Unsupervised discrimination of male Tawny owls (Strix aluco) individual calls using robust measurements of the acoustic signal

References

• Anderson CJR, Roth JD, Waterman JM. 2007. Can whisker spot patterns be used to identify individual polar bears? J Zool. 273(4):333–339. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2007.00340.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appleby BM, Redpath SM. 1997a. Indicators of male quality in the hoots of Tawny owls (Strix aluco). Raptor Res Found, Inc. 31(1):65–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appleby BM, Redpath SM. 1997b. Variation in the male territorial hoot of the Tawny owl Strix aluco in three English populations. Ibis. 139(1):152–158. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.1997.tb04515.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertacchi A, Borgia D. 2020. Paesaggio forestale e incendi in aree forestali del Monte Pisano: il caso di studio della Valle di Crespignano (PI) - Toscana nord-occidentale. Atti della Società Toscana di Scienze Naturali Residente in Pisa Memorie serie B. 127:5–20. doi: 10.2424/ASTSN.M.2020.06.
   Google Scholar
• Bertacchi A, Sani A, Tomei PE. 2004. La vegetazione del Monte Pisano. Pisa: Felici Editore.
   Google Scholar
• Bodenhofer U, Kothmeier A, Hochreiter S. 2011. Apcluster: an R package for affinity propagation clustering. Bioinformatics. 27(17):2463–2464. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgos G, Zuberogoitia I. 2020. A telemetry study to discriminate between home range and territory size in Tawny owls. Bioacoustics. 29(1):109–121. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2018.1555717.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charif RA, Waack AM, Strickman LM. 2010. Raven Pro 1.4 user’s manual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. www.birds.cornell.edu/raven.
   Google Scholar
• Charrad M, Ghazzali N, Boiteau V, Niknafs A. 2014. NbClust: an R package for determining the relevant number of clusters in a data set. J Stat Softw. 61(6):1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v061.i06.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi W, Lee J-H, Sung H-C. 2019. A case study of male tawny owl (Strix aluco) vocalizations in South Korea: call feature, individuality, and the potential use for census. Anim Cells Syst. 23(2):90–96. doi: 10.1080/19768354.2019.1592022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clink DJ, Klinck H, Zamora‐Gutierrez V. 2021. Unsupervised acoustic classification of individual gibbon females and the implications for passive acoustic monitoring. Zamora‐Gutierrez V, editor. Methods Ecol Evol. 12(2):328–341. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins KT, Terhune JM, Rogers TL, Wheatley KE, Harcourt RG. 2006. Vocal individuality of in-air Weddell seal (Leptonychotes weddellii) pup “primary” calls. Mar Mammal Sci. 22(4):933–951. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2006.00074.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Villiers M, Meltzer DGA, Van Heerden J, Mills MGL, Richardson PRK, Jaarsveld AV. 1995. Handling-induced stress and mortalities in African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). Proc R Soc Lond B. 262(1364):215–220. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1995.0198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delport W, Kemp AC, Ferguson JWH. 2002. Vocal identification of individual African wood owls Strix woodfordii: a technique to monitor long-term adult turnover and residency. Ibis. 144(1):30–39. doi: 10.1046/j.0019-1019.2001.00019.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dragonetti M. 2007. Individuality in scops owl Otus scops vocalizations. Bioacoustics. 16(2):147–172. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2007.9753573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans ME. 1977. Recognizing individual Bewick’s swans by bill pattern. Wildfowl. 28(3 A):153–158.
   Google Scholar
• Evans PGH, Hammond PS. 2004. Monitoring cetaceans in European waters. Mammal Rev. 34(1–2):131–156. doi: 10.1046/j.0305-1838.2003.00027.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frey BJ, Dueck D. 2007. Clustering by passing messages between data points. Science. 315(5814):972–976. doi: 10.1126/science.1136800.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galeotti P. 1998. Correlates of hoot rate and structure in male Tawny owls Strix aluco: implications for male rivalry and female mate choice. J Avian Biol. 29(1):25. doi: 10.2307/3677337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galeotti P, Pavan G. 1991. Individual recognition of male Tawny owls (Strix aluco) using spectrograms of their territorial calls. Ethol Ecoly Evol. 3(2):113–126. doi: 10.1080/08927014.1991.9525378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galeotti PR, Appleby BM, Redpath SM. 1996. Macro and microgeographical variations in the ‘hoot’ of Italian and English tawny owls (Strix aluco). Ital J Zool. 63(1):57–64. doi: 10.1080/11250009609356108.
   Google Scholar
• Geary WL, Doherty TS, Nimmo DG, Tulloch AIT, Ritchie EG. 2020. Predator responses to fire: a global systematic review and meta‐analysis.Barrios‐Garcia MN, editor. J Anim Ecol. 89(4):955–971. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilkinson AK, Pearson HC, Weltz F, Davis RW. 2007. Photo-identification of sea otters using nose scars. J Wildl Manage. 71(6):2045–2051. doi: 10.2193/2006-410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grava T, Mathevon N, Place E, Balluet P. 2007. Individual acoustic monitoring of the European eagle owl Bubo bubo. Ibis. 150(2):279–287. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.2007.00776.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green A, Clark C, Favaro L, Lomax S, Reby D. 2019. Vocal individuality of Holstein-Friesian cattle is maintained across putatively positive and negative farming contexts. Sci Rep. 9(1):18468. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-54968-4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hardy J. 2009. Tawny owl (Strix aluco). In: Raptors: a field guide to surveys and monitoring. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Scottish Natural Heritage; p. 209–216.
   Google Scholar
• Harper DGC. 1994. Some comments on the repeatability of measurements. Ring Migr. 15(2):84–90. doi: 10.1080/03078698.1994.9674078.
   Google Scholar
• Hubert L, Arabie P. 1985. Comparing partitions. J Classif. 2(1):193–218. doi: 10.1007/BF01908075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson SC. 1967. Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika. 32(3):241–254. doi: 10.1007/BF02289588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassambara A. 2017. Practical guide to cluster analysis in R: unsupervised machine learning. Montpellier: Sthda.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman L, Rousseeuw PJ. 1990. Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. John Wiley & Sons. 344:68–125.
   Google Scholar
• Kershenbaum A, Blumstein DT, Roch MA, Akçay Ç, Backus G, Bee MA, Bohn K, Cao Y, Carter G, Cäsar C, et al. 2016. Acoustic sequences in non-human animals: a tutorial review and prospectus: acoustic sequences in animals. Biol Rev. 91(1):13–52. doi:10.1111/brv.12160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kershenbaum A, Sayigh LS, Janik VM, Hausberger M. 2013. The encoding of individual identity in dolphin signature whistles: how much information is needed? PloS One. 8(10):1–7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077671.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirschel AN, Earl DA, Yao Y, Escobar IA, Vilches E, Vallejo EE, Taylor CE. 2009. Using songs to identify individual Mexican antthrush Formicarius moniliger: comparison of four classification methods. Bioacoustics. 19(1–2):1–20. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2009.9753612.
   Google Scholar
• Lambrechts MM, Dhondt AA. 1995. Individual voice discrimination in birds. In: Power D, editor. Current ornithology. Vol. 12. New York: Springer US; p. 115–139.
   Google Scholar
• Linhart P, Šálek M, Robillard T. 2017. The assessment of biases in the acoustic discrimination of individuals. PloS One. 12(5):e0177206. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacQueen J. 1967. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability. Vol. 1. Oakland, CA, USA. p. 281–297.
   Google Scholar
• Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, Hubert M, Hornik K. 2021. Finding groups in data: cluster analysis extended Rousseeuw et al. R Package Version 2.0. 242–248. https://svn.r-project.org/R-packages/trunk/cluster/.
   Google Scholar
• Marin-Cudraz T, Muffat-Joly B, Novoa C, Aubry P, Desmet J-F, Mahamoud-Issa M, Nicolè F, Van Niekerk MH, Mathevon N, Sèbe F. 2019. Acoustic monitoring of rock ptarmigan: a multi-year comparison with point-count protocol. Ecol Indic. 101:710–719. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.01.071.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matrosova VA, Volodin IA, Volodina EV. 2009. Short-term and long-term individuality in speckled ground squirrel alarm calls. J Mammal. 90(1):158–166. doi: 10.1644/08-MAMM-A-032.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mays HL, Yao C, Yuan H. 2006. Antiphonal duetting in Steere’s liocichla (Liocichla steerii): male song individuality and correlation between habitat and duetting behavior. Ecol Res. 21(2):311–314. doi: 10.1007/s11284-005-0115-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moorhouse TP, Macdonald DW. 2005. Indirect negative impacts of radio-collaring: sex ratio variation in water voles. J Appl Ecology. 42(1):91–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.00998.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagy CM, Rockwell RF. 2012. Identification of individual eastern screech-owls Megascops asio via vocalization analysis. Bioacoustics. 21(2):127–140. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2011.651829.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odom KJ, Araya‐Salas M, Morano JL, Ligon RA, Leighton GM, Taff CC, Dalziell AH, Billings AC, Germain RR, Pardo M, et al. 2021. Comparative bioacoustics: a roadmap for quantifying and comparing animal sounds across diverse taxa. Biol Rev. 96(4):1135–1159. doi:10.1111/brv.12695.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peake TM, McGregor PK. 2001. Corncrake Crex crex census estimates: a conservation application of vocal individuality. Anim Biodivers Conserv. 24(1):81–90.
   Google Scholar
• Peake TM, McGregor PK, Smith KW, Tyler G, Gilbert G, Green RE. 1998. Individuality in corncrake Crex crex vocalizations. Ibis. 140(1):120–127. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.1998.tb04548.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peri A. 2018a. Censusing a tawny owl (Strix aluco) population living at high density merging two consolidated techniques. Écoscience. 25(3):249–257. doi: 10.1080/11956860.2018.1455370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peri A. 2018b. A comparison of three methods for planning a census of Tawny owl (Strix aluco) populations living at high territorial density. Bioacoustics. 27(3):245–260. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2017.1326164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips AV, Stirling I. 2000. Vocal individuality in mother and pup South American fur seals, Arctocephalus australis. Marine Mammal Sci. 16(3):592–616. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2000.tb00954.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Policht R, Petrů M, Lastimoza L, Suarez L. 2009. Potential for the use of vocal individuality as a conservation research tool in two threatened Philippine hornbill species, the Visayan hornbill and the Rufous-headed hornbill. Bird Conserv Int. 19(1):83–97. doi: 10.1017/S0959270908008228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollard KA, Blumstein DT, Griffin SC. 2010. Pre‐screening acoustic and other natural signatures for use in noninvasive individual identification. J Appl Ecol. 47(5):1103–1109. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01851.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• QGIS Development Team. 2020. Geographic information system. Open source geospatial foundation project. https://qgis.org/en/site/
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2022. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Redpath SM. 1994. Censusing Tawny owls Strix aluco by the use of imitation calls. Bird Study. 41(3):192–198. doi: 10.1080/00063659409477219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Root-Gutteridge H, Bencsik M, Chebli M, Gentle LK, Terrell-Nield C, Bourit A, Yarnell RW. 2014. Identifying individual wild eastern grey wolves (Canis lupus lycaon) using fundamental frequency and amplitude of howls. Bioacoustics. 23(1):55–66. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2013.817317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rousseeuw PJ. 1987. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J Comput Appl Math. 20:53–65. doi: 10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saunders DA, Wooller RD. 1988. Consistent individuality of voice in birds as a management tool. Emu - Austral Ornithol. 88(1):25–32. doi: 10.1071/MU9880025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sayigh LS, Esch HC, Wells RS, Janik VM. 2007. Facts about signature whistles of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus. Anim Behav. 74(6):1631–1642. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.02.018.
   Google Scholar
• Shekhovtsov SM, Sharikov AV. 2015. Individual and geographical variation in the territorial calls of Tawny owls Strix aluco in eastern Europe. Ardeola. 62(2):299–310. doi: 10.13157/arla.62.2.2015.299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1995. The principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Biometry. 3rd. New York, NY, USA: W.H. Freeman. doi:10.1017/S0770451800026853.
   Google Scholar
• Sunde P, Bølstad MS. 2004. A telemetry study of the social organization of a tawny owl (Strix aluco) population. J Zool. 263(1):65–76. doi: 10.1017/S0952836904004881.
   Google Scholar
• Takagi M. 2020. Vocalizations of the Ryukyu scops owl Otus elegans: individually recognizable and stable. Bioacoustics. 29(1):28–44. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2018.1539925.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan P-N, Steinbach M, Kumar V. 2016. Introduction to data mining. India: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Terry AM, Peake TM, McGregor PK. 2005. The role of vocal individuality in conservation. Front Zool. 2(1):10. doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-2-10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Terry AMR, Mcgregor PK, Peake TM. 2001. A comparison of some techniques used to assess vocal individuality. Bioacoustics. 11(3):169–188. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2001.9753461.
   Google Scholar
• Tibshirani R, Walther G, Hastie T. 2001. Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic. J R Stat Soc. 63(2):411–423. doi: 10.1111/1467-9868.00293.
   Google Scholar
• Tripp TM, Otter KA. 2006. Vocal individuality as a potential long-term monitoring tool for western screech-owls, Megascops kennicottii. Can J Zool. 84(5):744–753. doi: 10.1139/z06-055.
   Google Scholar
• Van Tienhoven AM, Den Hartog JE, Reijns RA, Peddemors VM. 2007. A computer-aided program for pattern-matching of natural marks on the spotted raggedtooth shark Carcharias taurus. J Appl Ecol. 44(2):273–280. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01273.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrezec A, Bertoncelj I. 2018. Territory monitoring of Tawny owls Strix aluco using playback calls is a reliable population monitoring method. Bird Study. 65(sup1):S52–S62. doi: 10.1080/00063657.2018.1522527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang K, Zhang J, Li D, Zhang X, Guo T. 2007. Adaptive affinity propagation clustering. Acta Autom Sin. 33(12):1242–1246. doi: 10.1360/aas-007-0096.
   Google Scholar
• Worthington-Hill J, Conway G. 2017. Call-broadcasting survey design for Tawny Owl. Bird Study. 64(2):205–210. doi: 10.1080/00063657.2017.1315047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar