» Articles » PMID: 27413632

A New Method for Ecoacoustics? Toward the Extraction and Evaluation of Ecologically-meaningful Soundscape Components Using Sparse Coding Methods

Overview
Journal PeerJ
Date 2016 Jul 15
PMID 27413632
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Passive acoustic monitoring is emerging as a promising non-invasive proxy for ecological complexity with potential as a tool for remote assessment and monitoring (Sueur & Farina, 2015). Rather than attempting to recognise species-specific calls, either manually or automatically, there is a growing interest in evaluating the global acoustic environment. Positioned within the conceptual framework of ecoacoustics, a growing number of indices have been proposed which aim to capture community-level dynamics by (e.g., Pieretti, Farina & Morri, 2011; Farina, 2014; Sueur et al., 2008b) by providing statistical summaries of the frequency or time domain signal. Although promising, the ecological relevance and efficacy as a monitoring tool of these indices is still unclear. In this paper we suggest that by virtue of operating in the time or frequency domain, existing indices are limited in their ability to access key structural information in the spectro-temporal domain. Alternative methods in which time-frequency dynamics are preserved are considered. Sparse-coding and source separation algorithms (specifically, shift-invariant probabilistic latent component analysis in 2D) are proposed as a means to access and summarise time-frequency dynamics which may be more ecologically-meaningful.

Citing Articles

Threshold of anthropogenic sound levels within protected landscapes in Kerala, India, for avian habitat quality and conservation.

Rajan S, M V, Mitra A, N P S, K A, Pillai M Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):2701.

PMID: 38302634 PMC: 10834939. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-53153-6.


Acoustic indices as proxies for bird species richness in an urban green space in Metro Manila.

Diaz S, Gan J, Tapang G PLoS One. 2023; 18(7):e0289001.

PMID: 37506131 PMC: 10381043. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289001.


Acoustic indices as proxies for biodiversity: a meta-analysis.

Alcocer I, Lima H, Sugai L, Llusia D Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2022; 97(6):2209-2236.

PMID: 35978471 DOI: 10.1111/brv.12890.


Rapid coral reef assessment using 3D modelling and acoustics: acoustic indices correlate to fish abundance, diversity and environmental indicators in West Papua, Indonesia.

Peck M, Tapilatu R, Kurniati E, Rosado C PeerJ. 2021; 9:e10761.

PMID: 33614275 PMC: 7877240. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10761.


Listening forward: approaching marine biodiversity assessments using acoustic methods.

Mooney T, Di Iorio L, Lammers M, Lin T, Nedelec S, Parsons M R Soc Open Sci. 2020; 7(8):201287.

PMID: 32968541 PMC: 7481698. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.201287.

References
1.
Amezquita A, Flechas S, Lima A, Gasser H, Hodl W . Acoustic interference and recognition space within a complex assemblage of dendrobatid frogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(41):17058-63. PMC: 3193210. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1104773108. View

2.
Smith E, Lewicki M . Efficient coding of time-relative structure using spikes. Neural Comput. 2004; 17(1):19-45. DOI: 10.1162/0899766052530839. View

3.
Skowronski M, Harris J . Acoustic detection and classification of Microchiroptera using machine learning: lessons learned from automatic speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006; 119(3):1817-33. DOI: 10.1121/1.2166948. View

4.
Servick K . Eavesdropping on ecosystems. Science. 2014; 343(6173):834-7. DOI: 10.1126/science.343.6173.834. View

5.
Gewin V . All living things, online. Nature. 2002; 418(6896):362-3. DOI: 10.1038/418362a. View