Next Article in Journal
Fresnel Diffraction Model for Laser Dazzling Spots of Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor Cameras
Next Article in Special Issue
Underwater Acoustic Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing Communication Using Deep Neural Network-Based Receiver: River Trial Results
Previous Article in Journal
Magnetic Sensor Array for Electric Arc Reconstruction in Circuit Breakers
Previous Article in Special Issue
Advances in Portable and Wearable Acoustic Sensing Devices for Human Health Monitoring
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 24
Issue 17
10.3390/s24175780
sensors-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Living Together, Singing Together: Revealing Similar Patterns of Vocal Activity in Two Tropical Songbirds Applying BirdNET

by
David Amorós-Ausina
1,
Karl-L. Schuchmann
2,3,4,
Marinez I. Marques
2,4 and
Cristian Pérez-Granados
2,5,6,*
1
Urbanización Maryvilla, 03710 Calpe, Spain
2
Computational Bioacoustics Research Unit (CO.BRA), Institute for Science and Technology in Wetlands (INAU), Federal University of Mato Grosso (UFMT), Cuiabá 78060-900, Brazil
3
Ornithology, Zoological Research Museum A. Koenig (ZFMK), 53113 Bonn, Germany
4
Postgraduate Program in Zoology, Institute of Biosciences, Federal University of Mato Grosso, Cuiabá 78060-900, Brazil
5
Conservation Biology Group, Landscape Dynamics and Biodiversity Programme, Forest Science and Technology Center of Catalonia (CTFC), 25280 Lleida, Spain
6
Ecology Department, Alicante University, 03080 Alicante, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2024, 24(17), 5780; https://doi.org/10.3390/s24175780
Submission received: 16 August 2024 / Revised: 28 August 2024 / Accepted: 3 September 2024 / Published: 5 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Acoustic Sensing Technology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In recent years, several automated and noninvasive methods for wildlife monitoring, such as passive acoustic monitoring (PAM), have emerged. PAM consists of the use of acoustic sensors followed by sound interpretation to obtain ecological information about certain species. One challenge associated with PAM is the generation of a significant amount of data, which often requires the use of machine learning tools for automated recognition. Here, we couple PAM with BirdNET, a free-to-use sound algorithm to assess, for the first time, the precision of BirdNET in predicting three tropical songbirds and to describe their patterns of vocal activity over a year in the Brazilian Pantanal. The precision of the BirdNET method was high for all three species (ranging from 72 to 84%). We were able to describe the vocal activity patterns of two of the species, the Buff-breasted Wren (Cantorchilus leucotis) and Thrush-like Wren (Campylorhynchus turdinus). Both species presented very similar vocal activity patterns during the day, with a maximum around sunrise, and throughout the year, with peak vocal activity occurring between April and June, when food availability for insectivorous species may be high. Further research should improve our knowledge regarding the ability of coupling PAM with BirdNET for monitoring a wider range of tropical species.

1. Introduction

Owing to the current decline in biodiversity, there is a growing need for automated and effective methods to improve wildlife monitoring [1]. Establishing an effective ecological monitoring methodology is essential for determining changes in species richness and population trends over time, which is needed for proper management and conservation of natural ecosystems and biodiversity. Traditional monitoring methods, such as line transects and point counts, require significant human effort, are limited in space and time, and may be subject to biases and limitations, such as the experience and hearing ability of the observer [2]. For this reason, numerous automated and noninvasive tools have emerged in recent years [3,4,5]. These tools do not require human presence and can help monitor ecological processes more effectively. However, it is important to test the effectiveness of these tools and standardize them before they are implemented on a large scale [1].
Acoustic communication is used by many groups of animals to share information with members of their own or other species. Therefore, monitoring species via acoustic cues is a common method for assessing changes in species abundance, population richness, or community composition, among other factors. However, acoustic surveys are subject to various biases on the basis of experience and the detection and identification capacity of the observer [6]. To avoid such biases, in recent years, a novel noninvasive and automated technique for wildlife monitoring, passive acoustic monitoring (PAM), has emerged [7]. PAM is based on the deployment of Autonomous Recording Units (ARUs) equipped with acoustic sensors (microphones hereinafter), which are deployed in the field and programmed to record at time periods of interest. The posterior analysis of the collected recordings enables monitoring wildlife in an automated manner. In recent years, the use of PAM has rapidly increased in both aquatic and terrestrial environments [7,8]. Among the main reasons behind the growing use of this technique are the recent development of low-cost recorders [9,10] and technical innovations in acoustic data processing, such as BirdNET [11,12].
Passive acoustic surveys generate a significant amount of data that present challenges for audio interpretation, and most projects require the use of automated signal recognition software (e.g., [11,13,14]. Birds constitute the group most commonly studied via PAM [7]; consequently, numerous recent studies have improved techniques and analyses on the basis of the automatic acoustic recognition of birds [2]. Among these tools, the recently introduced free machine learning tool BirdNET is worthy of attention. BirdNET employs deep neural network algorithms for the automated detection and classification of 6500 wildlife species [11,15]. BirdNET algorithms are trained via vocalizations from various species, including mainly birds but also some amphibians and primates (see [16,17,18]). One of BirdNET’s key advantages over other automated detection software is that the recognizers are readily available, eliminating the need for advanced computer programming skills, and can be easily operated via graphical interfaces on Windows platforms, thus avoiding the complexity of programming languages such as R or Python. However, our current knowledge about the ability of BirdNET to monitor tropical birds is very limited, without any case studies published yet (reviewed by [15]).
Therefore, in this study, we aim to assess, for the first time, the effectiveness of BirdNET in identifying three Neotropical passerine birds and to utilize this tool to gain new insights into their ecological behavior. More specifically, we aimed to (1) evaluate the precision of BirdNET in correctly identifying the vocalizations of three closely related Neotropical passerines; (2) determine the optimal confidence threshold for each species, ensuring that BirdNET predictions can be filtered to remove predictions with low confidence; and (3) use BirdNET over a dataset of acoustic recordings collected over an entire year across five acoustic monitoring locations in the Brazilian Pantanal to characterize the diel and annual patterns of vocal activity of the studied species. This study aims to enhance the quality of passive acoustic research via acoustic sensors and the BirdNET algorithm. Additionally, our findings will improve the understanding of the ecology of tropical birds and the seasonal dynamics within the Brazilian Pantanal, the largest wetland in the world.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Species

In this study, we used Buff-breasted Wren (Cantorchilus leucotis), Moustached Wren (Pheugopedius genibarbis), and Thrush-like Wren (Campylorhynchus turdinus) as target species. The three species are cataloged as “Least Concern” by the Red List of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). We selected these three species of the Troglodytidae family because they are common birds in the Neotropics, are well distributed in the Brazilian Pantanal (see next section), and are included in the latest version of BirdNET (v 2.4., [11]). Our current knowledge regarding the vocal behavior of these three species is very limited, especially with respect to Thrush-like Wren and Moustached Wren. Indeed, members of the same family will allow for comparisons of whether the vocal activity patterns of closely related species are similar. Furthermore, as wetland species, they serve as prime examples of organisms inhabiting ecosystems that are logistically challenging to monitor because of their often damp and marshy ground and typically dense but delicate vegetation [10,19].
The Buff-breasted Wren is an insectivorous and resident species typically observed in pairs in dense tangles, inhabiting gallery and riverside forests and preferring humid areas close to bodies of water [20,21]. Both sexes vocalize, and their main song exhibits frequency modulation, which is described as a sequence from one to four syllables of “wop” or “weeoh”. These songs are emitted as a duet [22].
Moustached Wrens are also insectivorous and resident, living in the dense understory of humid forests and forest edges [23]. Its song is also normally emitted in duets [24], which are characterized by a series of quick, happy phrases that are frequently repeated and are sometimes followed by a quick “cho cho cho” [23].
The resident and insectivorous Thrush-like Wren has a cooperative character and is usually found in groups [25]. They primarily inhabit the canopies of humid forests, including disturbed areas [26]. Its song is described as a variable number of “chuk, chuk, chu-rú” [25].

2.2. Study Area

The study was conducted in the northeastern part of the Brazilian Pantanal (Pantanal matogrossense) and included five acoustic monitoring stations located near the SESC Pantanal complex (Mato Grosso, Brazil; 16°30′ S, 56°25′ W), separated by distances ranging from 430 to 1914 m. The Brazilian Pantanal is the largest wetland in the world, with a flooded area of 140,000 km2. The acoustic monitoring stations were within a mosaic of forested and savanna areas, which represent the dominant vegetation in the Brazilian Pantanal and potential habitat of the three target species [27]. It is a flat area with altitudes ranging from 80 to 100 m, an average annual temperature of 24 ℃, and an average annual rainfall ranging between 1000 and 1400 mm and is distributed seasonally [28]. The climate is tropical and humid [13,27].
The study area was located within the alluvial plain of the Cuiabá River, one of the main tributaries of the Paraguay River within the Pantanal [27], which in turn is one of the main tributaries of the Paraná River [29], with a drainage area of 280,000 km2 [30]. This plain is characterized by seasonal floods, which cause transitions from terrestrial to aquatic habitats and vice versa [31]. These floods are due to seasonal rainfall occurring between October and April [27], during which 80% of the Pantanal is flooded [32] because of the reduced runoff capacity of the drainage basin. The dry season occurs from May to September [27], when water is lost through evaporation and infiltration [33]. Because of these seasonal changes, the use of noninvasive techniques, such as PAM, can better contribute to wildlife monitoring.

2.3. Recording Protocol

The acoustic monitoring stations operated daily from 8 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, covering an annual cycle at each site. The locations in which they were placed were selected to encompass the most representative plant formations of the Brazilian Pantanal (forests and savannahs). A Song Meter SM2 recorder (Wildlife Acoustics, Maynard MA, USA) was placed at each station. The recorders were programmed to record (.wav format) the first 15 min of each hour 24 h a day with a sampling frequency of 48 kHz and a resolution of 16 bits per sample [13]. Recorders were checked approximately every two weeks to download data and change batteries.

2.4. Acoustic Data Analysis

BirdNET segments recordings into 3-second intervals, extracting signal characteristics and detecting matches with its model of singing patterns; it reports detections accordingly [11]. Moreover, BirdNET can identify multiple species within the same segment and provides a quantitative confidence score for each detection, ranging from 0 to 1. This score reflects the probability of accurately identifying the species, with a score of 1 indicating a near-perfect match to BirdNET’s understanding of the species [12,34]. The users of BirdNET can adjust a threshold value to filter application results on the basis of their desired confidence level. Optimizing for higher confidence values increases the accuracy percentage of correct detections relative to all detections considered but might also reduce the total number of detections. This can significantly reduce the number of false positives but can increase the number of false negatives. However, there is currently a limited understanding of how confidence values affect the accuracy of BirdNET species detection (reviewed by [15]).
Once the recordings were completed, they were analyzed via the “Multiple Files” tab in the GUI interface of BirdNET-Analyzer (version 2.4, https://github.com/kahst/BirdNET-Analyzer, accessed on 12 August 2024) [11] We used the default values, which were as follows: confidence threshold of 0.1, sensitivity parameter of 1.0, and no overlap (0 s). We applied a “Custom Species List” filter to configure BirdNET to detect only the three target species, thus avoiding the detection of nontarget species [10,12]. BirdNET was programmed to process one recording at a time via four computer threads. The total scanning time was approximately 142 h (2.3% of the total recording time).

2.5. BirdNET Performance Evaluation

To evaluate the effectiveness of BirdNET in detecting the three study species, the detection accuracy was estimated for each species separately. Accuracy was assessed without applying any confidence threshold filtering and was defined as the percentage of correctly identified predictions out of the total predictions reviewed [35]. A sample of 450 predictions was randomly selected from the BirdNET output for each species by considering 50 predictions for each 0.1 confidence score class (i.e., 50 predictions with confidence scores ranging between 0.1 and 0.2, 50 between 0.2 and 0.3, etc.). For each prediction, an experienced observer listened and visually inspected the audio spectrogram at the timestamp of the 3-second segment reported by BirdNET in the free software Audacity (v 2.3., [36]) and verified whether the target species was present or absent. The BirdNET precision was estimated (in %) by dividing the number of BirdNET predictions correctly classified by the total number of BirdNET predictions verified.

2.6. Statistical Analyses

The 450 predictions verified for each species were also used to estimate the confidence score threshold with a 90% probability of correct identification for each species. This estimate allowed us to filter the BirdNET output by removing predictions with low confidence scores and deriving ecological results (see first application in birds’ vocal activity in [12]). We opted for 90% confidence to keep a high number of predictions and because prior research has found no notable differences when describing singing patterns using high, although variable, confidence scores [17]. We followed the approach outlined in [12] (see also [17] for first application in anurans), so we back-transformed BirdNET’s confidence scores into its original logit scale. Then, for each of the three species, we fitted a logistic regression using the correct or incorrect classification of the verified predictions as a response variable and the BirdNET logit-scale prediction score as the independent variable. The logistic regressions provided an equation that enabled us to convert BirdNET scores into the probability of a given prediction being correct. For each species, the equations considering a probability of correct identification of 90% were as follows:
Threshold = (ln (p/(1 − p)) − α)/β,
where p is the threshold selected (0.90 in our case), α is the intercept of the logistic regression, and β is the slope of the regression.
The identified optimal score was used as a confidence score threshold to finally consider only BirdNET predictions with a high probability of correct identification when describing the diel and seasonal patterns of vocal activity of the three monitored species. The patterns of vocal activity were described by pooling the data from the five acoustic monitoring stations.

3. Results

3.1. BirdNET Performance

The BirdNET precision slightly varied among the three species (Table 1). The lowest precision was reached for the Moustached Wren and the Buff-breasted Wren, for which 326 and 344 of the 450 BirdNET predictions verified for each species were correctly classified (precision of 72.4% and 76.4% for the Moustached Wren and the Buff-breasted Wren, respectively, Table 1). The highest precision was reached for the Thrush-like Wren (84% precision, Table 1), for which 378 of the 450 BirdNET predictions verified were correct. The probability of BirdNET correctly classifying a bird vocalization varied depending on the confidence value of the predictions, with greater precision at higher confidence values. For example, the average BirdNET precision for the three target species at confidence score values between 0.1 and 0.5 was 61% (366 bird vocalizations correctly detected among 600 BirdNET predictions verified), whereas at confidence scores above 0.5, the average BirdNET precision was 90.9% (682 of the 750 BirdNET predictions verified correctly classified, Table 1).
After the logistic regressions were fit, the minimum confidence score to consider only detections with a 90% probability of correct identification was 0.603 for the Buff-breasted Wren (Figure 1A) and 0.428 for the Thrush-like Wren (Figure 1B). Owing to the lower precision of BirdNET for correctly detecting the Moustached Wren, especially at high confidence score intervals (see Table 1), it was impossible to identify an optimal confidence score that was able to correctly predict the vocalization of the species; therefore, its vocal behavior was not described.

3.2. Vocal Activity Patterns

After applying the confidence thresholds, the sample size used for the description of the song patterns was 13,612 vocalizations for Thrush-like Wren and 491 for Buff-breasted Wren. To facilitate reading, hereinafter, we use the term vocalization when referring to the BirdNET predictions filtered. The daily vocal activity patterns of both species were very similar (Figure 2). Both the Thrush-like Wren and the Buff-breasted Wren exhibited a bimodal vocal activity pattern, with peaks around sunrise and sunset and low vocal activity during the central hours of the day and almost none during the night (Figure 2). The largest peak vocal activity of both species occurred during the three hours after sunrise, with over 50% of the total vocal activity recorded between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. (see detailed tables of the hourly vocal activity of each species per station in Appendix A (Table A1 and Table A2).
The Buff-breasted Wren and the Thrush-like Wren exhibited similar vocal behavior patterns, with peaks in vocal activity occurring between March and June during the onset of the dry season (Figure 3). The percentage of vocalizations detected between March and June, relative to the total, was 43.6% for the Thrush-like Wren and 46.0% for the Buff-breasted Wren. However, both species presented secondary vocal activity peaks during the remainder of the year, especially in December (12.0% of the total for the Buff-breasted Wren and 8.9% for the total for the Thrush-like Wren). Overall, both species displayed similar singing activity patterns throughout the year. Furthermore, both the Buff-breasted Wren and the Thrush-like Wren were detected throughout the entire annual cycle (Figure 3). Detailed tables of the monthly vocal activity of each species per station can be found in Appendix A (Table A3 and Table A4).

4. Discussion

In this study, we validated, for the first time, the use of acoustic sensors coupled with BirdNET, a free-to-use and user-friendly machine learning tool, for detecting and studying the ecology of tropical birds. The mean precision of BirdNET for correctly identifying the three target species was similar and high (range 72–84%). However, owing to variations among species in the ability of BirdNET to correctly classify their vocalizations at high confidence scores (Table 1), it was impossible to estimate an optimal confidence score, which aimed to filter BirdNET output and retain only predictions with a high probability of being correct (>90%), for the Moustached Wren. We were able to estimate such an optimal confidence score threshold for the other two species, which allowed us to describe their vocal activity patterns using only BirdNET predictions with a high probability of being correctly identified. We are aware that the definition of what is an optimal confidence score threshold may vary among studies; therefore, users may select one or another threshold according to their research goal. For example, a low confidence score threshold may be selected and followed by output verification, if the aim is to detect the presence of threatened or invasive species, to facilitate effective management (e.g., [18,37]), whereas the aim to describe vocal activity patterns may be enough to select a high confidence score threshold without further output verification (e.g., [12,17]). When the average precision obtained in this study for the three target species (77.6%) was compared with the average precision for 984 species of European and North American birds (79.0%) [11], we observed that the precisions for the three tropical birds were very similar. This result is even more surprising considering that the precision estimated for European and North American birds was calculated via focal recordings and therefore collected with high-quality directional microphones, whereas our recordings were collected with omnidirectional microphones.
Various authors have suggested that to work with most species through BirdNET, it is appropriate to use confidence score threshold values greater than 0.5 [15,38] and even values that range between 0.7 and 0.8, as these values yield the greatest number of correct identifications (95% probability of correct identification) [39]. However, prior research, using the same approach as in our study, identified optimal confidence scores lower than 0.5 to retain only predictions with high probabilities of being correctly identified (see [12]), which suggests the need for species-specific research. Our findings also suggest that estimating an optimal confidence score might not be possible for certain species but might be highly variable even among closely related species (0.603 for the Buff-breasted Wren and 0.428 for the Thrush-like Wren). These findings are in agreement with prior research proving the existence of large variations in optimal confidence scores among studies for the same species (see, e.g., [39,40,41]). Indeed, the effectiveness of BirdNET correctly identifying bird vocalizations may vary among areas and periods of the day due to variations in ambient noise (e.g., [42]). Further research should explore the reasons behind these variations in BirdNET precision among species and among studies. In the meantime, we must be cautious when extrapolating the precision and optimal confidence scores between species and/or studies [15]. Likewise, further research should assess the ability of BirdNET to detect bird vocalizations with an acoustic metric known as the recall rate, which is not frequently evaluated in BirdNET surveys [15].
Both the Buff-breasted and the Thrush-like Wren showed a bimodal vocal activity pattern, in line with the daily patterns described for most bird species (reviewed by [43]), including other Neotropical wrens (e.g., Campylorhynchus rufinucha, [44]) and other songbirds in the study area (e.g., [42]). Both species presented the largest peak of vocal activity around dawn and a second, lower peak around dusk. Our results agree with prior descriptions of the Buff-breasted Wren’s daily singing pattern, with pairs singing together near sunrise, a decrease in activity during the late morning and afternoon, and a second peak of singing activity in the evening [20]. This second peak of activity has been proposed to improve communication between members of the same pair, with both mates vocalizing in the evening before entering their nests or roosts [22]. Our findings constitute the first description of the daily singing pattern of the Thrush-like wren, which overall agrees with the results reported for other Neotropical wrens ([44], Figure 2). However, our current knowledge regarding the factors influencing diel vocal activity patterns of tropical birds is very limited (but see, e.g., [45,46,47,48,49]).
Both species also presented very similar seasonal patterns of singing activity, with relatively constant vocal activity throughout the year but with a relatively large peak of singing during the period of March–June. The detection of both species over a complete year confirms their status as resident species in the Brazilian Pantanal [50,51]. Both species are territorial, and their songs have been proposed to serve multiple functions, including as a territorial defense [20,44], which may contribute to explaining the relatively consistent, although a low pattern of singing observed throughout the year. Research has shown that seasonal changes in water levels affect bird ecology, including nesting, feeding, and vocal patterns [31,52,53,54,55]. The Brazilian Pantanal experiences annual floods, resulting in seasonal variations in terms of insect abundance and diversity [56]. Therefore, the peak of singing activity between March and June is likely related to changes in insect abundance in response to the pronounced seasonality of the Brazilian Pantanal region. For example, studies indicate peaks in the abundance of several dipteran species and ants at the end of the wet season and start of the dry season, typically between May and July, driven by climatic conditions [57,58], with ants being a crucial food resource for many Neotropical insectivorous passerines [59]. Overall, the increased food availability following water recession may stimulate the reproduction of both wrens during this period and therefore explain the peak of singing activity since songs of Neotropical wrens are also used for mate attraction and pair bonding [20,44].
The proposed periods for breeding, which are based on seasonal changes in singing activity, require further research, together with field observations, to characterize the breeding ecology of the target species better and to assess whether their nesting behavior is influenced by the flood dynamics of the Pantanal. Indeed, we cannot rule out that the observed decrease in vocal activity during the wet season might be associated with a lower amount of time spent near the recorders as flooded areas shrink, making food searches more challenging [60,61]. Moreover, diminished vocal activity during the rainy season might result from inefficiencies caused by rain masking vocalizations [62,63] or individuals seeking shelter [64].

5. Conclusions

We provide the first assessment of the effectiveness of acoustic sensors coupled with BirdNET, a new tool for processing acoustic data, for correctly identifying and monitoring the vocal activity of three Neotropical passerine birds. The precision of BirdNET for correctly identifying the three species was high, although it was variable. Indeed, it was not possible to identify an optimal confidence score threshold for one of the species. The optimal confidence scores identified in that study, although valuable as starting points for further research with the target species, should be assessed if they are to be applied in different regions. The other two wrens considered showed similar diel and seasonal patterns of singing activity, with increased vocal output around the crepuscular periods and during the dry season, when insect abundance and availability might be high. Further research should evaluate the performance of BirdNETs for monitoring a broader range of tropical species, including assessments of the ability of BirdNET to detect bird vocalizations (recall rate). We hope that this study will encourage researchers and managers to utilize this readily available tool to generate valuable scientific data. The use of acoustic sensors, coupled with BirdNET, might be especially useful for improving our current knowledge regarding the ecology of tropical and wetland birds, which are species for which there is limited knowledge and challenging monitoring.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.A.-A. and C.P.-G.; methodology, D.A.-A. and C.P.-G.; software, D.A.-A. and C.P.-G.; validation, all authors; formal analysis, D.A.-A. and C.P.-G.; investigation, D.A.-A. and C.P.-G.; resources, all authors.; data curation, D.A.-A. and C.P.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, D.A.-A. and C.P.-G.; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, D.A.-A. and C.P.-G.; supervision, all authors; project administration, K.-L.S. and M.I.M.; funding acquisition, K.-L.S. and M.I.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior–Brasil (CAPES), Finance Code 01; Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Áreas Úmidas (INAU/UFMT/CNPq); Centro de Pesquisa do Pantanal (CPP); and Brehm Funds for International Bird Conservation (BF), Bonn, Germany.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study is part of the biodiversity monitoring project Sounds of the Pantanal–The Pantanal Automated Acoustic Biodiversity Monitoring of INAU/CO.BRA, Cuiabá, Mato Grosso, Brazil, which was conducted under SISBIO permit no. 39095 (KLS).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Raw databases employed for describing birds’ vocal behavior are published as the Appendix A. The number of vocalizations detected per hour and month at each acoustic monitoring station for each of the three species can be found in the Table A1, Table A2, Table A3 and Table A4.

Acknowledgments

We thank the SESC Pantanal, Mato Grosso, for permission to conduct research on their property and for their logistical help with our fieldwork. C.P.-G. acknowledges support from the Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional through the Beatriz Galindo Fellowship (Beatriz Galindo—Convocatoria 2020).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Sensors 24 05780 g0a1
Figure A1. Screenshot showing the criteria entered in the BirdNET-Analyzer analysis. In the two upper boxes, the paths of the folders where the audio recordings to be analyzed are located (select directory) and where the outputs are saved after analysis (select output directory) are identified. Below these two boxes are the default values for the parameters: minimum confidence: 0.1; sensitivity: 1; overlap: 0. In the “Species Selection” tab, the filter is applied by uploading a text file in the “File” tab, in which the names of the two target species are written. Finally, the BirdNET output was saved as a “Raven selection table,” which is a type of file in txt format. The analysis was configured to process one recording at a time and use four CPU threads, matching the default settings of the software.
Figure A1. Screenshot showing the criteria entered in the BirdNET-Analyzer analysis. In the two upper boxes, the paths of the folders where the audio recordings to be analyzed are located (select directory) and where the outputs are saved after analysis (select output directory) are identified. Below these two boxes are the default values for the parameters: minimum confidence: 0.1; sensitivity: 1; overlap: 0. In the “Species Selection” tab, the filter is applied by uploading a text file in the “File” tab, in which the names of the two target species are written. Finally, the BirdNET output was saved as a “Raven selection table,” which is a type of file in txt format. The analysis was configured to process one recording at a time and use four CPU threads, matching the default settings of the software.
Sensors 24 05780 g0a1
Table A1. The number of vocalizations per hour of the Buff-breasted Wren detected at each of the five acoustic monitoring stations in the Pantanal matogrossense (Brazil). The predictions shown are filtered on the basis of a threshold value ensuring a confidence value higher than the threshold, indicating a 90% probability of accuracy. Additionally, other parameters included the total number and percentage of vocalizations per hour relative to the overall vocalizations recorded.
Table A1. The number of vocalizations per hour of the Buff-breasted Wren detected at each of the five acoustic monitoring stations in the Pantanal matogrossense (Brazil). The predictions shown are filtered on the basis of a threshold value ensuring a confidence value higher than the threshold, indicating a 90% probability of accuracy. Additionally, other parameters included the total number and percentage of vocalizations per hour relative to the overall vocalizations recorded.
HourStation AStation BStation CStation DStation ETotal%
000000000
010000000
020000000
030000000
040000000
05016213224.48
0611324182311523.42
07428182207214.66
087122313116613.44
091315146397.94
102010117306.11
1120548193.87
12111290234.68
13241150224.48
1410760142.85
1523543173.46
160070181.63
17216459367.33
180052181.63
190000000
200000000
210000000
220000000
230000000
TOTAL3501151658492491
Table A2. The number of vocalizations per hour of the Thrush-like Wren detected at each of the five acoustic monitoring stations in the Pantanal matogrossense (Brazil). The predictions shown are those filtered on the basis of a threshold value ensuring a confidence value higher than the threshold, indicating a 90% probability of accuracy. Additionally, other parameters included the total number and percentage of vocalizations per hour relative to the overall vocalizations recorded.
Table A2. The number of vocalizations per hour of the Thrush-like Wren detected at each of the five acoustic monitoring stations in the Pantanal matogrossense (Brazil). The predictions shown are those filtered on the basis of a threshold value ensuring a confidence value higher than the threshold, indicating a 90% probability of accuracy. Additionally, other parameters included the total number and percentage of vocalizations per hour relative to the overall vocalizations recorded.
HourStation AStation BStation CStation DStation ETotal%
000020130.02
010012140.03
021011140.03
030000000
0402314100.07
0561084662677575.56
062211254126611005405329.78
0721585111270689227016.68
08150323822443145010.65
099719266525010337.59
10731154641256784.98
1148612271444263.13
1259401641443712.73
1330611291215872.11
147132141482651.95
1511110691293102.28
16510391582031.49
17141206912799967.32
181467294874533.33
1901083120.09
200152080.06
2100463130.1
220050050.04
230010010.01
TOTAL11483221668174380213,612
Table A3. The number of vocalizations per month of the Buff-breasted Wren detected by each sampling station. The predictions shown are those filtered on the basis of a threshold value ensuring a confidence value higher than the threshold, indicating a 90% probability of accuracy. Additionally, the total number and percentage of monthly vocalizations relative to the overall total vocalizations are provided.
Table A3. The number of vocalizations per month of the Buff-breasted Wren detected by each sampling station. The predictions shown are those filtered on the basis of a threshold value ensuring a confidence value higher than the threshold, indicating a 90% probability of accuracy. Additionally, the total number and percentage of monthly vocalizations relative to the overall total vocalizations are provided.
MonthStation AStation BStation CStation DStation ETotal%
June 20150501391.83
July 2015013101110448.96
August 2015013641244.89
September 2015041202183.67
October 2015041183265.3
November 20151081111316.31
December 201533119515912.02
January 20163714200448.96
February 2016353203316.31
March 201660534117415.07
April 201670203295912.02
May 201632867287214.66
TOTAL351151658492491
Table A4. The number of vocalizations per month of the Thrush-like Wren detected by each sampling station. The predictions shown are those filtered on the basis of a threshold value ensuring a confidence value higher than the threshold, indicating a 90% probability of accuracy. Additionally, the total number and percentage of monthly vocalizations relative to the overall total vocalizations are provided.
Table A4. The number of vocalizations per month of the Thrush-like Wren detected by each sampling station. The predictions shown are those filtered on the basis of a threshold value ensuring a confidence value higher than the threshold, indicating a 90% probability of accuracy. Additionally, the total number and percentage of monthly vocalizations relative to the overall total vocalizations are provided.
MonthStation AStation BStation CStation DStation ETotal%
June 2015024201032349142510.47
July 20150333346122699486.96
August 2015030236422999947.3
September 2015068254071486484.76
October 20152910355902989627.07
November 2015466144424649727.14
December 20152359373822112068.86
January 20161421164122998706.39
February 201670314772067575.56
March 20165367172638612339.06
April 20167932379621011208.23
May 20164942911300653247718.2
TOTAL11483221668174380213,612

References

  1. Gibb, R.; Browning, E.; Glover-Kapfer, P.; Jones, K.E. Emerging opportunities and challenges for passive acoustics in ecological assessment and monitoring. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2018, 10, 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wang, Q.; Song, Y.; Du, Y.; Yang, Z.; Cui, P.; Luo, B. Hierarchical-taxonomy-aware and attentional convolutional neural networks for acoustic identification of bird species: A phylogenetic perspective. Ecol. Inform. 2024, 80, 102538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zeng, Y.; Wang, X.; Liu, J.; Cao, J.; Sun, Y.; Zhao, S.; Chen, Z.; Kim, J.K.; Zhang, J.; He, P. Harnessing the power of eDNA technology for macroalgal ecological studies: Recent advances, challenges, and future perspectives. Algal Res. 2024, 77, 103340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mata, A.; Moffat, D.; Almeida, S.; Radeta, M.; Jay, W.; Mortimer, N.; Awty-Carroll, K.; Thomas, O.R.; Brotas, V.; Groom, S. Drone imagery and deep learning for mapping the density of wild Pacific oysters to manage their expansion into protected areas. Ecol. Inform. 2024, 82, 102708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, B.; Li, R.; Lan, X.; Kong, D.; Liu, X.; Xie, S. Benthic diatom eDNA metabarcoding for ecological assessment of an urban river: A comparison with morphological method. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 166, 112302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Digby, A.; Towsey, M.; Bell, B.D.; Teal, P.D. A practical comparison of manual and autonomous methods for acoustic monitoring. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2013, 4, 675–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sugai, L.S.M.; Silva, T.S.F.; Ribeiro, J.W.; Llusia, D. Terrestrial Passive Acoustic Monitoring: Review and Perspectives. BioScience 2018, 69, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Desjonquères, C.; Gifford, T.; Linke, S. Passive acoustic monitoring as a potential tool to survey animal and ecosystem processes in freshwater environments. Freshw. Biol. 2019, 65, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hill, A.P.; Prince, P.; Snaddon, J.L.; Doncaster, C.P.; Rogers, A. AudioMoth: A low-cost acoustic device for monitoring biodiversity and the environment. HardwareX 2019, 6, e00073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Manzano-Rubio, R.; Bota, G.; Brotons, L.; Soto-Largo, E.; Pérez-Granados, C. Low-cost open-source recorders and ready-to-use machine learning approaches provide effective monitoring of threatened species. Ecol. Inform. 2022, 72, 101910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kahl, S.; Wood, C.M.; Eibl, M.; Klinck, H. BirdNET: A deep learning solution for avian diversity monitoring. Ecol. Inform. 2021, 61, 101236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bota, G.; Manzano-Rubio, R.; Catalán, L.; Gómez-Catasús, J.; Pérez-Granados, C. Hearing to the Unseen: AudioMoth and BirdNET as a Cheap and Easy Method for Monitoring Cryptic Bird Species. Sensors 2023, 23, 7176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Pérez-Granados, C.; Schuchmann, K.; Marques, M.I. Vocal behavior of the Undulated Tinamou (Crypturellus undulatus) over an annual cycle in the Brazilian Pantanal: New ecological information. Biotropica 2019, 52, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pérez-Granados, C.; Schuchmann, K.-L.; Ramoni-Perazzi, P.; Marques, M.I. Calling behaviour of Elachistocleis matogrosso (Anura, Microhylidae) is associated with habitat temperature and rainfall. Bioacoustics 2019, 29, 670–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pérez-Granados, C. BirdNET: Applications, performance, pitfalls and future opportunities. Ibis 2023, 165, 1068–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wood, C.M.; Cruz, A.B.; Kahl, S. Pairing a user-friendly machine-learning animal sound detector with passive acoustic surveys for occupancy modeling of an endangered primate. Am. J. Primatol. 2023, 85, e23507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wood, C.M.; Kahl, S.; Barnes, S.; Van Horne, R.; Brown, C. Passive acoustic surveys and the BirdNET algorithm reveal detailed spatiotemporal variation in the vocal activity of two anurans. Bioacoustics 2023, 32, 532–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bota, G.; Manzano-Rubio, R.; Fanlo, H.; Franch, N.; Brotons, L.; Villero, D.; Devisscher, S.; Pavesi, A.; Cavaletti, E.; Pérez-Granados, C. Passive acoustic monitoring and automated detection of the American bullfrog. Biol. Invasions 2024, 26, 1269–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Znidersic, E.; Towsey, M.; Roy, W.; Darling, S.E.; Truskinger, A.; Roe, P.; Watson, D.M. Using visualization and machine learning methods to monitor low detectability species—The least bittern as a case study. Ecol. Inform. 2019, 55, 101014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gill, S.A.; Vonhof, M.J.; Stutchbury, B.J.M.; Morton, E.S.; Quinn, J.S. No evidence for acoustic mate-guarding in duetting buff-breasted wrens (Thryothorus leucotis). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2005, 57, 557–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. De Nóbrega, P.F.A.; De Pinho, J.B. Biologia reprodutiva e uso de habitat por Cantorchilus leucotis (Lafresnaye, 1845) (Aves, Troglodytidae) no Pantanal, Mato Grosso, Brasil. Papéis Avulsos Zool. 2010, 50, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gill, S.A. Buff-breasted Wren (Cantorchilus leucotis). In Birds of the World; Schulenberg, T.S., Ed.; Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kroodsma, D.E.; Brewer, D. Moustached Wren (Pheugopedius genibarbis). In Birds of the World; del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A., de Juana, E., Eds.; Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mann, N.I.; Dingess, K.A.; Barker, F.K.; Graves, J.A.; Slater, P.J. A comparative study of song form and duetting in Neotropical Thryothorus wrens. Behaviour 2009, 146, 1–43. [Google Scholar]
  25. Heinonen Fortabat, S.; Gil, G.; Marino, G. Sobre las aves del Parque Nacional Río Pilcomayo con la adición de Basileuterus flaveolus a la avifauna argentina. El Hornero 1995, 14. Available online: https://bibliotecadigital.exactas.uba.ar/download/hornero/hornero_v014_n01y02_p069.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2024). [CrossRef]
  26. Kroodsma, D.; Brewer, D.; Kirwan, G.M. Thrush-like Wren (Campylorhynchus turdinus). In Birds of the World; del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A., de Juana, E., Eds.; Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Junk, W.J.; da Cunha, C.N.; Wantzen, K.M.; Petermann, P.; Strüssmann, C.; Marques, M.I.; Adis, J. Biodiversity and its conservation in the Pantanal of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Aquat. Sci. 2006, 68, 278–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pott, A.; Pott, V.J. Features and conservation of the Brazilian Pantanal wetland. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 12, 547–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Orfeo, O.; Stevaux, J. Hydraulic and morphological characteristics of middle and upper reaches of the Paraná River (Argentina and Brazil). Geomorphology 2002, 44, 309–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ferreira, V.G. Contribution to the Taxonomy and Ecology of Strandesia sl (Crustacea, Ostracoda, Cypricercinae) from Brazilian Floodplains. Master Thesis, Maringá State University, Maringá, Brazil, 2019. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1834/14992 (accessed on 12 August 2024).
  31. Alho, C.J.R.; Silva, J.S.V. Effects of Severe Floods and Droughts on Wildlife of the Pantanal Wetland (Brazil)—A Review. Animals 2012, 2, 591–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hamilton, S.K.; Sippel, S.J.; Melack, J.M. Inundation patterns in the Pantanal wetland of South America determined from passive microwave remote sensing. Arch. Für Hydrobiol. 1996, 137, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fraser, L.H.; Keddy, P.A. The World’s Largest Wetlands: Ecology and Conservation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wood, C.M.; Kahl, S. Guidelines for appropriate use of BirdNET scores and other detector outputs. J. Ornithol. 2024, 165, 777–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Knight, E.C.; Hannah, K.C.; Foley, G.J.; Scott, C.D.; Brigham, R.M.; Bayne, E. Recommendations for acoustic recognizer performance assessment with application to five common automated signal recognition programs. Avian Conserv. Ecol. 2017, 12, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Thompson, D.E. An Overview of Audacity. Gen. Music. Today 2014, 27, 40–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wood, C.M.; Günther, F.; Rex, A.; Hofstadter, D.F.; Reers, H.; Kahl, S.; Peery, M.Z.; Klinck, H. Real-time acoustic monitoring facilitates the proactive management of biological invasions. Biol. Invasions 2024, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wood, C.M.; Kahl, S.; Chaon, P.; Peery, M.Z.; Klinck, H. Survey coverage, recording duration and community composition affect observed species richness in passive acoustic surveys. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2021, 12, 885–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sethi, S.S.; Fossøy, F.; Cretois, B.; Rosten, C.M. Management Relevant Applications of Acoustic Monitoring for Norwegian Nature–The Sound of Norway; (Report 2064); Norwegian Institute for Nature Research: Trondheim, Sweden, 2021; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2832294 (accessed on 12 August 2024).
  40. Kahl, S. Identifying Birds by Sound: Large-Scale Acoustic Event Recognition for Avian Activity Monitoring. Master Thesis, Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany, 2020. Available online: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:ch1-qucosa2-369869 (accessed on 12 August 2024).
  41. Cole, J.S.; Michel, N.L.; A Emerson, S.; Siegel, R.B. Automated bird sound classifications of long-duration recordings produce occupancy model outputs similar to manually annotated data. Ornithol. Appl. 2022, 124, duac003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ventura, T.M.; Ganchev, T.D.; Pérez-Granados, C.; de Oliveira, A.G.; Pedroso, G.d.S.G.; Marques, M.I.; Schuchmann, K.-L. The importance of acoustic background modelling in CNN-based detection of the neotropical White-lored Spinetail (Aves, Passeriformes, Furnaridae). Bioacoustics 2024, 33, 103–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gil, D.; Llusia, D. The Bird Dawn Chorus Revisited. In Coding Strategies in Vertebrate Acoustic Communication; Aubin, T., Mathevon, N., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 7, pp. 45–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bradley, D.W.; Mennill, D.J. Solos, duets and choruses: Vocal behaviour of the Rufous-naped Wren (Campylorhynchus rufinucha), a cooperatively breeding neotropical songbird. J. Ornithol. 2009, 150, 743–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Baldo, S.; Mennill, D.J. Vocal behavior of Great Curassows, a vulnerable Neotropical bird. J. Field Ornithol. 2011, 82, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pérez-Granados, C.; Schuchmann, K.-L. Diel and Seasonal Variations of Vocal Behavior of the Neotropical White-Tipped Dove (Leptotila verreauxi). Diversity 2020, 12, 402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pérez-Granados, C.; Schuchmann, K. Nocturnal vocal behaviour of the diurnal Undulated Tinamou (Crypturellus undulatus) is associated with temperature and moon phase. Ibis 2021, 163, 684–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Winiarska, D.; Pérez-Granados, C.; Budka, M.; Osiejuk, T.S. Year-round vocal activity of two African barbet species. Emu-Austral Ornithol. 2024, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Winiarska, D.; Pérez-Granados, C.; Budka, M.; Osiejuk, T.S. Passive acoustic monitoring of endangered endemic Afromontane tropical species: A case study with two turacos. Afr. J. Ecol. 2024, 62, 213280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. BirdLife International. Campylorhynchus turdinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2018. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22711306/131962920 (accessed on 12 August 2024).
  51. BirdLife International. Cantorchilus leucotis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2021. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22711467/166912898 (accessed on 12 August 2024).
  52. Alho, C. Biodiversity of the Pantanal: Response to seasonal flooding regime and to environmental degradation. Braz. J. Biol. 2008, 68, 957–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pérez-Granados, C.; Schuchmann, K.-L. Illuminating the nightlife of two Neotropical nightjars: Vocal behavior over a year and monitoring recommendations. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 32, 466–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pérez-Granados, C.; Schuchmann, K.-L. Passive Acoustic Monitoring of Chaco Chachalaca (Ortalis canicollis) Over a Year: Vocal Activity Pattern and Monitoring Recommendations. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2021, 14, 19400829211058295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pérez-Granados, C.; Schuchmann, K. Diel and seasonal variation of Striped Cuckoo (Tapera naevia) vocalizations revealed using automated signal recognition. Ibis 2022, 165, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. De Deus, F.F.; Schuchmann, K.-L.; Marques, M.I. Seasonality in the Brazilian Pantanal influences avian functional diversity. Stud. Neotropical Fauna Environ. 2020, 57, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Koller, W.W.; de Barros, A.T.M.; Corrêa, E.C. Abundance and seasonality of Cochliomyia macellaria (Diptera: Calliphoridae) in Southern Pantanal, Brazil. Rev. Bras. De Parasitol. Veter. 2011, 20, 27–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Soares, S.d.A.; Suarez, Y.R.; Fernandes, W.D.; Tenório, P.M.S.; Delabie, J.H.C.; Antonialli-Junior, W.F. Temporal variation in the composition of ant assemblages (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) on trees in the Pantanal floodplain, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Rev. Bras. de Èntomol. 2013, 57, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lopes, L.E.; Fernandes, A.M.; Marini, M.Â. Diet of some Atlantic Forest birds. Ararajuba 2005, 13, 95–103. [Google Scholar]
  60. De Pinho, J.B.; Aragona, M.; Hakamada, K.Y.P.; Marini, M. Migration patterns and seasonal forest use by birds in the Brazilian Pantanal. Bird Conserv. Int. 2017, 27, 371–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. De Deus, F.F.; Schuchmann, K.-L.; Arieira, J.; Tissiani, A.S.d.O.; Marques, M.I. Avian Beta Diversity in a Neotropical Wetland: The Effects of Flooding and Vegetation Structure. Wetlands 2020, 40, 1513–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Brumm, H.; Slabbekoorn, H. Acoustic communication in noise. Adv. Study Behav. 2005, 35, 151–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mennill, D.J. Variation in the Vocal Behavior of Common Loons (Gavia immer): Insights from Landscape-level Recordings. Waterbirds 2014, 37, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Robbins, C.S. Effect of time of day on bird activity. Stud. Avian Biol. 1981, 6, 275–286. [Google Scholar]
Sensors 24 05780 g001
Figure 1. The results of the logistic regression (blue line) showing the relationship between the probability of a correct BirdNET prediction and the confidence score of a given prediction for the (A) Buff-breasted Wren and the (B) Thrush-like Wren. Statistical analyses were performed using the BirdNET logit-scale of the prediction score as an independent variable, but we represent the original confidence score of BirdNET for graphical purposes. The red solid lines show the optimal confidence score threshold identified for each species.
Figure 1. The results of the logistic regression (blue line) showing the relationship between the probability of a correct BirdNET prediction and the confidence score of a given prediction for the (A) Buff-breasted Wren and the (B) Thrush-like Wren. Statistical analyses were performed using the BirdNET logit-scale of the prediction score as an independent variable, but we represent the original confidence score of BirdNET for graphical purposes. The red solid lines show the optimal confidence score threshold identified for each species.
Sensors 24 05780 g001
Sensors 24 05780 g002
Figure 2. The daily pattern of vocal activity of the Thrush-like Wren (black) and the Buff-breasted Wren (blue) in the Brazilian Pantanal. The daily pattern of vocal activity refers to the percentage of vocalizations above the optimal confidence score detected per hour for each species. Times are expressed in terms of local winter time (UTC-4) and number.
Figure 2. The daily pattern of vocal activity of the Thrush-like Wren (black) and the Buff-breasted Wren (blue) in the Brazilian Pantanal. The daily pattern of vocal activity refers to the percentage of vocalizations above the optimal confidence score detected per hour for each species. Times are expressed in terms of local winter time (UTC-4) and number.
Sensors 24 05780 g002
Sensors 24 05780 g003
Figure 3. The annual pattern of vocal activity of the Buff-breasted Wren (blue) and Thrush-like Wren (black) in the Brazilian Pantanal. The annual pattern of vocal activity refers to the percentage of vocalizations above the optimal confidence score detected per month for each species. Monitoring was performed via passive acoustic monitoring from 8 June 2015 to 31 May 2016.
Figure 3. The annual pattern of vocal activity of the Buff-breasted Wren (blue) and Thrush-like Wren (black) in the Brazilian Pantanal. The annual pattern of vocal activity refers to the percentage of vocalizations above the optimal confidence score detected per month for each species. Monitoring was performed via passive acoustic monitoring from 8 June 2015 to 31 May 2016.
Sensors 24 05780 g003
Table 1. The number of BirdNET predictions correctly classified and the BirdNET precision (in %) for detecting three Neotropical passerines. The values are shown separately for each species and for the following confidence score interval classes: 0.1–0.3; 0.3–0.5; 0.5–0.7; >0.7; and for the whole range, 0.1–1. For each confidence interval class, a total of 100 predictions were verified for each species, except for the class > 0.7, for which 150 predictions were verified.
Table 1. The number of BirdNET predictions correctly classified and the BirdNET precision (in %) for detecting three Neotropical passerines. The values are shown separately for each species and for the following confidence score interval classes: 0.1–0.3; 0.3–0.5; 0.5–0.7; >0.7; and for the whole range, 0.1–1. For each confidence interval class, a total of 100 predictions were verified for each species, except for the class > 0.7, for which 150 predictions were verified.
SpeciesPredictions0.1–0.30.3–0.50.5–0.7>0.70.1–1
Moustached WrenCorrect606687113326
Precision60%66%87%75.3%72.4%
Buff-breasted WrenCorrect426687149344
Precision42%66%87%99.3%76.4%
Thrush-like WrenCorrect478598148378
Precision47%85%98%98.7%84%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Amorós-Ausina, D.; Schuchmann, K.-L.; Marques, M.I.; Pérez-Granados, C. Living Together, Singing Together: Revealing Similar Patterns of Vocal Activity in Two Tropical Songbirds Applying BirdNET. Sensors 2024, 24, 5780. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24175780

AMA Style

Amorós-Ausina D, Schuchmann K-L, Marques MI, Pérez-Granados C. Living Together, Singing Together: Revealing Similar Patterns of Vocal Activity in Two Tropical Songbirds Applying BirdNET. Sensors. 2024; 24(17):5780. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24175780

Chicago/Turabian Style

Amorós-Ausina, David, Karl-L. Schuchmann, Marinez I. Marques, and Cristian Pérez-Granados. 2024. "Living Together, Singing Together: Revealing Similar Patterns of Vocal Activity in Two Tropical Songbirds Applying BirdNET" Sensors 24, no. 17: 5780. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24175780

APA Style

Amorós-Ausina, D., Schuchmann, K. -L., Marques, M. I., & Pérez-Granados, C. (2024). Living Together, Singing Together: Revealing Similar Patterns of Vocal Activity in Two Tropical Songbirds Applying BirdNET. Sensors, 24(17), 5780. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24175780

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop