Acoustic indices for biodiversity assessments: Analyses of bias based on simulated bird assemblages and recommendations for field surveys
Abstract
Rapid acoustic surveys aim to estimate biodiversity based on the diversity of sounds produced by animal communities, and interest in this approach among conservation planners is increasing. Several indices of acoustic diversity have been proposed as proxies for species richness. However, in the field, the animal activity may be responsible for acoustic diversity to varying degrees. To evaluate how measures of acoustic diversity may depart from actual species richness, we selected seven acoustic indices and applied them to simulated recordings of bird assemblages under different field conditions. For a given sound, defined here as the song composition emitted by a species assemblage, we determined if the indices were i) only driven by animal sounds, ii) insensitive to species identity, and iii) independent of species evenness. Under the field conditions evaluated, none of the indices fulfilled the three criteria necessary for a perfect proxy of species richness. However, some indices may be appropriate as a measure of biodiversity under a more broad definition including phylogenetic and/or functional aspects of diversity. We provide recommendations for the application of these indices for biodiversity measurement under field conditions, such as the application of appropriate audio filters, the increase of the repetition rate of the recordings, and the identification of the main taxonomic groups occurring in the recorded communities.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Multiple factors strongly affect the acoustic diversity of environmental sound samples in real-world scenarios, representing confounding factors that often mislead the estimates of acoustic indices.
“Second, multiple factors strongly affect the acoustic diversity of environmental sound samples in real‐world scenarios, representing confounding factors that often mislead the estimates of acoustic indices”
From Acoustic indices as proxies for biodiversity: a meta‐analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Gasc et al., 2015
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 40 · Cited by 151
- Authors
- Gasc, A., Pavoine, S., Lellouch, L., Grandcolas, P., & Sueur, J.
- Affiliations
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Gasc, A.
- Venue
- Biological Conservation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-11
- Volume
- 191
- Pages
- 306-312
- ISSN
- 0006-3207 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W935039750
- Cited by
- 151
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 9.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Biological Conservation (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- CNRS INEE PhD
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Keywords
- acoustic indices, bird song, species richness, acoustic diversity, species evenness, audio filtering
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review