CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Animal Vocal Communication and BehaviorWildlife Ecology and ConservationEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

Acoustic assessment of experimental reforestation in a Costa Rican rainforest

Open access
Vega-Hidalgo, Álvaro, Flatt, Eleanor, Whitworth, Andrew, Symes, Laurel·2021·Ecological Indicators
DOI 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108413
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Effective forest restoration requires tools for evaluating and comparing restoration approaches. Nevertheless, measuring restoration progress can be difficult and expensive. Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) can be an inexpensive assessment strategy to collect large amounts of biodiversity information at scale. Nevertheless, analyzing and interpreting this information remains a difficult challenge. In this study we applied and compared three approaches to assess restoration treatments using recordings collected from PAM. We tested the hypothesis that variation in forest structure translates into differences in the species composition and acoustic signature of sites. For this purpose we used a reforestation experiment on the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica, where we compared the mature forest to four restoration treatments. The treatments included natural regeneration and three treatments that varied the ratio of balsa, a pioneer tree species, and other native species. Our first approach consisted of visual and acoustic review of recordings to describe taxonomic groups found in each location. Our second approach consisted of measuring the acoustic energy present in the 10–30 kHz frequency band, an acoustic range primarily occupied by the mating signals of katydids and other insects, important elements of the food web and are often less mobile than birds and mammals. In our third approach we created 24-hour spectrograms that represented sites and treatments. Using the 24-hour spectrograms, we calculated a PCA and used a tSNE to evaluate the differences in acoustic signature and visualize clusters of treatments. The first approach revealed that relying on visual and acoustic review would fail to find the diel acoustic patterns that were captured in the other two approaches. The approaches varied substantially in the amount of acoustic data incorporated and the amount of human processing time. Subsampling recordings demonstrated that using only 10 sec instead of 40 sec per recording generated comparable results. The failure to differentiate among restoration treatments could reflect insensitivity in the approaches, but more likely represents the fact that the restoration plots are newly established and that substantial differentiation is more likely to arise during the time course of restoration.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108413

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Many taxonomic groups, including amphibians, birds, mammals, and insects include a considerable proportion of species that vocalize or otherwise use sound to communicate, making acoustic monitoring of these groups a particularly promising tool for biodiversity responses.

    “Many taxonomic groups, including amphibians, birds, mammals, and insects include a considerable proportion of species that vocalize or otherwise use sound to communicate, making acoustic monitoring of these groups a particularly promising tool for biodiversity responses17,18.”

    From Soundscapes and deep learning enable tracking biodiversity recovery in tropical forests (2023) · cites this paper as [18]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bates, D., Sarkar, D., Bates, M.D., Matrix, L., 2007. The lme4 Package. R Package Version 2 (1), 74.
  2. Morris, G.K., Beier, Max, 1982. Song Structure and Description of Some Costa Rican Katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 108 (1/2), 287-314.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Vega-Hidalgo, Á., Flatt, E., Whitworth, A., & Symes, L.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
Corresponding author
Vega-Hidalgo, Álvaro
ORCID
Venue
Ecological Indicators
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-12
Volume
133
Pages
108413
ISSN
1470-160X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108413
OpenAlex
W3215500501
Cited by
26
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 1
FWCI
4.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Ecological Indicators (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Arthur Vining Davis Foundations
  • National Geographic Society
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
passive acoustic monitoring, forest restoration, reforestation, acoustic signature, forest structure, species composition, balsa, natural regeneration, Tettigoniidae, spectrogram, Osa Peninsula, restoration evaluation

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