...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Avian Biology >Testing acoustic versus physical marking: two complementary methods for individual-based monitoring of elusive species
【24h】

Testing acoustic versus physical marking: two complementary methods for individual-based monitoring of elusive species

机译:测试声音标记与物理标记:两种基于个体的可捉摸物种监测的互补方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Individuals of some species differentiate each other on the basis of the acoustic features of their vocalizations, and this can be used in individual-based population monitoring studies. No research has tested for the effectiveness of individual marking through voice recognition as compared to traditional monitoring methods relying on physical marks. We compared voice recognition and physical marking using the Dupont's lark Chersophilus duponti as a study species. This bird needs to be attracted with playback in order to be seen (or captured). We first demonstrated that the territorial calls from a sample of banded males were individually distinctive and constant over time by means of discriminant function analysis, which correctly classified 100% of marked males. Then, we applied similarity techniques on call spectrotemporal features to define a threshold value of similarity within banded individuals, to be combined with qualitative spectrogram inspection for the classification of all recorded birds. Eventually, we compared the voice and the capture samples, to test for differences in relation to re-location rate, territory fidelity and dispersal movements both within and between years. Voice recognition was less time-consuming than capture-recapture method in the field, but it was useless for monitoring yearlings in call development stage. The two methods provided the same results in terms of territory fidelity and dispersal movements, but differed in re-location rates, which were significantly greater in the case of voice recognition method. By means of physical captures we possibly trapped a large sample of young and silent floaters, with low probability of recapture or recording. This mismatch between methods could bias the estimates of annual survival, which strongly depend on re-location rates. We suggest considering the two methods as complementary rather than alternatives for monitoring populations. Each technique offers unique information, and the two sources should be combined to provide correction factors that would eventually sharpen our knowledge on bird population ecology.
机译:一些物种的个体根据其发声的声学特征彼此区分开,这可用于基于个体的种群监测研究中。与依靠物理标记的传统监测方法相比,没有研究测试过通过语音识别进行个体标记的有效性。我们使用杜邦的百灵鸟Chersophilus duponti作为研究物种,比较了语音识别和物理标记。为了观看(或捕获),需要通过回放吸引这只鸟。我们首先通过判别函数分析证明了带状雄性样品的地域特征是独特的,并且随时间变化是恒定的,该函数可以对100%的标记雄性进行正确分类。然后,我们在呼叫光谱时态特征上应用了相似性技术,以定义带状个体内相似性的阈值,并与定性光谱图检查相结合,对所有记录的鸟类进行分类。最终,我们比较了声音和捕获样本,以测试在几年之内和之间以及在搬迁率,领土保真度和分散运动方面的差异。语音识别在现场比捕获-重新捕获方法耗时少,但对于在呼叫开发阶段监视一岁鸡却没有用。两种方法在区域保真度和分散运动方面提供了相同的结果,但是重定位率有所不同,在语音识别方法中,重定位率明显更高。通过物理捕获,我们可能捕获了一大批年轻的无声浮游生物样本,而捕获或记录的可能性很低。方法之间的这种不匹配可能会使年生存率的估计值产生偏差,这在很大程度上取决于重新安置的比率。我们建议将这两种方法视为监测人口的补充而非替代方法。每种技术都提供独特的信息,应将这两种来源结合起来以提供校正因子,这些校正因子最终将使我们对鸟类种群生态学的认识更加敏锐。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号