Audio data compression affects acoustic indices and reduces detections of birds by human listening and automated recognisers

References

• Araya-Salas M, Smith-Vidaurre G, Webster M. 2019. Assessing the effect of sound file compression and background noise on measures of acoustic signal structure. Bioacoustics. 28(1):57–73. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2017.1396498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold TW. 2010. Uninformative parameters and model selection using Akaike’s information criterion. J Wildl Manage. 74(6):1175–1178. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-2817.2010.tb01236.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 67:1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browning E, Gibb R, Glover-Kapfer P, Jones KE. 2017. Passive acoustic monitoring in ecology and conservation. WWF Conserv Technol Series. 1:1–74.
   Google Scholar
• Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L. 2001. Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bürkner PC. 2017. brms: An R package for bayesian multilevel models using Stan. J Stat Soft. 80(1):1–28. doi: 10.18637/jss.v080.i0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibb R, Browning E, Glover-Kapfer P, Jones KE, Börger L. 2019. Emerging opportunities and challenges for passive acoustics in ecological assessment and monitoring. Methods Ecology Evol. 10(2):169–185. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graciarena M, Delplanche M, Shriberg M, Stolcke A, Ferrer L. 2010. Acoustic front-end optimization for bird species recognition. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing; 293–296. doi: 10.1109/ICASSP.2010.5495923.
   Google Scholar
• Hespanhol L, Vallio CS, Costa LM, Saragiotto BT. 2019. Understanding and interpreting confidence and credible intervals around effect estimates. Braz J Phys Ther. 4(4):290–301. doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2018.12.006.
   Google Scholar
• Huang H, Shu H, Yu R. 2014. Lossless audio compression in the new IEEE standard for advanced audio coding. 2014 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP): 6934–6938. doi: 10.1109/ICASSP.2014.6854944.
   Google Scholar
• Jayant N, Johnston J, Safranek R. 1993. Signal compression based on models of human perception. Proceedings of the IEEE. 81:1385–1422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson O, Samelius G, Wikberg E, Chapron G, Mishra C, Low M. 2020. Identification errors in camera-trap studies result in systematic population overestimation. Sci Rep. 10(1):6393. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-63367-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahl S, Wood CM, Eibl M, Klinck H. 2021. BirdNET: a deep learning solution for avian diversity monitoring. Ecol Inform. 61:101236. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz J, Hafner SD, Donovan T. 2016. Assessment of error rates in acoustic monitoring with the R package monitoR. Bioacoustics. 25:177–196. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2015.1133320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight EC, Bayne EM. 2019. Classification threshold and training data affect the quality and utility of focal species data processed with automated audio-recognition software. Bioacoustics. 28:539–554. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2018.1503971.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight EC, Hannah KC, Foley GJ, Scott CD, Brigham RM, Bayne EM. 2017. Recommendations for acoustic recognizer performance assessment and applications to five common automated signal recognition programs. ACE. 12(2):14. doi: 10.5751/ACE-01114-120214.
   Google Scholar
• Knight EC, Solymos P, Scott CD, Bayne EM. 2020. Validation prediction: a flexible protocol to increase efficiency of automated acoustic processing for wildlife research. Ecol Appl. 30:e02140. doi: 10.1002/eap.2140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krzywinski M, Altman N. 2013. The meaning of error bars is often misinterpreted, as is the statistical significance of the overlap. Nat Methods. 10:921–922. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips YF, Towsey M, Roe P, Radford CA. 2018. Revealing the ecological content of long-duration audio-recordings of the environment through clustering and visualization. PLoS ONE. 13(3):e0193345. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pieretti N, Farina A, Morri D. 2011. A new method to infer the singing activity of an avian community: the acoustic complexity index (ACI). Ecological Indicators. 11(3):868–873. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.11.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porneluzi P, Van Horn MA, Donovan TM. 2011. Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla), version 2.0. In: Poole AF, editor(s). In the birds of North America. Ithaca, New York (NY): Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
   Google Scholar
• Priyadarshani N, Marsland S, Castro I. 2018. Automated birdsong recognition in complex acoustic environments: a review. J Avian Biol. e01447. doi: 10.1111/jav.01447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rempel RS, Hobson KA, Holborn G, van Wilgenburg SL, Elliott J. 2005. Bioacoustic monitoring of forest songbirds: interpreter variability and effects of configuration and digital processing methods in the laboratory. J Field Ornithol. 76:1–11. http://jstor.org/stable/4151255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt BR, Cruickshank SS, Bühler C, Bergamini A. 2023. Observers are a key source of detection heterogeneity and biased occupancy estimates in species monitoring. Biol Conserv. 283:110102. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shonfield J, Bayne EM. 2017. Autonomous recording units in avian ecological research: current use and future applications. Avian Conserv Ecol. 12(1):14. doi: 10.5751/ACE-00974-120114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sueur J, Pavoine S, Hamerlynck O, Duvail S, Reby D. 2008. Rapid acoustic survey for biodiversity appraisal. PLoS ONE. 3(12):e4065. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugai LSM, Desjonqueres C, Silva TSF, Llusia D, Pettorelli N, Lecours V. 2019a. A roadmap for survey designs in terrestrial acoustic monitoring. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv. 6(3):220–235. doi: 10.1002/rse2.131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugai LSM, Silva TSF, Ribeiro JW Jr., Llusia D. 2019b. Terrestrial passive acoustic monitoring: review and perspectives. BioScience. 69(1):15–25. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biy147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Bioacoustic Unit. 2019. WildTrax acoustic transcription user guide. Version 2.0. Edmonton (AB): University of Alberta and Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Towsey MW, Wimmer J, Williamson I, Roe P. 2014. The use of acoustic indices to determine avian species richness in audio-recordings of the environment. Ecol Inform. 21:110–119. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2013.11.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Truskinger A, Cottman-Fields M, Eichinski P, Towsey M, Roe P. 2014. Practical analysis of big acoustic sensor data for environmental monitoring. 2014 IEEE Fourth International Conference on Big Data and Cloud Computing. p. 91–98. doi: 10.1109/BDCloud.2014.29.
   Google Scholar
• Villanueva-Rivera LJ, Pijanowski BC. 2018. Soundecology: soundscape ecology. R package 1.3.3. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/soundecology/index.html.
   Google Scholar
• Villanueva-Rivera LJ, Pijanowski BC, Doucette J, Pekin B. 2011. A primer of acoustic analysis for landscape ecologists. Landsc Ecol. 26(9):1233–1246. doi: 10.1007/s10980-011-9636-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware L, Mahon CL, McLeod L, Jetté JF. 2023. Artificial intelligence (BirdNET) supplements manual methods to maximize bird species richness from acoustic data sets generated from regional monitoring. Can J Zool E-First. doi: 10.1139/cjz-2023-0044.
   Google Scholar
• Yip DA, Bayne EM, Solymos P, Campbell J, Proppe D. 2017. Sound attenuation in forests and roadside environments: implications for avian point-count surveys. Condor. 119(1):73–84. doi: 10.1650/CONDOR-16-93.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yip DA, Knight EC, Haave‐Audet E, Wilson SJ, Charchuk C, Scott CD, Sólymos P, Bayne EM. 2020. Sound level measurements from audio recordings provide objective distance estimates for distance sampling wildlife populations. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv. 6(3):301–315. doi: 10.1002/rse2.118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar