found correlation between the acoustic complexity index (ACI) with avifauna counts in a beech mountain forest. Mammides et al. (2017), however, found low and sometimes controversial correlations between acoustic indices with the number of bird species in small fragments and large protected reserves of tropical rainforest.

As in these studies the authors aimed to compare the species’ detection methods, they concomitantly conducted direct surveys with the ARU sampling. Thus, disturbance caused by the researcher can result in greater occurrence of alertness calls by some bird species, which make them more conspicuous, and in a bias toward point-counts survey, as verified by Digby et al. (2013). Furthermore, without the visual cues used during the point-counts survey (Leach et al., 2016), the researcher can miss species that vocalize just occasionally (Alquezar and Machado, 2015). It is possible, therefore, that in more biodiverse habitats, such as the subtropical forest studied by Mammides et al. (2017), the researchers’ presence in the field caused higher disturbances in the bird vocal activity than in less complex habitats, such as the ones studied by Boelmam et al. (2007) and Pieretti et al. (2011).

The potential of the use of ARUs for long-term biodiversity monitoring in remote locations, however, is remarkable, as reviewed by Shonfield and Bayne, (2017), who claimed that this new methodology is more than simply a potential substitute for a human observer in the field. However, as highlighted by Mammides et al. (2017), the acoustic indices, as well as the autonomous recording units, should be tested in more environments to reveal their potential and limitations before they can be widely applied. Thus, in this study we aimed to compare the effectiveness of sampling birds by the traditional point-count survey with six acoustic indices calculated from ARU data in a tropical rainforest fragment. We predicted stronger correlations between the number of bird species determined by the point-count survey with the acoustic complexity index (ACI) and the bioacoustic index (BI), because both indices estimate the diversity of an acoustic community based on sound intensity variation, as verified in previous studies (Farina et al., 2011, Pieretti et al., 2011, Gasc et al., 2013). We also aimed to quantify the bias caused by human presence during data collection. Additionally, as a secondary result of the study, we compared the cost benefit between the point-count survey and the ARU method.

Section snippets

Study site

The fieldwork was carried out in Serra do Teimoso Natural Reserve, an Atlantic rainforest fragment (UTM 24L 442733 E/8324297 S) in Southern Bahia, Brazil. The RST has a total of 200 hectares of hillside forest ranging from 250 to 850 meters above sea level. The surrounding landscape includes pasture areas, cacao under a shaded system, small crops, and forests in natural regeneration. The average annual rainfall is 1323 mm, relative air humidity in this area is around 84%, and the average annual

Point-counts survey

At the 12-point stations of the RST, 97 bird species were identified from 823 registers (Appendix A in Supplementary). The most frequent species recorded was Thripophaga macroura with relative abundance Pi = 0.066 (Table 1); the lowest abundance was Pi = 0.001 for a single-record species, such as Campylorhamphus trochilirostris and Automolus leucophthalmus. Some of the most frequently recorded bird species in the RST are classified as Vulnerable or Endangered according to the Brazilian Red List

Discussion

As far as we know, this is the first study comparing the composition of bird community by using point-counts survey and acoustic indices in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Using the point-counts survey, we described 97 species in the bird community and determined the occurrence of 10 threatened bird species in the relatively small studied Atlantic rainforest fragment. We determined correlations between the number of bird species with five of the six acoustic indices calculated from using

Conclusions

By quantifying the bias caused by human presence during data collection we verified that among the six acoustic indices tested, just the acoustic evenness index (AEI) showed moderate correlation with the number of bird species and is effective in forest monitoring in Atlantic rainforest. Thus, important changes in this acoustic index during monitoring can be used to trigger local actions and prevent severe environmental impacts in threatened Atlantic forest fragments. Further studies must be

Acknowledgements

We thank Ricardo Machado and Maíra Benchimol de Souza, and the anonymous reviewer of the Ecological Indicators for their pertinent and valuable comments, which helped to improve the original manuscript. This work was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq Process#130666/2015-7) and by the Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education. Sérgio Nogueira-Filho was funded by the Brazilian National Council for

References (46)

  • M.A. Acevedo et al.

    Using automated digital recording systems as effective tools for the monitoring of birds and amphibians

    Wildlife Soc. Bull.

    (2006)
  • M. Ayres et al.

    BioEstat: Aplicações Estatísticas nas áreas das Ciências Biológicas e Médicas, Version 5.0

    (2007)
  • C.J. Bibby

    Making the most of birds as environmental indicators

    Ostrich

    (1999)
  • Birdlife. Birdlife International, 2016....
  • A.A. Bispo et al.

    Protocolo para monitoramento de comunidades de aves em Unidades de Conservação Federais

    Biodiversidade Brasileira

    (2016)
  • N.T. Boelman et al.

    Multi-trophic invasion resistance in Hawaii: bioacoustics, field surveys, and airborne remote sensing

    Ecol. Appl.

    (2007)
  • T.S. Brandes

    Automated sound recording and analysis techniques for bird survey and conservation

    Bird Conserv. Int.

    (2008)
  • BRASIL. Sumário Executivo do Livro Vermelho da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçada de Extinção, 2016....
  • V. Carignan et al.

    Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: a review

    Environ. Monit. Assess.

    (2002)
  • G. Ceballos et al.

    Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction

    Sci. Adv.

    (2015)
  • A. Digby et al.

    A practical comparison of manual and autonomous methods for acoustic monitoring

    Methods Ecol. Evol.

    (2013)
  • A. Farina et al.

    Avian soundscapes and cognitive landscapes: theory, application and ecological perspectives

    Landscape Ecol.

    (2011)
  • T. Gardner

    Monitoring Forest Biodiversity: Improving Conservation Through Ecologically Responsible Management

    (2012)
  • Cited by (49)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text