Using autonomous recording units and change-point analysis to determine reproductive activity in an aerial insectivore

References

• Altman B, Sallabanks R. 2020. Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), version 1.0. In: Poole AF, editor. Birds of the World. Ithaca (NY, USA): Cornell Lab of Ornithology. doi:https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.olsfly.01.
   Google Scholar
• Bardeli R, Wolff D, Kurth F, Koch M, Tauchert K-H, Frommolt K-H. 2010. Detecting bird sounds in a complex acoustic environment and application to bioacoustics monitoring. Pattern Recognit Lett. 31:1524–1534. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2009.09.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckage B, Joseph L, Belisle P, Wolfson DB, Platt WJ. 2007. Bayesian change-point analyses in ecology. New Phytol. 174:456–467. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.01991.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colbert DS, Ruttinger JA, Streich M, Chamberlain M, Conner LM, Warren RJ. 2015. Application of autonomous recording units to monitor gobbling activity by wild turkey. Wildlife Soc Bull. 39(4):757–763. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.577.
   Google Scholar
• Core Team R. 2018. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna (Austria). https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• COSEWIC. 2018. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi in Canada. Ottawa. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. ix + 52.
   Google Scholar
• eBird. 2017. eBird: an online database of bird distribution and abundance. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca (New York). [accessed 2020 Oct 25]. http://www.ebird.org.
   Google Scholar
• Frommolt K-H, Tauchert K-H. 2014. Applying bioacoustics methods for long-term monitoring of a nocturnal wetland bird. Ecol Inform. 21:4–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2013.12.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GeoNB. 2020. Data Catalogue. [accessed 2020 Jan 14]. http://www.snb.ca/geonb1/e/DC/catalogue-E.asp.
   Google Scholar
• Griesser M 2009. Mobbing calls signal predator category in a kin group-living bird species. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 276:2887–2892. doi:https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0551.
   Google Scholar
• Gurarie E, Bracis C, Delgado M, Meckley TD, Kojola I, Wagner CM. 2016. What is the animal doing? Tools for exploring behavioural structure in animal movements. J Animal Ecol. 85:69–84. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafner S, Katz J 2018. monitoR: acoustic template detection in R. R package version 1.0.7. URL:http://www.uvm.edu/rsenr/vtcfwru/R/?Page=monitoR/monitoR.htm
   Google Scholar
• Hagelin JC, Busby S, Harding-Scurr A, Brinkman AR. 2015. Observations on fecal sac consumption and near-ground foraging behavior in the olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). Wilson J Ornithol. 127(2):332–336. doi:https://doi.org/10.1676/2Fwils-127-02-332-336.1.
   Google Scholar
• Katz J, Hafner SD, Donovan T. 2016a. Tools for automated acoustic monitoring within the R package monitoR. Bioacoustics. 25(2):197–210. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2016.1138415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz J, Hafner SD, Donovan T. 2016b. Assessment of error rates in acoustic monitoring with the R package monitoR. Bioacoustics. 25(2):177–196. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2015.1133320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Killick R, Eckley IA. 2014. changepoint: an R package for changepoint analysis. J Stat Softw. 58(3):1–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v058.i03.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight EC, Hannah KC, Foley G, Scott C, Brigham RM, Bayne E. 2017. Recommendations for acoustic recognizer performance assessment with application to five common automated signal recognition programs. Avian Conservat Ecol. 12(2):14. doi:https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01114-120214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loo J, Ives N. 2003. The Acadian forest: historical condition and human impacts. For Chrin. 79(3):462–474. doi:https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc79462-3.
   Google Scholar
• Metcalf OC, Ewen JG, McCready M, Williams WM, Rowcliffe JM. 2019. A novel method for using ecoacoustics to monitor post-translocation behaviour in an endangered passerine. Methods Ecol Evol. 10:626–636. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13147.
   Google Scholar
• Mustonen A-M, Lempiäinen T, Aspelund M, Hellstedt P, Ikonen K, Itämies J, Vähä V, Erkinaro J, Asikainen J, Kunnasranta M, et al. 2012. Application of change-point analysis to determine winter sleep patterns of the raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) from body temperature recordings and a multi-faceted dietary and behavioral study of wintering. BMC Ecol. 12:27. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-12-27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nikolich K, Towers JR. 2020. Vocalizations of common minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in an eastern North Pacific feeding ground. Bioacoustics. 29(1):97–108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2018.1555716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez-Granados C, Bota G, Giralt D, Traba J. 2018. A cost-effective protocol for monitoring birds using autonomous recording units: a case study with a night-time singing passerine. Bird Study. 65(3):338–345. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00063657.2018.1511682.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz G. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat. 6(2):461–464. doi:https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shonfield J, Bayne EM. 2017a. Autonomous recording units in avian ecological research: current use and future applications. Avian Conservat Ecol. 12(1):14. doi:https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00974-120114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shonfield J, Bayne EM. 2017b. The effect of industrial noise on owl occupancy in the boreal forest at multiple spatial scales. Avian Conservat Ecol. 12(2):13. doi:https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01042-120213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidie-Slettedahl AM, Jensen KC, Johnson RR, Arnold TW, Austin JE, Stafford JD. 2015. Evaluation of autonomous recording units for detecting 3 species of secretive marsh birds. Wildlife Soc Bull. 39(3):626–634. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.569.
   Google Scholar
• Sintich SM, Keagle MK, Harper RG, Welsford IG. 1995. Use of ELISA for determination of plasma prolactin levels in the House Wren. Condor. 97(4):1057–1061. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1369545.
   Google Scholar
• Smith JN, Goldizen AW, Dunlop RA, Noad MJ. 2008. Songs of male humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, are involved in intersexual interactions. Anim Behav. 76:467–477. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.02.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staicer CA, Ingalls V, Sherry TA. 2006. Singing behavior varies with breeding status of American redstarts (Setophaga ruticilla). Wilson J Ornithol. 118(4):439–451. doi:https://doi.org/10.1676/05-056.1.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart RLM, Bredin KA, Couturier AR, Horn AG, Lepage D, Makepeace S, Taylor PD, Villard M-A, Whittam RM, eds. 2015. Second atlas of breeding birds of the maritime provinces. Sackville: Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Natural History Society of Prince Edward Island, Nature New Brunswick, New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources, Nova Scotia Bird Society, Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, and Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture and Forestry; p. 528 + 28.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor A, McCallum HI, Watson G, Grigg GC. 2017. Impact of cane toads on a community of Australian native frogs, determined by 10 years of automated identification and logging of call behaviour. J Appl Ecol. 54(6):2000–2010. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12859.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson JR, Kimmerer WJ, Brown LR, Newman KB, Mac Nally R, Bennett WA, Feyrer F, Fleishman E. 2010. Bayesian change point analysis of abundance trends for pelagic fishes in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Ecol Appl. 20(5):1431–1448. doi:https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0998.1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Townsend JM, McFarland KP, Rimmer CC, Ellison WG, Goetz JE. 2020. Bicknell’s Thrush (Catharus bicknelli), version 1.0. In: Rodewald PG, editor. Birds of the world. Ithaca (NY, USA): Cornell Lab of Ornithology. doi:https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.bicthr.01.
   Google Scholar
• Upham-Mills EJ, Reimer JR, Haché S, Lele SR, Bayne EM. 2020. Can singing rate be used to predict male breeding status of forest songbirds? A comparison of three calibration models. Ecosphere. 11(1):e03005. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3005.
   Google Scholar
• Willacy RJ, Mahoney M, Newell DA. 2015. If a frog calls in the forest: bioacoustic monitoring reveals the breeding phenology of the endangered Richmond Range mountain frog (Philoria richmondensis). Austral Ecol. 45(6):625–633. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.12228.
   Google Scholar
• Wright JM 1997. Preliminary study of olive-sided flycatchers, June 1994-April 1997. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Final research report. Juneau (Alaska). Endangered species conservation fund federal aid studies SE-3-3, 4 and 5. 34.
   Google Scholar