The use of acoustic indices to determine avian species richness in audio-recordings of the environment

By M. Towsey, J. Wimmer, I. Williamson, P. Roe. Ecological Informatics, 2014

329 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c0c669787aadd54ff54b18a4ecd398d49f944a80

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

1. Adelaide V. Lindseth
2. P. Lobel

In Ecology

1. Adelaide V. Lindseth
2. C. Patrick Doncaster
3. P. Lobel
4. Alex Rogers
5. P. Guidetti

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. Adelaide V. Lindseth
2. P. Lobel
3. P. Guidetti

Citations in the corpus

• Underwater Soundscape Monitoring and Fish Bioacoustics: A Review (2018, background): “The ACI was developed with the goal of producing a fast and direct quantification of acoustic sounds by focusing on intensity [42].”
• Acoustic fish communities: sound diversity of rocky habitats reflects fish species diversity (2019, background): “Most research tackling this critical ecological issue has focussed on terrestrial biodiversity (e.g. Sueur et al. 2014, Towsey et al. 2014).”
• Acoustic Indices for Biodiversity Assessment and Landscape Investigation (2014, unknown): “Spectral diversity – Number of clusters [42]”
• AudioMoth: Evaluation of a smart open acoustic device for monitoring biodiversity and the environment (2018, background): “…storage, passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) has proved useful for estimating ground-level biodiversity abundance and occurrence, particularly of smaller and more cryptic species (Newson, Bas, Murray, & Gillings, 2017), and it is often employed for analyses of soundscapes (Towsey et al., 2014).”