Kaleidoscope Pro軟件在被動(dòng)聲學(xué)監(jiān)測(cè)與紅外觸發(fā)相機(jī)在鹿類(lèi)和靈長(zhǎng)類(lèi)動(dòng)物監(jiān)測(cè)效率上的對(duì)比評(píng)估中的應(yīng)用

Abstract

In recent years, camera traps have rapidly become popular for the large-scale monitoring of wildlife distribution and population; however, we should not ignore the uncertainty regarding the reliability of camera-based monitoring by inexperienced data gatherers. This study introduces passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) as an easier technique for monitoring terrestrial mammals that uses the sound cues that they produce. To validate the efficacy of PAM, we quantitatively compared the detection areas and rates between sound cues (from PAM) and visual cues (from camera traps) of two mammals—the sika deer Cervus nippon and the Japanese macaque Macaca fuscata—across seven study sites in eastern Japan with different population densities. To collect sound cues, we set up multiple autonomous recording units at the sites and continuously recorded ambient sounds, following a pre-determined schedule. The total recording time reached 9081h for deer and 8235h for macaques. We then built sound recognizers to automatically detect eight target call types from the recorded data. To collect visual cues, we also set multiple camera traps at the same sites and for the same observation periods. The key findings were as follows: (1) the fully automated procedures that only used the recognizers to detect sound cues produced numerous false positive detections when the call type possessed vocal plasticity and variations; (2) the semi automated procedures, which included an additional step to validate the automated detections by manual screening, exhibited a great improvement in the detectability and recall rates of the half of the target calls, reaching >0.70; (3) when using the semi-automated procedures, the frequency of deer and macaque detections per trap-day derived from the sound cues were in most cases approximately dozens of times and several times, respectively, higher than that derived from the visual cues; (4) the main advantage of PAM may be its superior detection areas, which were 100–7000 times wider than those of camera traps; and (5) the current success of the recognition of different call types of each species could broaden the use of PAM, which is not possible for camera traps. PAM could provide socio-behavioral data (i.e., the frequencies and types of inter-individual vocal com munications) that could help understand the status of population dynamics and the group compositions, in addition to information related to the presence or absence of species.

摘要：

近年來(lái)，相機(jī)在大規(guī)模監(jiān)測(cè)野生動(dòng)物分布和種群方面迅速流行起來(lái)；然而，我們不應(yīng)該忽視缺乏經(jīng)驗(yàn)的數(shù)據(jù)采集人員對(duì)基于攝像頭的監(jiān)控可靠性的不確定性。這項(xiàng)研究引入了被動(dòng)聲學(xué)監(jiān)測(cè)（PAM）作為一種更容易監(jiān)測(cè)陸生哺乳動(dòng)物的技術(shù)，該技術(shù)利用它們產(chǎn)生的聲音線(xiàn)索。為了驗(yàn)證PAM的有效性，我們?cè)谌毡緰|部七個(gè)不同種群密度的研究地點(diǎn)定量比較了兩種哺乳動(dòng)物——梅花鹿、日本鹿和日本獼猴——的聲音線(xiàn)索（來(lái)自PAM）和視覺(jué)線(xiàn)索（來(lái)自相機(jī)）之間的檢測(cè)區(qū)域和比率。為了收集聲音線(xiàn)索，我們?cè)诂F(xiàn)場(chǎng)設(shè)置了多個(gè)自主錄音單元，并按照預(yù)定的時(shí)間表連續(xù)錄制環(huán)境聲音。鹿和獼猴的總記錄時(shí)間分別為9081小時(shí)和8235小時(shí)。然后，我們構(gòu)建了聲音識(shí)別器，從記錄的數(shù)據(jù)中自動(dòng)檢測(cè)八種目標(biāo)呼叫類(lèi)型。為了收集視覺(jué)線(xiàn)索，我們還在相同的地點(diǎn)和相同的觀察期設(shè)置了多個(gè)相機(jī)。主要發(fā)現(xiàn)如下：（1）當(dāng)呼叫類(lèi)型具有聲音可塑性和變異性時(shí)，僅使用識(shí)別器檢測(cè)聲音線(xiàn)索的全自動(dòng)程序會(huì)產(chǎn)生大量誤報(bào)；（2）半自動(dòng)程序，包括通過(guò)手動(dòng)篩查驗(yàn)證自動(dòng)檢測(cè)的額外步驟，在一半目標(biāo)呼叫的可檢測(cè)性和召回率方面有了很大提高，達(dá)到>0.70；（3）當(dāng)使用半自動(dòng)程序時(shí)，在大多數(shù)情況下，從聲音線(xiàn)索中得出的每個(gè)誘捕日鹿和獼猴的檢測(cè)頻率分別比從視覺(jué)線(xiàn)索中得出，大約高出幾十倍和幾倍；（4） PAM的主要優(yōu)點(diǎn)可能是其優(yōu)越的檢測(cè)區(qū)域，比相機(jī)寬100-7000倍；以及（5）目前成功識(shí)別每種物種的不同叫聲類(lèi)型可以擴(kuò)大PAM的使用范圍，而PAM對(duì)于相機(jī)來(lái)說(shuō)是不可能的。PAM可以提供社會(huì)行為數(shù)據(jù)（即個(gè)體間聲音交流的頻率和類(lèi)型），除了與物種存在或不存在相關(guān)的信息外，還可以幫助了解種群動(dòng)態(tài)和群體組成的狀態(tài)。

關(guān)鍵詞：Kaleidoscope Pro軟件，Wildlife Acoustics，聲學(xué)追蹤監(jiān)測(cè)，野生動(dòng)物聲學(xué)監(jiān)測(cè)，聲學(xué)分析軟件，野生鹿監(jiān)測(cè)。