Cited by 15Animal Vocal Communication and BehaviorAvian ecology and behaviorWildlife Ecology and Conservation

Soundscape components inform acoustic index patterns and refine estimates of bird species richness

Open access
Quinn, Colin A., Burns, Patrick, Hakkenberg, Christopher R., Salas, Leonardo, Pasch, Bret, Goetz, Scott J., Clark, Matthew L.·2023·Frontiers in Remote Sensing

Abstract

Ecoacoustic monitoring has proliferated as autonomous recording units (ARU) have become more accessible. ARUs provide a non-invasive, passive method to assess ecosystem dynamics related to vocalizing animal behavior and human activity. With the ever-increasing volume of acoustic data, the field has grappled with summarizing ecologically meaningful patterns in recordings. Almost 70 acoustic indices have been developed that offer summarized measurements of bioacoustic activity and ecosystem conditions. However, their systematic relationships to ecologically meaningful patterns in varying sonic conditions are inconsistent and lead to non-trivial interpretations. We used an acoustic dataset of over 725,000 min of recordings across 1,195 sites in Sonoma County, California, to evaluate the relationship between 15 established acoustic indices and sonic conditions summarized using five soundscape components classified using a convolutional neural network: anthropophony (anthropogenic sounds), biophony (biotic sounds), geophony (wind and rain), quiet (lack of emergent sound), and interference (ARU feedback). We used generalized additive models to assess acoustic indices and biophony as ecoacoustic indicators of avian diversity. Models that included soundscape components explained acoustic indices with varying degrees of performance (avg. adj-R 2 = 0.61 ± 0.16; n = 1,195). For example, we found the normalized difference soundscape index was the most sensitive index to biophony while being less influenced by ambient sound. However, all indices were affected by non-biotic sound sources to varying degrees. We found that biophony and acoustic indices combined were highly predictive in modeling bird species richness (deviance = 65.8%; RMSE = 3.9 species; n = 1,185 sites) for targeted, morning-only recording periods. Our analyses demonstrate the confounding effects of non-biotic soundscape components on acoustic indices, and we recommend that applications be based on anticipated sonic environments. For instance, in the presence of extensive rain and wind, we suggest using an index minimally affected by geophony. Furthermore, we provide evidence that a measure of biodiversity (bird species richness) is related to the aggregate biotic acoustic activity (biophony). This established relationship adds to recent work that identifies biophony as a reliable and generalizable ecoacoustic measure of biodiversity.

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 · 10.3389/frsen.2023.1156837

Cites

55 of 55 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 signal-processing features are sensitive to background noise, weather conditions, and anthropogenic sounds, which can distort ecological interpretations.

    “Many signal-processing features are also sensitive to background noise, weather conditions, and anthropogenic sounds, which can distort ecological interpretations”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Quinn, C. A., Burns, P., Hakkenberg, C. R., Salas, L., Pasch, B., Goetz, S. J., & Clark, M. L.
Affiliations
  • Northern Arizona University (US)
  • Point Blue Conservation Science (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Sonoma State University (US)
Corresponding author
Quinn, Colin A.
Venue
Frontiers in Remote Sensing
Published
2023-05-15
Volume
4
ISSN
2673-6187 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4376609808
Cited by
15
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3
FWCI
3.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Remote Sensing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NNX13AP69G, 80NSSC18M0107)
  • Northern Arizona University
  • Nuclear Safety and Security Commission
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
acoustic indices, bird species richness, biophony, anthropophony, geophony, autonomous recording units, biodiversity indicators, convolutional neural networks, Sonoma County

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