[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]A comparison of bird sound recognition performance among acoustic recorders
Received date: 2024-06-28
Accepted date: 2024-11-12
Online published: 2024-12-03
Supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China(32171520)
Aims: Passive acoustic monitoring technology has been widely used for monitoring bird species, enabling non-invasive and long-term effective monitoring. Extensive data collection requires automated identification technologies for effective analysis. However, differences in recording device performance can affect the accuracy of automated software in identifying bird species.
Methods: Six separate recording devices from various manufacturers are tested by recording bird call playback across four frequency bands. We use BirdNET as the automatic bird sound identifier under two types of vegetation environment, five categories of distance between the recording devices and sound source, and three sound source directions. Our goal is evaluating the impact of these variables on bird species identification performance. We assess the monitoring performance of different recording devices by comparing the basic parameters and configurations of the devices and constructing a generalized linear model (GLM) to statistically analyze the identification results.
Results: Our analysis suggests the type of recording device significantly affects the ability for BirdNET to correctly identify bird species. As distance increases, the effectiveness of the devices in monitoring decreases, with the identification accuracy of BirdNET significantly higher for distances within 50 meters than beyond. Further, the direction of sound impacts identification performance, with accuracy significantly decreasing when the sound source is in opposite direction of the recording device in identifying the four types of bird sound signals with different frequency bandwidth ranges. Additionally, the vegetation type significantly affects the attenuation of bird call signals, with overall identification accuracy in grassland vegetation 40.1% higher than forest vegetation.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest the effectiveness of field recording monitoring should be assessed before selecting and deploying long-term recording monitoring equipment, in addition to evaluating equipment costs and parameters. Based on our evaluation, monitoring distance and direction settings should be optimized to enhance the effectiveness of monitoring strategies.
Wantao Huang , Zezhou Hao , Zixin Zhang , Zhishu Xiao , Chengyun Zhang . A comparison of bird sound recognition performance among acoustic recorders[J]. Biodiversity Science, 2024 , 32(10) : 24273 . DOI: 10.17520/biods.2024273
[1] | Darras K, Furnas B, Fitriawan I, Mulyani Y, Tscharntke T (2018) Estimating bird detection distances in sound recordings for standardizing detection ranges and distance sampling. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 1928-1938. |
[2] | Ducrettet M, Forget PM, Ulloa JS, Yguel B, Gaucher P, Princé K, Haupert S, Sueur J (2020) Monitoring canopy bird activity in disturbed landscapes with automatic recorders: A case study in the tropics. Biological Conservation, 245, 108574. |
[3] | Ghani B, Denton T, Kahl S, Klinck H (2023) Global birdsong embeddings enable superior transfer learning for bioacoustic classification. Scientific Reports, 13, 22876. |
[4] | Goerlitz HR (2018) Weather conditions determine attenuation and speed of sound: Environmental limitations for monitoring and analyzing bat echolocation. Ecology and Evolution, 8, 5090-5100. |
[5] | Gupta G, Kshirsagar M, Zhong M, Gholami S, Ferres JL (2021) Comparing recurrent convolutional neural networks for large scale bird species classification. Scientific Reports, 11, 17085. |
[6] | Hill AP, Prince P, Pi?a Covarrubias E, Doncaster CP, Snaddon JL, Rogers A (2018) AudioMoth: Evaluation of a smart open acoustic device for monitoring biodiversity and the environment. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 1199-1211. |
[7] | Hutschenreiter A, Sosa-López JR, González-García F, Aureli F (2023) Evaluating factors affecting species detection using passive acoustic monitoring in neotropical forests: A playback experiment. Bioacoustics, 32, 660-678. |
[8] | Jin YJ, Zhao LH, Qin YY, Wang JC (2023) Diversity of anurans in the Bawangling Area of Hainan National Park based on auto-recording technique. Biodiversity Science, 31, 22360. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[金彦君, 赵龙辉, 覃远玉, 汪继超 (2023) 海南国家公园霸王岭片区无尾两栖类鸣声多样性: 基于自动录音技术. 生物多样性, 31, 22360.] | |
[9] | Kahl S, Wood CM, Eibl M, Klinck H (2021) BirdNET: A deep learning solution for avian diversity monitoring. Ecological Informatics, 61, 101236. |
[10] | Liu H, Liu CH, Zhao TZ, Liu Y (2021) Bird song classification based on improved Bi-LSTM-DenseNet network. In: 4th International Conference on Robotics, Control and Automation Engineering, pp. 152-155. November 4-6, 2021, Wuhan, China. |
[11] | Metcalf OC, Barlow J, Devenish C, Marsden S, Berenguer E, Lees AC (2021) Acoustic indices perform better when applied at ecologically meaningful time and frequency scales. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 12, 421-431. |
[12] | Newson SE, Bas Y, Murray A, Gillings S (2017) Potential for coupling the monitoring of bush-crickets with established large-scale acoustic monitoring of bats. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 1051-1062. |
[13] | Parker DM, Bernard RTF (2018) The use of acoustic detectors for assessing bat species richness and functional activity in a South African national park. Mammalia, 83, 53-63. |
[14] | Pérez-Granados C (2023a) BirdNET: Applications, performance, pitfalls and future opportunities. Ibis, 165, 1068-1075. |
[15] | Pérez-Granados C (2023b) A first assessment of birdnet performance at varying distances: A playback experiment. Ardeola, 70, 257-269. |
[16] | Pérez-Granados C, Bota G, Giralt D, Albarracín J, Traba J (2019) Cost-effectiveness assessment of five audio recording systems for wildlife monitoring: Differences between recording distances and singing direction. Ardeola, 66, 311. |
[17] | Prior L, Aland K, Levengood AL, Potvin DA (2023) Vocal activity of the Eastern Ground Parrot (Pezoporus wallicus wallicus) and implications for acoustic monitoring efforts. Emu-Austral Ornithology, 123, 364-369. |
[18] | Rhinehart TA, Chronister LM, Devlin T, Kitzes J (2020) Acoustic localization of terrestrial wildlife: Current practices and future opportunities. Ecology and Evolution, 10, 6794-6818. |
[19] | Winiarska D, Szymański P, Osiejuk TS (2024) Detection ranges of forest bird vocalisations: Guidelines for passive acoustic monitoring. Scientific Reports, 14, 894. |
[20] | Xu ZH, Liu SY, Zhao Y, Tu WQ, Chang ZF, Zhang ET, Guo J, Zheng D, Geng J, Gu GY, Guo CP, Guo LL, Wang J, Xu CY, Peng C, Yang T, Cui MQ, Sun WC, Zhang JT, Liu HT, Ba CQ, Wang HQ, Jia JC, Wu JZ, Xiao C, Ma KP (2020) Evaluation of the identification ability of eight commonly used plant identification application softwares in China. Biodiversity Science, 28, 524-533. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[许展慧, 刘诗尧, 赵莹, 涂文琴, 常诏峰, 张恩涛, 郭靖, 郑迪, 耿鋆, 顾高营, 郭淳鹏, 郭璐璐, 王静, 徐春阳, 彭钏, 杨腾, 崔梦琪, 孙伟成, 张剑坛, 刘皓天, 巴超群, 王鹤琪, 贾竞超, 武金洲, 肖翠, 马克平 (2020) 国内8款常用植物识别软件的识别能力评价. 生物多样性, 28, 524-533.] | |
[21] | Zhong EZ, Guan ZH, Zhou XC, Zhao YJ, Li H, Tan SB, Hu KR (2021) Application of passive acoustic monitoring technology in the monitoring of western black crested gibbons. Biodiversity Science, 29, 109-117. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[钟恩主, 管振华, 周兴策, 赵友杰, 李函, 谭绍斌, 胡坤融 (2021) 被动声学监测技术在西黑冠长臂猿监测中的应用. 生物多样性, 29, 109-117.] |
/
〈 |
|
〉 |