The low-frequency vocal repertoire of adult African dwarf crocodiles
Abstract
Acoustic techniques are rapidly becoming powerful tools for species monitoring and biodiversity assessment. These methods can be particularly appropriate for forest-dwelling crocodiles which are difficult to survey visually. However, basic vocal-repertoire data is lacking for many of the poorly known species. Here, we used passive acoustic recorders to capture 97 spontaneous vocal signals from a pair of captive adult African dwarf crocodiles (Osteolaemus tetraspis). We catalogued their acoustic repertoire and compared the calls recorded in captivity with 201 suspected wild O. tetraspis calls recorded in Gabon to determine whether the wild calls belonged to the same species. Captive and wild crocodiles produced the same four types of calls, not previously identified in other crocodylids. Short, low-frequency “drums” (31±12 Hz), longer, low-frequency “rumbles” (40 ± 14 Hz), as well as higher frequency “moos” (299 ± 133 Hz) and “gusts” (219 ± 108 Hz). Our results provide reference for species identification and support implementation of acoustic-based methods for African dwarf crocodile monitoring and conservation assessment. The data can further contribute to landscape-wide biodiversity monitoring and counter-poaching activities, as well as improving our understanding of crocodilian ecology and behaviour.
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?
Recent advances in bioacoustic technology have enabled identification of low frequency underwater signals including moos, rumbles, drums, gusts and moans.
“Additionally, recent advances in bioacoustic technology have enabled identification of low frequency underwater signals including moos, rumbles, drums, gusts and moans (Staniewicz et al. 2022, 2023).”
From Roars, Rumbles, and Resonance: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Crocodylian Acoustic Signals (2026) · cites this paper as Staniewicz et al. 2023
The 'Moo' reported by Staniewicz et al. (2023) and Wang et al. (2007) appeared to exhibit distinct spectrographic characteristics, suggesting they may represent acoustically different call types.
“Upon examination of the spectrograms, the signal, referred to as a ‘Moo’ by both Staniewicz et al. (2023) and Wang et al. (2007) appeared to exhibit distinct spectrographic characteristics, suggesting it may represent acoustically different call types.”
From Roars, Rumbles, and Resonance: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Crocodylian Acoustic Signals (2026) · cites this paper as Staniewicz et al. (2023)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 5
- Authors
- Staniewicz, A., McCabe, G., & Holderied, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Bristol Zoological Society (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Staniewicz, Agata
- Venue
- African Journal of Herpetology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-08-13
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 103-118
- ISSN
- 2153-3660 (ISSN-L)
- 2156-4574
- OpenAlex
- W4385808990
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 1.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- African Journal of Herpetology (publishedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Amphibian and Reptile Biology
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Keywords
- Osteolaemus tetraspis, low-frequency calls, acoustic species identification, passive acoustic monitoring, crocodile conservation
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