陆生脊椎动物被动声学监测研究进展

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2023-05-10 DOI:10.1080/09524622.2023.2209052
Sebastian Hoefer, D. T. McKnight, S. Allen‐Ankins, Eric J. Nordberg, L. Schwarzkopf
{"title":"陆生脊椎动物被动声学监测研究进展","authors":"Sebastian Hoefer, D. T. McKnight, S. Allen‐Ankins, Eric J. Nordberg, L. Schwarzkopf","doi":"10.1080/09524622.2023.2209052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) has become increasingly popular in ecological studies, but its efficacy for assessing overall terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity is unclear. To quantify this, its performance for species detection must be directly compared to that obtained using traditional observer-based monitoring (OBM). Here, we review such comparisons across all major terrestrial vertebrate classes and identify factors impacting PAM performance. From 41 studies, we found that while PAM-OBM comparisons have been made for all major terrestrial vertebrate classes, most comparisons have focused on birds (65%) in North America (52%). PAM performed equally well or better (61%) compared to OBM in general. We found no statistical difference between the methods for total number of species detected across all vertebrate classes (excluding reptiles); however, recording period and region of study influenced the relative performance of PAM, while acoustic analysis method and which method sampled for longer overall showed no impact. Further studies comparing PAM performance in non-avian vertebrates using standardised methods are needed to investigate in more detail the factors that may influence PAM performance. While PAM is a valuable tool for vertebrate surveys, a combined approach with targeted OBM for non-vocal species should achieve the most comprehensive assessment of terrestrial vertebrate communities.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Passive acoustic monitoring in terrestrial vertebrates: a review\",\"authors\":\"Sebastian Hoefer, D. T. McKnight, S. Allen‐Ankins, Eric J. Nordberg, L. Schwarzkopf\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09524622.2023.2209052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) has become increasingly popular in ecological studies, but its efficacy for assessing overall terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity is unclear. To quantify this, its performance for species detection must be directly compared to that obtained using traditional observer-based monitoring (OBM). Here, we review such comparisons across all major terrestrial vertebrate classes and identify factors impacting PAM performance. From 41 studies, we found that while PAM-OBM comparisons have been made for all major terrestrial vertebrate classes, most comparisons have focused on birds (65%) in North America (52%). PAM performed equally well or better (61%) compared to OBM in general. We found no statistical difference between the methods for total number of species detected across all vertebrate classes (excluding reptiles); however, recording period and region of study influenced the relative performance of PAM, while acoustic analysis method and which method sampled for longer overall showed no impact. Further studies comparing PAM performance in non-avian vertebrates using standardised methods are needed to investigate in more detail the factors that may influence PAM performance. While PAM is a valuable tool for vertebrate surveys, a combined approach with targeted OBM for non-vocal species should achieve the most comprehensive assessment of terrestrial vertebrate communities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2023.2209052\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2023.2209052","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

被动声监测(PAM)在生态学研究中越来越受欢迎,但其在评估陆生脊椎动物整体生物多样性方面的有效性尚不清楚。为了量化这一点,必须直接将其在物种检测方面的性能与传统的基于观测者的监测(OBM)所获得的性能进行比较。在这里,我们回顾了所有主要陆生脊椎动物类别的这种比较,并确定了影响PAM性能的因素。从41项研究中,我们发现,虽然PAM-OBM比较了所有主要的陆生脊椎动物类别,但大多数比较集中在北美(52%)的鸟类(65%)。与一般的OBM相比,PAM的表现同样好或更好(61%)。我们发现在所有脊椎动物类别(不包括爬行动物)中检测到的物种总数的方法之间没有统计学差异;然而,记录时间和研究区域对PAM的相对性能有影响,而声学分析方法和哪种方法采样时间更长总体上没有影响。需要使用标准化方法对非鸟类脊椎动物的PAM性能进行进一步的比较研究,以更详细地调查可能影响PAM性能的因素。虽然PAM是一种有价值的脊椎动物调查工具,但结合针对非发声物种的OBM方法应该能实现对陆地脊椎动物群落的最全面评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Passive acoustic monitoring in terrestrial vertebrates: a review
ABSTRACT Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) has become increasingly popular in ecological studies, but its efficacy for assessing overall terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity is unclear. To quantify this, its performance for species detection must be directly compared to that obtained using traditional observer-based monitoring (OBM). Here, we review such comparisons across all major terrestrial vertebrate classes and identify factors impacting PAM performance. From 41 studies, we found that while PAM-OBM comparisons have been made for all major terrestrial vertebrate classes, most comparisons have focused on birds (65%) in North America (52%). PAM performed equally well or better (61%) compared to OBM in general. We found no statistical difference between the methods for total number of species detected across all vertebrate classes (excluding reptiles); however, recording period and region of study influenced the relative performance of PAM, while acoustic analysis method and which method sampled for longer overall showed no impact. Further studies comparing PAM performance in non-avian vertebrates using standardised methods are needed to investigate in more detail the factors that may influence PAM performance. While PAM is a valuable tool for vertebrate surveys, a combined approach with targeted OBM for non-vocal species should achieve the most comprehensive assessment of terrestrial vertebrate communities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Management of Cholesteatoma: Hearing Rehabilitation. Congenital Cholesteatoma. Evaluation of Cholesteatoma. Management of Cholesteatoma: Extension Beyond Middle Ear/Mastoid. Recidivism and Recurrence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1