| Literature DB >> 22880018 |
Canwei Xia1, Xuanlong Lin, Wei Liu, Huw Lloyd, Yanyun Zhang.
Abstract
Acoustic identification is increasingly being used as a non-invasive method for identifying individuals within avian populations. However, most previous studies have utilized small samples of individuals (<30). The feasibility of using acoustic identification of individuals in larger avian populations has never been seriously tested. In this paper, we assess the feasibility of using distinct acoustic signals to identify individuals in a large avian population (139 colour-banded individuals) of Brownish-flanked Bush Warbler (Cettia fortipes) in the Dongzhai National Nature Reserve, south-central China. Most spectro-temporal variables we measured show greater variation among individuals than within individual. Although there was slight decline in the correct rate of individual identification with increasing sample sizes, the total mean correct rate yielded by discriminant function analysis was satisfactory, with more than 98% of songs correctly recognized to the corresponding individuals. We also found that using a part of randomly selected measured variables was sufficient to obtain a high correct rate of individual identification. We believe that our work will increase confidence in the use of using acoustic recognition techniques for avian population monitoring programs.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22880018 PMCID: PMC3412828 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042528
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
The details of coefficients of variation within (CVw), among (CVa) song variations, and PIC in alpha song.
| Variables | CV within | CV among | PIC | |
| whistled part | F3 | 0.01 | 0.12 | 14.91 |
| 1st note in syllable part | T1 | 0.06 | 0.18 | 3.08 |
| T2 | 0.12 | 0.15 | 1.26 | |
| T3 | 0.44 | 0.36 | 0.8 | |
| F1 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 5.26 | |
| F2 | 0.08 | 0.27 | 3.2 | |
| F3 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 1.09 | |
| F4 | 0.09 | 0.31 | 3.34 | |
| T4 | 0.02 | 0.13 | 5.49 | |
| F5 | 0.47 | 1.67 | 3.53 | |
| T5 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 6.27 | |
| 2nd note in syllable part | T1 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 2.16 |
| T2 | 0.11 | 0.18 | 1.66 | |
| T3 | 0.32 | 0.24 | 0.77 | |
| F1 | 0.03 | 0.33 | 9.46 | |
| F2 | 0.03 | 0.1 | 3.93 | |
| F3 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.96 | |
| F4 | 0.36 | 2.78 | 7.82 | |
| T4 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 5.32 | |
| F5 | 0.1 | 0.28 | 2.9 | |
| T5 | 0.02 | 0.1 | 4.79 | |
See Figure S2 and Table S1 for explanations of variables.
The details of coefficients of variation within (CVw), among (CVa) song variations, and PIC in beta song.
| Variables | CV within | CV among | PIC | |
| whistled part | F3 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 14.43 |
| 1st note in syllable part | T1 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 2.18 |
| T2 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 1.29 | |
| T3 | 0.42 | 0.31 | 0.73 | |
| F1 | 0.03 | 0.25 | 8.58 | |
| F2 | 0.05 | 0.18 | 3.80 | |
| F3 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 1.19 | |
| F4 | 0.17 | 1.17 | 6.85 | |
| T4 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 5.83 | |
| F5 | 0.23 | 0.66 | 2.86 | |
| T5 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 7.66 | |
| 2nd note in syllable part | T1 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 1.88 |
| T2 | 0.17 | 0.22 | 1.26 | |
| T3 | 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.82 | |
| F1 | 0.04 | 0.22 | 5.35 | |
| F2 | 0.03 | 0.14 | 5.00 | |
| F3 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 1.12 | |
| F4 | 0.47 | 1.61 | 3.39 | |
| T4 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 9.20 | |
| F5 | 0.15 | 0.28 | 1.88 | |
| T5 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 5.99 | |
| 3rd note in syllable part | T1 | 0.09 | 0.17 | 1.90 |
| T2 | 0.20 | 0.25 | 1.26 | |
| T3 | 0.40 | 0.33 | 0.81 | |
| F1 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 3.29 | |
| F2 | 0.01 | 0.12 | 10.49 | |
| F3 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 2.32 | |
| F4 | 0.27 | 0.53 | 1.98 | |
| T4 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 2.93 | |
| F5 | 0.76 | 2.13 | 2.82 | |
| T5 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 7.97 | |
See Figure S2 and Table S1 for explanations of variables.
Figure 1The correct rate of acoustic identification with different sample sizes for alpha (A) and beta(B) song type.
Figure 2The correct rate of acoustic identification with different variable numbers using total sample size for alpha (A) and beta (B) song type.