Measuring acoustic habitats

By N. Merchant, Kurt Fristrup, Mark P. Johnson, P. Tyack, Matthew J. Witt, Philippe Blondel, Susan E. Parks. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2015

428 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Many organisms depend on sound for communication, predator/prey detection and navigation. The acoustic environment can therefore play an important role in ecosystem dynamics and evolution. A growing number of studies are documenting acoustic habitats and their influences on animal development, behaviour, physiology and spatial ecology, which has led to increasing demand for passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) expertise in the life sciences. However, as yet, there has been no synthesis of data processing methods for acoustic habitat monitoring, which presents an unnecessary obstacle to would‐be PAM analysts. Here, we review the signal processing techniques needed to produce calibrated measurements of terrestrial and aquatic acoustic habitats. We include a supplemental tutorial and template computer codes in matlab and r, which give detailed guidance on how to produce calibrated spectrograms and statistical analyses of sound levels. Key metrics and terminology for the characterisation of biotic, abiotic and anthropogenic sound are covered, and their application to relevant monitoring scenarios is illustrated through example data sets. To inform study design and hardware selection, we also include an up‐to‐date overview of terrestrial and aquatic PAM instruments. Monitoring of acoustic habitats at large spatiotemporal scales is becoming possible through recent advances in PAM technology. This will enhance our understanding of the role of sound in the spatial ecology of acoustically sensitive species and inform spatial planning to mitigate the rising influence of anthropogenic noise in these ecosystems. As we demonstrate in this work, progress in these areas will depend upon the application of consistent and appropriate PAM methodologies.

Subfields: Developmental Biology, Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/93f88c5ff942077f4524ee87f7483d20f3f5b565

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental Biology

In Ecology

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Citations in the corpus

Passive acoustic monitoring as a potential tool to survey animal and ecosystem processes in freshwater environments (2019, background): “Hydrophones vary in overall sen‐ sitivity and sensitivity at different frequencies: some are specifically dedicated to high or low frequency ranges (Merchant et al., 2015).”
Impacts of anthropogenic noise on marine life : publication patterns, new discoveries, and future directions in research and management (2015, background): “Such maps (e.g., (Erbe et al., 2012, 2014) would help to identify areas of greatest concern for the conservation of acoustically sensitive species, provided they can be adequately validated (Merchant et al., 2015). iv.”
Robust sound event detection in bioacoustic sensor networks (2019, background): “Indeed, in comparison with optical sensors, acoustic sensors are minimally invasive [9], have a longer detection range—from decameters for a flock of migratory birds to thousands of kilometers for an oil exploration airgun [10]—and their reliability is independent of the amount of daylight [11].”
Underwater Soundscape Monitoring and Fish Bioacoustics: A Review (2018, methodology): “PAMGuide includes codes for both Matlab and R to calculate broadband sound pressure level (SPL), PSD, 1/3-octave band levels (TOL), and waveforms.”
A systematic review on the behavioural responses of wild marine mammals to noise: the disparity between science and policy (2016, background): “…measurement, estimation, and reporting of RL Although strong recommendations have been made repeatedly in the literature to appropriately and consistently measure, estimate, and report acoustic metrics (Richardson et al. 1995; Madsen 2005; Merchant et al. 2015) few studies have implemented this.”
AudioMoth: Evaluation of a smart open acoustic device for monitoring biodiversity and the environment (2018, methodology): “Current methods often require expensive and complex equipment for aerial imagery (Morgan, Gergel, & Coops, 2010), acoustic sensing (Merchant et al., 2015), bio-telemetry (Cooke et al.”
Emerging opportunities and challenges for passive acoustics in ecological assessment and monitoring (2018, methodology): “These include sensor calibration guidelines (Merchant et al., 2015), metadata standards (Roch et al.”