File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison of point counts and automated acoustic monitoring: detecting birds in a rainforest biodiversity survey

TitleComparison of point counts and automated acoustic monitoring: detecting birds in a rainforest biodiversity survey
Authors
KeywordsEungella National Park
point counts
rainforest bird diversity.
Issue Date2016
Citation
Emu, 2016, v. 116, n. 3, p. 305-309 How to Cite?
Abstract© BirdLife Australia 2016. To monitor assemblages of animals, ecologists need effective methods for detecting and recording the distributions of species within target areas in restricted periods of time. In this study, we compared the effectiveness of a traditional avian biodiversity assessment technique (point counts) with a relatively new method (automated acoustic recordings) along an elevational gradient in rainforest in central Queensland, Australia. On average, point counts detected more species than acoustic recordings of an equivalent length of time (n≤40, P≤ < 0.001). We suggest these results are driven by the visual detection of additional species during point counts. Despite the fact that point counts detected more species than acoustic recordings, datasets generated by both methods showed similar patterns in the community response to change in elevation. There was significant overlap in the species detected using both methods, but each detected several unique species. Consequently, we recommend the use of both techniques in tandem for future biodiversity assessments, as their respective strengths and weaknesses are complementary.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/251173
ISSN
2021 Impact Factor: 1.438
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.668
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLeach, Elliot C.-
dc.contributor.authorBurwell, Chris J.-
dc.contributor.authorAshton, Louise A.-
dc.contributor.authorJones, Darryl N.-
dc.contributor.authorKitching, Roger L.-
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-01T01:54:48Z-
dc.date.available2018-02-01T01:54:48Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationEmu, 2016, v. 116, n. 3, p. 305-309-
dc.identifier.issn0158-4197-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/251173-
dc.description.abstract© BirdLife Australia 2016. To monitor assemblages of animals, ecologists need effective methods for detecting and recording the distributions of species within target areas in restricted periods of time. In this study, we compared the effectiveness of a traditional avian biodiversity assessment technique (point counts) with a relatively new method (automated acoustic recordings) along an elevational gradient in rainforest in central Queensland, Australia. On average, point counts detected more species than acoustic recordings of an equivalent length of time (n≤40, P≤ < 0.001). We suggest these results are driven by the visual detection of additional species during point counts. Despite the fact that point counts detected more species than acoustic recordings, datasets generated by both methods showed similar patterns in the community response to change in elevation. There was significant overlap in the species detected using both methods, but each detected several unique species. Consequently, we recommend the use of both techniques in tandem for future biodiversity assessments, as their respective strengths and weaknesses are complementary.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofEmu-
dc.subjectEungella National Park-
dc.subjectpoint counts-
dc.subjectrainforest bird diversity.-
dc.titleComparison of point counts and automated acoustic monitoring: detecting birds in a rainforest biodiversity survey-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1071/MU15097-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84979935469-
dc.identifier.volume116-
dc.identifier.issue3-
dc.identifier.spage305-
dc.identifier.epage309-
dc.identifier.eissn1448-5540-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000381431100010-
dc.identifier.issnl0158-4197-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats