Cargando…

The effect of call libraries and acoustic filters on the identification of bat echolocation

Quantitative methods for species identification are commonly used in acoustic surveys for animals. While various identification models have been studied extensively, there has been little study of methods for selecting calls prior to modeling or methods for validating results after modeling. We obta...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clement, Matthew J, Murray, Kevin L, Solick, Donald I, Gruver, Jeffrey C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4228621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25535563
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1201
_version_ 1782344022098968576
author Clement, Matthew J
Murray, Kevin L
Solick, Donald I
Gruver, Jeffrey C
author_facet Clement, Matthew J
Murray, Kevin L
Solick, Donald I
Gruver, Jeffrey C
author_sort Clement, Matthew J
collection PubMed
description Quantitative methods for species identification are commonly used in acoustic surveys for animals. While various identification models have been studied extensively, there has been little study of methods for selecting calls prior to modeling or methods for validating results after modeling. We obtained two call libraries with a combined 1556 pulse sequences from 11 North American bat species. We used four acoustic filters to automatically select and quantify bat calls from the combined library. For each filter, we trained a species identification model (a quadratic discriminant function analysis) and compared the classification ability of the models. In a separate analysis, we trained a classification model using just one call library. We then compared a conventional model assessment that used the training library against an alternative approach that used the second library. We found that filters differed in the share of known pulse sequences that were selected (68 to 96%), the share of non-bat noises that were excluded (37 to 100%), their measurement of various pulse parameters, and their overall correct classification rate (41% to 85%). Although the top two filters did not differ significantly in overall correct classification rate (85% and 83%), rates differed significantly for some bat species. In our assessment of call libraries, overall correct classification rates were significantly lower (15% to 23% lower) when tested on the second call library instead of the training library. Well-designed filters obviated the need for subjective and time-consuming manual selection of pulses. Accordingly, researchers should carefully design and test filters and include adequate descriptions in publications. Our results also indicate that it may not be possible to extend inferences about model accuracy beyond the training library. If so, the accuracy of acoustic-only surveys may be lower than commonly reported, which could affect ecological understanding or management decisions based on acoustic surveys.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4228621
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Blackwell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42286212014-12-22 The effect of call libraries and acoustic filters on the identification of bat echolocation Clement, Matthew J Murray, Kevin L Solick, Donald I Gruver, Jeffrey C Ecol Evol Original Research Quantitative methods for species identification are commonly used in acoustic surveys for animals. While various identification models have been studied extensively, there has been little study of methods for selecting calls prior to modeling or methods for validating results after modeling. We obtained two call libraries with a combined 1556 pulse sequences from 11 North American bat species. We used four acoustic filters to automatically select and quantify bat calls from the combined library. For each filter, we trained a species identification model (a quadratic discriminant function analysis) and compared the classification ability of the models. In a separate analysis, we trained a classification model using just one call library. We then compared a conventional model assessment that used the training library against an alternative approach that used the second library. We found that filters differed in the share of known pulse sequences that were selected (68 to 96%), the share of non-bat noises that were excluded (37 to 100%), their measurement of various pulse parameters, and their overall correct classification rate (41% to 85%). Although the top two filters did not differ significantly in overall correct classification rate (85% and 83%), rates differed significantly for some bat species. In our assessment of call libraries, overall correct classification rates were significantly lower (15% to 23% lower) when tested on the second call library instead of the training library. Well-designed filters obviated the need for subjective and time-consuming manual selection of pulses. Accordingly, researchers should carefully design and test filters and include adequate descriptions in publications. Our results also indicate that it may not be possible to extend inferences about model accuracy beyond the training library. If so, the accuracy of acoustic-only surveys may be lower than commonly reported, which could affect ecological understanding or management decisions based on acoustic surveys. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2014-09 2014-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4228621/ /pubmed/25535563 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1201 Text en © 2014 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Clement, Matthew J
Murray, Kevin L
Solick, Donald I
Gruver, Jeffrey C
The effect of call libraries and acoustic filters on the identification of bat echolocation
title The effect of call libraries and acoustic filters on the identification of bat echolocation
title_full The effect of call libraries and acoustic filters on the identification of bat echolocation
title_fullStr The effect of call libraries and acoustic filters on the identification of bat echolocation
title_full_unstemmed The effect of call libraries and acoustic filters on the identification of bat echolocation
title_short The effect of call libraries and acoustic filters on the identification of bat echolocation
title_sort effect of call libraries and acoustic filters on the identification of bat echolocation
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4228621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25535563
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1201
work_keys_str_mv AT clementmatthewj theeffectofcalllibrariesandacousticfiltersontheidentificationofbatecholocation
AT murraykevinl theeffectofcalllibrariesandacousticfiltersontheidentificationofbatecholocation
AT solickdonaldi theeffectofcalllibrariesandacousticfiltersontheidentificationofbatecholocation
AT gruverjeffreyc theeffectofcalllibrariesandacousticfiltersontheidentificationofbatecholocation
AT clementmatthewj effectofcalllibrariesandacousticfiltersontheidentificationofbatecholocation
AT murraykevinl effectofcalllibrariesandacousticfiltersontheidentificationofbatecholocation
AT solickdonaldi effectofcalllibrariesandacousticfiltersontheidentificationofbatecholocation
AT gruverjeffreyc effectofcalllibrariesandacousticfiltersontheidentificationofbatecholocation