Cited by 4Animal Vocal Communication and BehaviorAvian ecology and behaviorWildlife Ecology and Conservation

Contributions of environmental conditions and sound characteristics to differences in perceptibility: Recommendations for passive acoustic monitoring

Open access
Yip, Daniel A, Knight, Elly C, Bayne, Erin M·2026·Ornithological Applications

Abstract

Passive acoustic monitoring is increasingly used in ecological research to study a wide variety of taxa; however, properly accounting for perceptibility, a component of detection probability, has been challenging because sound attenuation is influenced by numerous variables in the surrounding environment and the rate of sound attenuation is not typically quantified. We used sound playback experiments to investigate the effect of several environmental variables including vegetation type and weather on perceptibility of a variety of sounds and species. We also investigated species-specific variables such as sound frequency, syllable rate, and bandwidth. We quantified the amount of bias in perceptibility resulting from species sound characteristics and vegetation type and estimated perceptibility and the area surveyed for different combinations of species and habitat type. We found that distance was the strongest predictor of perceptibility, but that vegetation type significantly influenced perceptibility, particularly when comparing open versus closed vegetation classes. Sound frequency and bandwidth of species were also important predictors of perceptibility. We found that ignoring variation in perceptibility due to excess sound attenuation from vegetation could bias area surveyed during acoustic surveys by up to 400% (mean = 167.4%). We conclude that other than distance, perceptibility is influenced most by species-specific vocalization traits and by the habitat these vocalizations transmit through. We provide recommendations for incorporating these findings into future research to account for varying perceptibility and improve the accuracy of bird monitoring and research.

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 · 10.1093/ornithapp/duaf059

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • Environmental conditions-vegetation structure, wind, humidity, and rainfall-influence sound transmission and detection distance, potentially introducing spatial and temporal biases across large monitoring networks.

    “Environmental conditions further shape what sensors record: vegetation structure, wind, humidity, and rainfall influence sound transmission and detection distance, potentially introducing spatial and temporal biases across large monitoring networks”

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: 4

  1. Anderson, B. W., and R. D. Ohmart. 1977. Climatological and physical characteristics affecting avian population estimates in southwestern riparian communities using transect counts. In Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: a symposium (R. R. Johnson and D. A. Jones, Editors). U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report RM-43, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Pp. 193-200.
  2. Buckland, S. T., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, J. L. Laake, D. L. Borchers, and L. Thomas. 2001. Introduction to distance sample: estimating abundance of biological populations, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.
  3. Johnson, D. H. 2008. In defence of indices: the case of bird surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72:857-868.
  4. Richards, D. G. 1981. Environmental acoustics and censuses of singing birds. In Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Studies in Avian Biology 6 (C. J. Ralph and J. M. Scott, Editors). Cooper Ornithological Society, Camarillo, California, USA. Pp. 287-300.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yip, D. A., Knight, E. C., & Bayne, E. M.
Affiliations
  • Environment and Climate Change Canada (CA)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Knight, Elly C
Venue
Ornithological Applications
Published
2025-09-19
Volume
128
Issue
1
Pages
1-12
ISSN
  • 0010-5422 (ISSN-L)
  • 2732-4621
OpenAlex
W4414378093
Cited by
4
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1
FWCI
3.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Ornithological Applications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute
  • Alberta Conservation Association
  • Northern Scientific Training Program (NSTP), Ualberta North
  • Joint Oilsands Monitoring Program
  • Ecological Monitoring Committee for the Lower Athabasca
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
passive acoustic monitoring, perceptibility, acoustic attenuation, detection probability, vegetation types, sound frequency, syllable rate, distance dependence, bird vocalizations, acoustic surveys

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