02122nas a2200229 4500008004100000022001400041245007300055210006900128260001600197300001000213490000700223520144400230653001701674653002601691653001501717653002201732653002201754100001701776700001801793700002701811856005401838 2020 eng d a0046-507000aSix steps towards operationalising freshwater ecoacoustic monitoring0 aSix steps towards operationalising freshwater ecoacoustic monito cFeb-01-2021 a1 - 60 v653 a

1. Applications in bioacoustics and its sister discipline ecoacoustics have increased exponentially over the last decade. However, despite knowledge about aquatic bioacoustics dating back to the times of Aristotle and a vast amount of background literature to draw upon, freshwater applications of ecoacoustics have been lagging to date.

2.In this special issue, we present nine studies that deal with underwater acoustics, plus three acoustic studies on water‐dependent birds and frogs. Topics include automatic detection of freshwater organisms by their calls, quantifying habitat change by analysing entire soundscapes, and detecting change in behaviour when organisms are exposed to noise.

3.We identify six major challenges and review progress through this special issue. Challenges include characterisation of sounds, accessibility of archived sounds as well as improving automated analysis methods. Study design considerations include characterisation analysis challenges of spatial and temporal variation. The final key challenge is the so far largely understudied link between ecological condition and underwater sound.

4.We hope that this special issue will raise awareness about underwater soundscapes as a survey tool. With a diverse array of field and analysis tools, this issue can act as a manual for future monitoring applications that will hopefully foster further advances in the field.

10aecoacoustics10aEcological Monitoring10afreshwater10apassive acoustics10aunderwater sounds1 aLinke, Simon1 aGifford, Toby1 aDesjonquères, Camille uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/13652427/65/102715nas a2200229 4500008004100000245006800041210006600109520178800175653002401963653002301987653002402010653002302034653002202057653002002079100003102099700002702130700003002157700001802187700002502205700002102230856023402251 2019 eng d00aA roadmap for survey designs in terrestrial acoustic monitoring0 aroadmap for survey designs in terrestrial acoustic monitoring3 a

Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is increasingly popular in ecological research and conservation programs, with high-volume and long-term data collection provided by automatized acoustic sensors offering unprecedented opportunities for faunal and ecosystem surveys. Practitioners and newcomers interested in PAM can easily find technical specifications for acoustic sensors and microphones, but guidelines on how to plan survey designs are largely scattered over the literature. Here, we (i) review spatial and temporal sampling designs used in passive acoustic monitoring, (ii) provide a synthesis of the crucial aspects of PAM survey design and (iii) propose a workflow to optimize recording autonomy and recording schedules. From 1992 to 2018, most of the 460 studies applying PAM in terrestrial environments have used a single recor- der per site, covered broad spatial scales and rotated recorders between sites to optimize sampling effort. Continuous recording of specific diel periods was the main recording procedure used. When recording schedules were applied, a larger number of recordings per hour was generally associated with a smaller recording length. For PAM survey design, we proposed to (i) estimate mem- ory/battery autonomy and associated costs, (ii) assess signal detectability to optimize recording schedules in order to recover maximum biological infor- mation and (iii) evaluate cost-benefit scenarios between sampling effort and budget to address potential biases from a given PAM survey design. Establish- ing standards for PAM data collection will improve the quality of inferences over the broad scope of PAM research and promote essential standardization for cross-scale research to understand long-term biodiversity trends in a changing world.

10aacoustic monitoring10aacoustic recorders10arecording schedules10arecording settings10atemporal sampling10awildlife survey1 aSugai, Larissa, Sayuri Mor1 aDesjonquères, Camille1 aSilva, Thiago, Sanna Frei1 aLlusia, Diego1 aPettorelli, Nathalie1 aLecours, Vincent uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/rse2.131https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/rse2.131https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/rse2.131https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.1002/rse2.13102157nas a2200289 4500008004100000245007400041210006900115260001200184520132500196653002401521653001101545653001501556653002301571653001501594653002001609100001701629700001801646700002701664700001901691700001901710700001801729700002601747700002201773700001701795700001801812856003701830 2018 eng d00aFreshwater ecoacoustics as a tool for continuous ecosystem monitoring0 aFreshwater ecoacoustics as a tool for continuous ecosystem monit c03/20183 a

Abstract
Passive acoustic monitoring is gaining popularity in ecology as a practical and non‐invasive approach to surveying ecosystems. This technique is increasingly being used to monitor terrestrial systems, particularly bird populations, given that it can help to track temporal dynamics of populations and ecosystem health without the need for expensive resampling. We suggest that underwater acoustic monitoring presents a viable, non‐invasive, and largely unexplored approach to monitoring freshwater ecosystems, yielding information about three key ecological elements of aquatic environments – (1) fishes, (2) macroinvertebrates, and (3) physicochemical processes – as well as providing data on anthropogenic noise levels. We survey the literature on this approach, which is substantial but scattered across disciplines, and call for more cross‐disciplinary work on recording and analysis techniques. We also discuss technical issues and knowledge gaps, including background noise, spatiotemporal variation, and the need for centralized reference collection repositories. These challenges need to be overcome before the full potential of passive acoustics in dynamic detection of biophysical processes can be realized and used to inform conservation practitioners and managers.

10aanthropogenic noise10afishes10afreshwater10amacroinvertebrates10amonitoring10aphysicochemical1 aLinke, Simon1 aGifford, Toby1 aDesjonquères, Camille1 aTonolla, Diego1 aAubin, Thierry1 aBarclay, Leah1 aKaraconstantis, Chris1 aKennard, Mark, J.1 aRybak, Fanny1 aSueur, Jerome uhttps://doi.org/10.1002/fee.177902540nas a2200217 4500008004100000022001400041245008100055210006900136260000900205300001000214490000600224520190300230100002702133700001702160700002302177700001902200700002202219700002202241700001802263856004102281 2015 eng d a2167-835900aFirst description of underwater acoustic diversity in three temperate ponds.0 aFirst description of underwater acoustic diversity in three temp c2015 ae13930 v33 a

The past decade has produced an increased ecological interest in sonic environments, or soundscapes. However, despite this rise in interest and technological improvements that allow for long-term acoustic surveys in various environments, some habitats' soundscapes remain to be explored. Ponds, and more generally freshwater habitats, are one of these acoustically unexplored environments. Here we undertook the first long term acoustic monitoring of three temperate ponds in France. By aural and visual inspection of a selection of recordings, we identified 48 different sound types, and according to the rarefaction curves we calculated, more sound types are likely present in one of the three ponds. The richness of sound types varied significantly across ponds. Surprisingly, there was no pond-to-pond daily consistency of sound type richness variation; each pond had its own daily patterns of activity. We also explored the possibility of using six acoustic diversity indices to conduct rapid biodiversity assessments in temperate ponds. We found that all indices were sensitive to the background noise as estimated through correlations with the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). However, we determined that the AR index could be a good candidate to measure acoustic diversities using partial correlations with the SNR as a control variable. Yet, research is still required to automatically compute the SNR in order to apply this index on a large data set of recordings. The results showed that these three temperate ponds host a high level of acoustic diversity in which the soundscapes were variable not only between but also within the ponds. The sources producing this diversity of sounds and the drivers of difference in daily song type richness variation both require further investigation. Such research would yield insights into the biodiversity and ecology of temperate ponds.

1 aDesjonquères, Camille1 aRybak, Fanny1 aDepraetere, Marion1 aGasc, Amandine1 aLe Viol, Isabelle1 aPavoine, Sandrine1 aSueur, Jerome uhttps://bio.acousti.ca/de/node/52593