To be able to monitor and protect endangered species, we need accurate information on their numbers and where they live. Survey methods using automated bioacoustic recorders offer significant promise, especially for species whose behaviour or ecology reduces their detectability during traditional surveys, such as the European nightjar. In this study we examined the utility of automated bioacoustic recorders and the associated classification software as a way to survey for wildlife, using the nightjar as an example. We compared traditional human surveys with results obtained from bioacoustic recorders. When we compared these two methods using the recordings made at the same time as the human surveys, we found that recorders were better at detecting nightjars. However, in practice fieldworkers are likely to deploy recorders for extended periods to make best use of them. Our comparison of this practical approach with human surveys revealed that recorders were significantly better at detecting nightjars than human surveyors: recorders detected nightjars during 19 of 22 survey periods, while surveyors detected nightjars on only six of these occasions. In addition, there was no correlation between the amount of vocalisation captured by the acoustic recorders and the abundance of nightjars as recorded by human surveyors. The data obtained from the recorders revealed that nightjars were most active just before dawn and just after dusk, and least active during the middle of the night. As a result, we found that recording at both dusk and dawn or only at dawn would give reasonably high levels of detection while significantly reducing recording time, preserving battery life. Our analyses suggest that automated bioacoustic recorders could increase the detection of other species, particularly those that are known to be difficult to detect using traditional survey methods. The accuracy of detection is especially important when the data are used to inform conservation.
Global demand for organic produce is increasing by euro4 billion annually. One key reason why consumers buy organic food is because they consider it to be better for human and animal health. Reviews comparing organic and conventional food have stated that organic food is preferred by birds and mammals in choice tests.
Adaptive responses to predation are generally studied assuming only one predator type exists, but most prey species are depredated by multiple types. When multiple types occur, the optimal antipredator response level may be determined solely by the probability of attack by the relevant predator: "specific responsiveness." Conversely, an increase in the probability of attack by one predator type might increase responsiveness to an alternative predator type: "general wariness." We formulate a mathematical model in which a prey animal perceives a cue providing information on the probability of two predator types being present. It can perform one of two evasive behaviors that vary in their suitability as a response to the "wrong" predator type. We show that general wariness is optimal when incorrect behavioral decisions have differential fitness costs. Counterintuitively, difficulty in discriminating between predator types does not favor general wariness. We predict that where responses to predator types are mutually exclusive (e.g., referential alarm-calling), specific responsiveness will occur; we suggest that prey generalize their defensive responses based on cue similarity due to an assumption of response utility; and we predict, with relevance to conservation, that habituation to human disturbance should generalize only to predators that elicit the same antipredator response as humans.
Related JoVE Video
Journal of Visualized Experiments
What is Visualize?
JoVE Visualize is a tool created to match the last 5 years of PubMed publications to methods in JoVE's video library.
How does it work?
We use abstracts found on PubMed and match them to JoVE videos to create a list of 10 to 30 related methods videos.
Video X seems to be unrelated to Abstract Y...
In developing our video relationships, we compare around 5 million PubMed articles to our library of over 4,500 methods videos. In some cases the language used in the PubMed abstracts makes matching that content to a JoVE video difficult. In other cases, there happens not to be any content in our video library that is relevant to the topic of a given abstract. In these cases, our algorithms are trying their best to display videos with relevant content, which can sometimes result in matched videos with only a slight relation.