![Page 1: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF LOWER ATHABASCA:
OWL MONITORING USING WILDLIFE ACOUSTICS ARU RECORDERS
VERSUS STANDARD PLAYBACK METHODS
Prepared By: Dr. Erin Bayne –
Department of Biological Sciences – University of Alberta
TheEMCLAowlmonitoringprogramin2012hadmultipleobjectives:
1) Usestandardplaybackmethodsonroadstodeterminetheprobabilityofobservationofowlsinareaswithhighversuslowenergysectorfootprint.Playbackmethodswereintendedtoincreasetheprobabilityofobservationforowlsbutrequiredfieldpersonneltoworkatnightduringspringbreak‐upseason.
2) CompareplaybackresultswiththoseobtainedusingAutonomousRecordingUnitsthatpassivelyrecordowlcallsbutthatcanalsobeusedtorecordspeciesotherthanowls.Goalwastodetermineifpassiverecorderscouldbecomeareplacementsystemforallaudio‐basedmonitoringprotocolscurrentlyinuseinEMCLAregion,includingowls.
3) Determinewhatthedataindicatesaboutowlhabitatuseversusowlabundance.Comparevariousstatisticalapproachesfordealingwithaudiodetectiondatatodeterminetheefficacyandefficiencyofthedifferentstatisticaltechniquesforunderstandingabundance,occupancy,anduse.
4) Identifytypeofsampling,timingofsampling,andamountofsamplingrequiredforfuturemonitoring/researchprogramsforowlsandhowthismighttieintofuturemonitoringinitiativestotrackotherspeciesoforganismsusingacousticcues.
Inthisreport,wesummarizethedataandgeneratepreliminarymodelsfromtheowlmonitoringprojectto:
1) ProvidebaselineinformationontheprobabilityofobservationandcountsatdifferenttemporalandspatialscalesinLowerAthabasca.
2) UsethesedataalongwithotherinformationonowlsinAlbertatounderstandwhethertheassumptionsaboutdetectionprobability,occupancy,detection‐correctedcounts,anddistance‐baseddensityestimatesaremetandcanbeusedtocalculateabsoluteowlabundance.
![Page 2: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
3) Placeowlmonitoringinthecontextofmonitoringallotherorganismsthatgiveacousticcuesandidentifyhowsuchinformationshouldbeusedtocoordinatemonitoringeffortsamongvariousgroups.
Allresultsandrecommendationsinthisreportaresubjecttochangeconditionalonfurtheranalysis.
DESCRIPTIONOFFIELDMETHODSTwotypesofmonitoringweredonein2012byEMCLAforowls.
Playbacksurveysconsistedofadiurnal(Table1)andanocturnalsurvey(Table2)thatoccurredalongaroadorpipeline.Alongeachroadorpipeline,anobserverdroveanATVor4x4truck.Playbacksurveystookplaceat29sites.Every1.6kilometresalongtheroadorpipelinethroughasitetheobserverwouldstop.Eachroutewascomprisedofapproximately10stops.Ateachstop,aplaybacksequencewasbroadcastandtheowlsdetectedbefore,during,andaftereachplaybacksequencerecorded.Thedistanceandbearingfromtheobservertothedetectedowlwererecorded.Twovisitsabout3weeksapartoccurredtoapproximatelythesamelocation.Quiteregularlywecouldnotvisittheexactstopbecauseofroadconditions.Insomecases,wecouldnotrevisitthesameroutebecauseofdeterioratingroadconditionsduringspringmelt.
Table 1. Calling sequence for diurnal owl survey used by EMCLA Call
Interval Call Type Total Time Cumulative
Time
1 Northern Pygmy-Owl call 20 seconds 0:20 2 Silent listening 1 minute 1:20 3 Northern Pygmy-Owl call 20 seconds 1:40 4 Silent listening 1 minute 2:40 5 Northern Pygmy-Owl call 20 seconds 3:00 6 Silent listening 1 minute 4:00 7 Northern Hawk Owl 20 seconds 4:20 8 Silent listening 1 minute 5:20 9 Northern Hawk Owl 20 seconds 5:40 10 Silent listening 1 minute 6:40 11 Northern Hawk Owl 20 seconds 7:00 12 Final silent listening 1 minute 8:00
![Page 3: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Table 2. Calling sequence for nocturnal owl survey used by EMCLA
Call Interval
Call Type Total Time Cumulative Time
1 Initial silent listening 2 minutes 2:00 2 Northern Saw-whet Owl call 20 seconds 2:20 3 Silent listening 1 minute 3:20 4 Northern Saw-whet Owl call 20 seconds 3:40 5 Silent listening 1 minute 4:40 6 Boreal Owl call 20 seconds 5:00 7 Silent listening 1 minute 6:00 8 Boreal Owl call 20 seconds 6:20 9 Silent listening 1 minute 7:20 10 Long-eared Owl call 20 seconds 7:40 11 Silent listening 1 minute 8:40 12 Long-eared Owl call 20 seconds 9:00 13 Silent listening 1 minute 10:00 14 Great Gray Owl call 20 seconds 10:20 15 Silent listening 1 minute 11:20 16 Great Gray Owl call 20 seconds 11:40 17 Silent listening 1 minute 12:40 18 Barred Owl call 20 seconds 13:00 19 Silent listening 1 minute 14:00 20 Barred Owl call 20 seconds 14:20 21 Silent listening 1 minute 15:20 22 Barred Owl call 20 seconds 15:40 23 Final silent listening 1 minute 16:40
TheotherapproachwastouseARUs(AutomatedRecordingUnits).ARUswerelocatedalongroadedges,forestinteriors,andwetlandedges.Theywereplacedfor10‐14daysandturnedoneveryhourfor10‐minutes.Noowlcallswereplayedandthesystemsimplypassivelistenedforowlsfortheseextendedperiodsoftime.Eachsitehad6recordersthatwereaminimumof1kmapart.Observersthenlistenedtotherecordingsinthelabforaminimumofthreedifferentnightsforeachstop,generallyatmidnight.Asubsetofrecordingswasprocessedmoreextensivelytogetdetaileddataonowlcallingbehavioratdifferenttimesofdayandtimesoftheyear.
![Page 4: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
PLAYBACKVS.ARUFOROWLS
ThemostcommonapproachtosurveyingforestowlsinAlbertahasbeentouseplayback(i.e.broadcastingthecallofanowlthroughaloudspeaker)toelicitterritorialindividualstocall.Therationaleofusingplaybackversuspassivelisteningisowlcallingratesarethoughttobequitelow,althoughtherehavebeenfewexplicitteststocompareplaybacktopassivelistening.Byplayingintraandinter‐specificcalls,owlsarethoughttoincreasecallingratetherebyincreasingtheprobabilityofobservation.Probabilityofobservationinfluencesthestatisticalpowertodetecttrendsanddifferencesinspatialpatternsofdensity,relativeabundance,andhabitatusebyowls.
Totestifplaybackmethodsincreasetheprobabilityofobservation,wecomparedroad‐basedplaybacksurveystopassiverecordingstakenbyARUsplacedinthesamesitesbutatdifferentstations/stops.Table3summarizestherawprobabilityofobservationforplayback‐elicitedsurveysversusARUrecordingsatthestation/stoplevel.
Comparingasingle10minutepassivelisteningperiodatmidnighttoa20minutelongplaybacksurvey,thereisevidencetheprobabilityofobservationishigherusingplaybackdependingontheplaybacksequenceused.Atfirstglance,thissuggeststhatplaybackincreasescallingrates,therebyincreasingprobabilityofobservationbasedonasinglesamplingevent.However,thetimeittakestoconductmanyoftheplaybacksurveytechniquesislongerthanasinglepassivesamplingevent(10versus20minutes).Fromthepassiverecordingslistenedtothusfar,whenwelistenforowlsontwoormoreseparatenightsandcalculatethecumulativeprobabilityofobservation,20minutesofARUlisteninggenerallyresultsinsimilarprobabilitiesofobservationtoasingle20minuteplaybacksequencedoneonasinglenight(Table3–ARU–Atleasttwo“visits”).Two20minuteplaybacksequenceshaveacumulativeprobabilityofobservationthatishigherthantwo10minutepassivelisteningsequences.However,thePB/ARUratioisdecreasingwithincreasedvisitssuggestingthebenefitsofconductingtwo20minuteplaybacksequencesondifferentnightsarenotasgreataslisteningtotwodifferentARUrecordings.
Determininghowmany10minuterecordingondifferentnightsoratdifferenttimesofthenightwillberequiredtomatchtheprobabilityofobservationfromasingleplaybacksessionwillrequirelisteningtomorerecordingsonmorenightstodevelopacumulativeprobabilityofobservationcurve.However,basedonthePlaybacktoARUratiofortheprobabilityofobservationfromasingleplaybackvisitorsingle10minutelisteningperiod,itwillrangefrom1.21to5.00dependingonspecies.GreatHornedOwls,whicharenotpartoftheEMCLAplaybackprotocol,weremorelikelytobeobservedusingARUsthanplayback.Atotalof1hourlisteningtopassiverecordingswillresultinasimilardetectionratetoa20‐minuteplaybacksequenceinthefieldataminimum.Wearecurrentlyworkingtodeterminehowtodecreasetheactualtimeittakestoprocess1‐houroffieldrecordingsforowls(i.e.byvisuallyscanningsonogramsforowlcalls).Assumingtheobjectivewastomatchthecumulativeprobabilityofobservationoftwoplaybacksequences(40minutesofplayback)thisratiowaslessformostspeciessuggestingthebenefitofplaybacktopassiverecordingsdeclinesasyoulistentomorerecordings.Threespecies(BarredOwl,GreatHornedOwl,NorthernSaw‐whetOwl)weremorelikelytobedetectedviaARUafterlisteningfor20minutesthantwoplaybacksequences.
![Page 5: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Table3‐Probabilityofobservationforforestowlsbasedatsinglestationbasedonpassivelisteningusingautomatedrecordingunits(ARU)atmidnightinEMCLAstudyarearelativetoroad‐basedplayback‐elicitedcallsurveysalongroadsidesdoneinvariouslocationsacrossAlbertawithdifferentplaybacksequencesandatdifferenttimesofday.
Singlevisit toastationSpecies ARU
Nightn=455
EMCLADayn=587
EMCLANightn=649
WEYCODay
n=1637
WEYCONightn=2491
ANOSCDP
n=3025
TAKATSCDB
n=1738
TAKATCDFn=390
BADO 0.042 0.002 0.059 0.000 0.068 0.002 0.056 0.054BOOW 0.020 0.002 0.062 0.001 0.111 0.002 0.114 0.100GGOW 0.004 0.000 0.020 0.004 0.029 0.003 0.012 0.008GHOW 0.073 0.005 0.063 0.000 0.044 0.162 0.055 0.054LEOW 0.004 0.002 0.014 0.000 0.005 0.020 0.000 0.000NHOW 0.000 0.007 0.002 0.009 0.000 <0.001 0.000 0.000NSOW 0.037 0.002 0.046 <0.001 0.149 0.103 0.068 0.069NPOW 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.106 0.002 0.000 0.007 0.000SEOW 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 <0.001 0 0.000AnyOwl 0.156 0.025 0.231 0.119 0.334 0.253 0.280 0.267
2visits tothesamestation ontwoseparatedayswithinthesameyear n=156 n=332 N=342 N=1569 N=1340 n=2146 n=680 n=279BADO 0.115 0.003 0.111 0.000 0.127 0.002 0.143 0.075BOOW 0.058 0.003 0.117 0.001 0.207 0.003 0.293 0.140GGOW 0.013 0.000 0.038 0.004 0.054 0.004 0.029 0.011GHOW 0.167 0.009 0.120 0.000 0.082 0.228 0.141 0.075LEOW 0.013 0.003 0.026 0.000 0.009 0.028 0.000 0.000NHOW 0.000 0.012 0.003 0.01 0.000 <0.001 0.000 0.000NSOW 0.090 0.003 0.089 <0.001 0.278 0.145 0.173 0.097NPOW 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.110 0.004 0.000 0.019 0.000SEOW 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 <0.001 0.000 0.000AnyOwl 0.353 0.045 0.439 0.124 0.621 0.357 0.716 0.372
![Page 6: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Asowlshavelargehomerangesandmovewidely,theymaynotalwaysbepresentatthesamestation/stopondifferentdays.Thus,forthelargestspecies(i.e.BarredOwl),manyanalystsusetherouteorsiteastheunitofmeasurement(presenceofspeciesalongxstopsoratxARUs).Atthesite/routelevelusingtwo10‐minuteARUperiodsandtwo‐20minuteplaybacksequenceswefoundthattheprobabilityofobservationusingplaybackwashigherformostspeciesthanARUs.Inthisscenario,wecomparedsixstopsonaroutethatwereclosesttothesixARUswithineachsite.Wefoundhigherprobabilityofobservationforplayback‐basedroutesthanARU‐basedsites.Thereareseveralexplanationsforthispattern.First,theARUsitesmayhavebeenlesslikelytocrossasmanyowlterritoriesastheplaybackroutes.ThemainaxisoftheminimumconvexpolygonfortheARUswasapproximately4kmlongwhiletheaverageplaybackroutewas8km.Thesecondisthatplaybackactivelymovestheowltowardstheobserver,accomplishingtheobjectiveofincreasingprobabilityofobservationBUTreducingthe“accuracy”oftheobservationbyalteringtheareawheretheowlisactivelycallingtobelocated“neararoadinhabitatthattheowlmaynotregularlyuse”.ThethirdisthatlisteningtomoreARUperiodswewillbeabletodetecttheowlwithequalfrequency.ARUrecordingsandplaybackwillresultinsimilardetectionratesifsufficienttimeisspentlisteningandtherecordersareplacedinoptimallocationstodetecttheowls.TheonlywayARUswillnotachievethesameprobabilityofobservationwouldbeiftheowlsdoNOTcallnaturallyandonlycallinresponsetothepresenceofplayback.Thisisnotlikelygivenowlcallsarenotsolelyforterritorialdefensebutarealsousedforcommunicationbetweenmalesandfemalesofthesamespecies.Table4–Probabilityofobservationforforestowlsatsitelevelbasedonpassivelisteningusingautomatedrecordingunits(ARUatmidnightinEMCLAstudyarearelativetoroad‐basedplayback‐elicitedcallsurveysalongroadsidesdoneinvariouslocationsacrossAlbertawithdifferentmethodsandatdifferenttimesofday.Asitewasdefinedasroad‐sideroutewith6stopsversusanARUsitewhichwasasitewithin6ARUrecorders.
Species ARUNight(n=27
EMCLADay(n=31
EMCLANight(n=31
WEYCODay
(n=151
WEYCONight(n=122
ANOSCDP
(n=217
TAKATSCDB
(n=72
TAKATCDF(n=29
BADO 0.333 0.032 0.548 0.000 0.590 0.018 0.555 0.379BOOW 0.296 0.032 0.581 0.013 0.680 0.014 0.708 0.689GGOW 0.074 0.000 0.290 0.046 0.320 0.032 0.194 0.103GHOW 0.518 0.065 0.581 0.000 0.492 0.820 0.514 0.517LEOW 0.074 0.032 0.194 0.000 0.090 0.180 0.000 0.000NHOW 0.000 0.065 0.032 0.100 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000NSOW 0.259 0.032 0.419 0.007 0.754 0.618 0.667 0.586NPOW 0.000 0.097 0.000 0.569 0.041 0.000 0.139 0.000SEOW 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000AnyOwl 0.778 0.323 0.968 0.649 0.959 0.912 0.944 0.931
![Page 7: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
DOWENEEDTOCOUNTOWLSATSTATIONLEVEL?Anadditionalreasonsuggestedforusingplaybacktechniquestosurveyowls,ishumanobservershavetheabilitytocountthenumberofowlsheardatapointlocation(i.e.therewas1versus2owlsofaspeciescalling).Humanslisteningtoaudiorecorderssometimesfindthatdeterminingthenumberofindividualscallingisdifficult,especiallyiftheowlsarealongdistancefromtherecorder.WehavebeenabletodistinguishmultipleowlsonthesameARUrecordinghowever.
Countingthenumberofowlsateachstationmattersifthenumberofowlscommonlyrecordedduringasurveyisgreaterthanone.Fieldbasedsurveytechniquesshouldprovidebetterresolutiontodetectchangesinrelativeorabsoluteabundanceovertimeifmultipleowlsaredetectedperpoint.However,ifthemaximumnumberofindividualsofaspeciesthatarecountedpersurvey(whenowlsareobservedistypically1thenobtainingthisresolutionmaynotbenecessary).Theprobabilityanowlwasobservedversusthenumbersofowlsobservedduringasurveyatastopwasverysimilar(Table5).Duringdaytimesurveys,wealmostneverdetectedmorethanoneindividualofaspecies.Duringnighttimesurveys,weoccasionallyobservedmorethanoneindividualofaspeciesbutthiswasrarewithonlyfouroftheeightspecieshavinghighercountsthanprobabilityofobservation.Forthesefour,themeancountwasonly1.1to1.25timeshigherthanprobabilityofobservation.Poolingdatafromtwovisitstoastation,wefoundthemaximumnumberofowlsobservedwasgreaterthantheprobabilityofobservation.
Atthesitelevel,thenumberofowlsobservedwasconsiderablylargerthantheprobabilityofobservationforalmostallspecies(1to3timeshigher).Countinformationatthesitelevel(10stopspooledor6ARUspooledisamoreprecisemetricfortrackingchangeinowls).Understandingwhythenumberofowlsobservedatthesitelevelishigherthanprobabilityofobservationisimportantforinterpretingpatternsinabundanceandtrendhowever.Thefirstpossibilityisthatthereismorethanoneowlperspeciesatthesitelevel(10stops),resultinginahighercountthantheprobabilityofobservation.Iftrue,thenumberofowlsobservedisrecommendedasthemetrictotrackbecausecountsaremorelikelyreflectiveoftrueabundance.Alternatively,individualowlsmaybemovingbothwithinandbetweenvisitsandthusareheardatmorethanonestationwithinthesamesite.Inthiscase,usingprobabilityofobservationismoreconservativeasitdoesnotdoublecountthesameindividualwhichoverestimatesthenumberofowlsoccurringinanarea.Furtherworkwithradio‐markedindividualswouldbeusefulindetermininghowoftenthesameowlisdetectedatdifferentstationswithinthesamesite.
Thenumberoftimeswheremorethanoneowlisdetectedatastationisquitelow.Thus,recordingthepresenceofowlsatthestationlevelandsummarizingthenumberofstationswithinasitewhereowlswererecordedasthe“count”couldbeareasonablemetricfortrackingowlabundance.Thecaveattothisisthatowlscanbedouble‐countedatthesitelevelandrulesneedtobedevelopedthatminimizethispossiblebias.
![Page 8: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Table5–Meancount±1standarddeviationforsinglevisittoastationandforasinglevisittoasite(6stationsforARUandplaybackcounts.Themeancount±1standarddeviationforthemaximumcountfromallvisitstoastationorsitearealsoshown.
Species ARUAvg.Count1Visit
ARUMax.Count2Visits
PlaybackAvg.Count1Visit
PlaybackMax.Count2Visits
StationBADO 0.048±0.244 0.126±0.383 0.071±0.306 0.129±0.406BOOW 0.020±0.139 0.058±0.226 0.062±0.241 0.117±0.322GGOW 0.004±0.066 0.012±0.109 0.022±0.156 0.038±0.206GHOW 0.084±0.314 0.186±0.448 0.079±0.336 0.143±0.446LEOW 0.004±0.066 0.012±0.109 0.014±0.117 0.023±0.151NHOW 0.000±0.000 0.000±0.000 0.002±0.039 0.003±0.054NSOW 0.042±0.221 0.096±0.334 0.051±0.240 0.088±0.313NPOW 0.000±0.000 0.000±0.000 0.000±0.000 0.000±0.000SEOW 0.000±0.000 0.000±0.000 0.000±0.000 0.000±0.000AnyOwl 0.202±0.521 0.443±0.716 0.299±0.631 0.509±0.780
SiteBADO 0.200±0.739 0.704±1.353 0.692±1.322 1.194±1.662BOOW 0.082±0.307 0.333±0.555 0.585±0.900 0.903±1.012GGOW 0.018±0.134 0.074±0.267 0.215±0.515 0.355±0.608GHOW 0.345±0.851 0.926±1.357 0.723±1.463 1.226±1.927LEOW 0.018±0.134 0.074±0.267 0.138±0.390 0.226±0.497NHOW 0.000±0.000 0.000±0.000 0.015±0.124 0.032±0.180NSOW 0.173±0.572 0.444±0.974 0.369±0.821 0.645±1.082NPOW 0.000±0.000 0.000±0.000 0.000±0.000 0.000±0.000SEOW 0.000±0.000 0.000±0.000 0.000±0.000 0.000±0.000AnyOwl 0.836±1.645 2.259±2.551 2.738±2.906 3.903±3.534
![Page 9: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
COST‐BENEFITASSESSMENTWhatismeantbyeffortdifferssubstantiallybetweentheARUandplaybackapproaches.Choosingonemethodovertheothermustweighthefollowingissues:
1) UsingtheEMLCAplaybackapproachforowls,anobservercanvisitapproximately10stationspernight(usingatruckorATVonaroadpernightwhenweatherconditionsareappropriate.Tenstationstakeapproximately3.5hourstosurveyplus1hourofdriving/settingupbetweensamplepointsforacombinedsurveyfieldeffortof~4.5hourspersitepernight.Eachvisitrequiresanequalamountofeffort.Whiledataacquisitionis“instantaneous”,dataentryfromfieldsheetstakesabout2hourspersite.Combined,thenumberofhourstocompleteasinglesitefortwovisitsaswasrecommendedinlastyearsEMCLAreportisapproximately12‐14hours.
2) Placing10ARUunitsinasite,assumingtheyareplacedalongaroad,takesapproximately100minutes(10minutesperstationplus60minutesofdrive/setuptime.CollectionofARUstakesaslightlyshorteramountoftime.Ifaproject’sobjectivewastonotspendmoretimeusingARUtechnologythanittakestodoaplaybackassessment,thisleavesapproximately6‐7hoursoftimeforequipmentmaintenance,audiolistening,andfileprocessing.
3) SetuptimeoftheARUsintheofficeisdifficulttocalculatebecauseitdependsonwhethertheunitisstraightoutoftheboxorifyouareusingexistingunits.Forthiscost‐benefitassessmentweassumethatallequipmenthasbeenlabeled,SDcardsprepared,andlockingbracketsconstructed.Oncethisisdonetheusercansimplydrivethemtothefield,whichrequiretheamountoftimedescribedin2.Thisisasignificantupfronttimecosthoweverandshouldnotbeignored.Aguestimateisthatitwilltake15‐20minutestosetupeachARUintheofficeforatotalofabout2hours.
4) Wehavebeen“learning”howtocreateasystemfordownloadingrecordingsfromARU,uploading/backupaudiofilestoservers,andmanagementofaudiofiles.Assuchourtimebudgetsonthisaspectareverypoorlyestablished.AlargepartofwhatneedstobedoneifamovetoARUsismadeistodevelopefficientinternetbaseduploadsystemsforsoundfiles.Thisstepisdoneinbulk,sowithanefficientsystemuploadsystemitshouldnottaketheusermuchtimetodoso.However,uploadtimesaremeasuredinhoursbecauseofthelargefilessizesofaudiorecordings.Each10minuterecordingisstoredasaWACfilewhichisabout50MB.
5) Gettingafileoffthecurrentserversystem,settingituptolistento,listeningtothefile,andenteringthedatatakesbetween15‐20minutesper10minuterecording.Assumingtheuserlistensto40minutesworthofrecordingsperstation,itwilltakeabout10‐13hourstoprocess10stations.Whether40minutesofobservationisrequiredneedsmoreinvestigation.
![Page 10: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
6) Combiningtheseveryroughnumberstogether,theARUsystemtakesmoretimetogetthesametotallisteninglengthasowlplayback.Addingapassivelisteningperiodformarshbirdsandamphibiansnearwetlandsaddsanadditional12minutestypicallytoanowlsurvey.However,timingofowlsurveysduringtheyeardoesnotusuallyoverlaptimingrequiredbyotherspeciessothisisnotrecommended.WithARUshoweverthesespecieswillbedetectedneartheendofowlsurveys.AswellARUsareveryeffectivelyformonitoringwoodpeckersandotherresidentsongbirdsthatcallmoreintheearlyspringaspartofowlmonitoring.Addingwoodpeckersetctoowlsurveysrequiressuboptimalsamplingforwoodpeckersastherecallingpeaksinearlymorningwhilediurnalowlsurveystakeplaceinlateafternoon/earlyevening
7) Atfacevalue,thiswouldsuggestthatplaybackwouldbeamoretimeandcost‐efficientoptionthanARU.However,manyotherfactorsmustbeconsidered.
a. Poorweatherconditionsmeansthatplaybacksurveysonenergysectorleasesoftenhavetobecancelled.Thiscostsalargeamountoftimeinrearrangingsafetyvisitsandpermissions.Relationshipswithcompanypersonnelwerestrainedoccasionallyin2012becausewehadtocomebacktoachieveoptimalweatherforplayback.
b. Alternatively,playbackdatacanbecollectedduringpoorweatherbutwillbeofpoorqualitybecauseitisdoneinpoorsamplingconditions.ARUscanbeputoutinanyconditions.ARUScanstayoutforextendedperiodsoftimeandthuscanbeoptimizedtoachievethebestsurveyconditionspossiblefortheperiodofobservation.SchedulingconflictsareminimizedwithARUs.WehavedevelopedprotocolsfordecidingwhichrecordingshavesuitableweatherconditionsandrarelydowenotgetagoodwindowforrecordingwhentheARUsareinplace.
c. Placingrecordersoutdoesnothavetobedonebyexternalstaff,resultinginareducedneedfortravelcosts,accomodations,etc.Employeesofenergycompaniescouldbetrainedtodistributerecordersanduploadfilestoaserver.Externalstaffwouldthenberequiredtoprocessandlistentorecordings.WearepilotingthisapproachwithatleastafewSAGDandminecompaniesin2013.
d. ARUsmustbepurchased,alongwithSDcards,batteries,andfilestorage.Thesecostsaresignificant.TheupfrontpurchasecostoftheARUisapproximately$700withSDcards,brackets,andlocks.BatteriesmustbepurchasedandreplacedeverymonthorsoforARU.Theonlyadditionequipmentrequiredbyplaybacksurveys
![Page 11: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
thatisnotalsorequiredforARUlayoutistheplaybackdevicewhichtypicallyisaonetime$200‐300expensebutonlyoneisrequiredperobserver.Batteriesareoftenrequiredandarereplacedweekly.Cheapertechnologicaloptionsarepossiblebutmustbecustombuiltandrequireconsiderabletestingbeforewidespreadimplementation.Discussionswouldneedtooccurwithcomputerscientistsandengineers.
e. Thisyearwerequired9TBofharddrivespacetostorealloftherecordingswecollected.Thisisdoubledbecausewebackeditallup(18TBofdata.Alargeinvestmentincomputerinfrastructureisrequiredtostoreaudiorecordings,althoughhowmuchrecording,howlongitisstored,etc.,canchangecomputinginfrastructureneedsconsiderably.WewouldliketopartnerwiththeDepartmentofComputingSciencesattheUniversityofAlbertatodiscusshowtocreatesuchasystembutbuildingsuchasystemrequiresalong‐termcommitmentoutsidecurrentEMCLAfundingenvelope.
f. ARUscanbeplacedoutduringdaylighthours.Playbackmustbedoneatnightbypeople.Safetyissuesareparamount.Whilewesufferednoinjuriesthereclearlyisgreaterriskcausedbyworkingatnight.
g. Beingabletodistributerecordersoff‐roadduringdaylighthoursiseasierthanmovingtosuchsitesatnightandisconsiderablysaferthanhavingpeoplewalkingintotheforestinterioratnighttodoplayback.Road‐sidesurveysarebiasedtosomedegreeassomeowlsmayselectandothersavoidsuchareas.Playbacksurveysdoneonfootwillallowtwotothreesurveyspernightatbestbasedondistancesbetweenstationsusedinroad‐basedplaybacksurveys.Whenthisistakenintoaccountthecostofhuman‐basedplaybackoff‐roadsurveysaremuchlessviablerelativetoARUs.Thus,ARUsprovidemoreflexibilityinlayoutandsamplingofhabitat.
h. AllspeciesthatgiveacousticcuescanberecordedbyARUsaslongastheyareactivatedattherighttimeoftheyear.Duringplaybacksurveysforowlsorrails,incidentalsightingsofotherspeciescanoccurbutoftenisnotdonebecauseofthefocusonrecordingspeciesspecificdataanddealingwithplaybackequipment.ThisincludesrailsandamphibiansasmandatedbyEMCLA.PasserinebirdswhicharenotpartoftheEMCLAmandatebutareahighpriorityfor
![Page 12: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
monitoringbyJOSMcanalsoberecorded.
i. ARUsandplaybackapproachesbothsampleanimalstoanunknowndistance.ItisassumedthatpeoplecanhearfurtherthantheARUusedinthisstudybutthismustbetestedtodeterminetheareasampledbythetwotechniques.ThisisahighpriorityfortestingthisyearandtheexperimentsaredescribedindetailinNextStepssection.
j. ARUrecordingscanbelistenedtorepeatedlytoensureproperidentification.MorestatisticalapproachestoanalyzingdetectionerrorarepossibleusingARUrecordings.Theabilitytopausearecordingwhenprocessingdatareducesdatatranscriptionerrors.OurdataentrysheetforARUdataentryandapproachallowsforall“currentstatisticalapproaches”forestimatingabundance,occupancy,singingrate,etc.,withtheexceptionofdistancesampling.Aprojectisproposedtodeterminewhetherdistancecanbeestimatedfromrecordings.
k. Owlcallsareoftenquitefaintonmanyoftherecordings.Hearingtheserequiressignalboostingandhighvolumesonlisteningequipment.Careneedstobetakentoidentifyoptimalvolumelevelofrecordingstoensureobserverislisteningatasafelevel.Protocolsarenowavailableuponrequest.
l. Overlapwithotherspeciescallslaterintheseason(i.e.amphibiansseemstoreducetheabilityofobserverstodetectowls.Furtherinvestigationisrequiredtoseewhetherthisbiascanberemovedstatistically,throughsignalprocessing,orthroughdifferentsamplinglayouts.ThisissomethingwewilllookataswelistentomorerecordingsfromtheMay/Juneperiod.
m. Humannoiseinfluencestheabilityofobserverstohearowlsonrecordings.Presumablythesameeffecthappensduringplayback.However,duringplaybackowlstendtomovetowardsplaybackaspartofterritorialdefense,whichmayincreasethechangeofdetectinganowlinanoisyenvironmenteithervisuallyoracoustically.However,humannoisepresumablyalsoinfluencestheabilityoftheowltohearplayback,decreasingtheefficacyofthistechnique.Understandinghowhumannoiseinfluencesthedistancesampledisakey
![Page 13: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
aspectofthisyear’sprotocoldevelopmentandisdescribedinNextSteps.
n. Asseeninthisobjectiveandbelowinobjective2,ARUrecordingsseemtohavelowerprobabilityofobservationthanplayback.ThismaycreateconcernsamongsomeaboutobservationratesofARUs.IfanARUprotocolwasusedasthemonitoringtoolbyEMCLAandfoundnottohaveachievedthedesiredprecisionatsometimeinthefuture,playbackunitscouldbeaddedtotheARUsystemtomakedirectcomparisonsofowlobservationbeforeandafterplayback.Suchasystemwouldallowdatastandardizationovertimeevenwhichmethodologicalshiftsbecausebothtypesofdatacouldbecollected.WorkistakingplacetobuildacheapautonomousplaybackunittolinkwiththeARUs.
o. Basedontheseideas,theEMCLAdecidedtofurthertesttheARUprotocolforowlsin2013.Playbacksurveyscouldbeimplementedbypeopleonroadsquiteeasilyandcost‐effectively.Buthowthiswouldcost‐effectivelybeaddedtoaprogramthatisoff‐roadlikeABMIiscurrentlyunknown.Itisthegeneralopinionthatanon‐roadbasedplaybackprogramforowlsalonewouldbecost‐prohibitive.FinalrecommendationsontheuseofARUsforowlrecordingaspartoflong‐termmonitoringwilloccurin2014.
![Page 14: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
WHATISPROBABILITYOFOBSERVATIONANDWHATDOESITTELLUS?
Probabilityofobservationisaninstantaneousmeasureofhowlikelyanobserveristoobserveananimalusingaparticulararea.Whileacommonmetricinbiodiversitymonitoringandwildliferesearch,interpretationofthismetricmeansintermsofhabitatuseand/ortemporaltrendisnotwellunderstood.Itisoftenassumedthatadifferenceinthismetricbetweendifferentenvironmentalconditionsortimeperiodsmeansachangeinsizeofthepopulationoratleastachangeintheimportanceofthequalityofanareaforanindividualanimal.However,numerousissuesmustberesolvedbeforeitcanbeproventhatachangeinprobabilityofobservationisreflectiveofachangeinapopulationorbehavioralprocess.
1) Withplaybackandpassiverecordings,theareasampledisill‐defined.Surveysbasedonsoundthatdonotestimatethedistancetoacallingorganismareeffectivelyunboundedmeaningthatthereisnodefinitionoftheareasampled.Thismattersforseveralreasons:
a. Soundtravelsdifferentdistancesindifferentvegetationandenvironmentalconditions.Forexample,soundwilltravelconsiderablyfurtherandbemoreaudibleoverastilllakethaninanaspenforestwhenitiswindy.Thus,thechanceofdetectingaspeciesormultipleindividualsofaspecieswillbehigherinmoreopenvegetationincalmconditionsthaninclosedvegetationduringsuboptimalsampling.Aswell,speciesthatsingatdifferentfrequenciescanbeheardatverydifferentdistancesmeaningthereisadifferenteffectivesamplingareaforeachspecies.
b. Anthropogenicnoisecanmaskthecallsofanimalsmakingthemdetectableovershorterdistancesthaninnon‐noisyareas.Thus,changesinprobabilityofobservationintheoil‐sandsregionmayhavemoretodowithdifferentialsoundpropagationthanactualchangesinabundanceorindividualhabitatselection.
c. Changesintechnology,observerability,etcinfluencetheareaoverwhichanimalsaresampled.Lastyearweconductedanexperimentthatcomparedthedistanceoverwhichdifferentrecordingtechnologiescoulddetectknownfrequencysounds.ThiscomparisonneedstobemadewithinandbetweenthedifferentSongmetreunitsthatEMCLAisusing,aswelltounderstandhowwecancompareresultsfromdifferenttechnologies(i.e.ABMIrecorders).
d. Putsimply,anyandallstatisticalcorrectionsthattrytoconvertbasicobservationalorcountdatatosomemeasureof“importance”or“abundance”requireanunderstandingoftheareaoverwhichacousticsignalstraveltounderstandwhatthedatameans.ThisisapriorityforEMCLAin2013andwillinvolveexperimentsusingsoundplayback.Thisisintendedtoprovidedatastandardsrequiredfordistancecorrectionindifferentenvironments.
![Page 15: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
2) Probabilityofobservationisabiasedestimateofthetrueuseofanareabyananimal.Acrucialconsiderationiswhetherornotananimalcanbepresentinthesamplingareabutnotbedetectedbyanobserverbecause:
a. Theacousticcuegivenbytheanimalismissedbytheobserverand/ortheobservermisidentifiesthecue.Thisisknownasobservererror.Observererrorcanbeminimizedbytrainingintermsofmisidentification.ARUtechnologyallowsthesamerecordingtobelistenedtomultipletimesbydifferentpeople,allowingdouble‐observerapproachestobeusedtocorrectformisidentification.Resourcessuchassonogramsandexemplarrecordingsallowobserverstomakecomparisonstowhattheyarehearingandseeing.Thishasbeendevelopedaspartofouronlinedataentrysystemwhichcanbeseenwithpermissionat:https://sharepoint.ualberta.ca/bayne/abmit/emcla/EMCLA%20Database/default.aspE‐mailErinBayneatbayne@ualberta.catoobtainpermissiontovisitthesite.Aswelistentomorerecordings,wearedevelopingamorecompleteexemplarsetofrecordingsforcomparisonpurposesthatwillbeavailabletothegeneralpublic.
b. TheotheraspectofobservererrorthatisfundamentaltobothplaybackandARUdataisthatdifferentpeoplehavesensitivitiestodifferentsoundfrequenciesatdifferentdistances.Thismeansthatcalibrationshouldbedoneforeachperson.Thisisverycostlytocalculateinthefield.Differencesbetweenobserverscanbemoreeasilytestedinthelabandcorrectionfactorscomputedforeachindividual.AspartofourprocessingofARUfileswearedevelopingaprotocoltotesteachpersonagainsttheotherandtodeterminehoweachindividual’sabilitytodetectasignalisinfluencedbythesignalstrengthasmeasuredbysonogramsoftware(decibels).Webelievewecanusethistocomparedifferentobserver’sabilitytoheardifferentdistancesinarecording.Thisprotocolisindevelopmentandwillbediscussedinforthcomingreports.
3) Theanimalispresentwithanareathatcouldbesampledbyanobserverifananimalgaveanacousticalcuebutnocuewasgiventhatcouldbedetected.Thisoccursbecausethesingingorcallingrate(#ofcallsperunittimeofanindividualand/orspeciesvaries.Ifthevariationisconstantamongenvironmentalconditionsorvegetationtypesthenprobabilityofobservationremainsareasonablemetricformakingrelativecomparisons.However,aconcerninthescientificliteraturecurrentlyisthatvariationinsinging/callingrateisnotconstantamongvegetationtypessuchthatprobabilityofobservationprovidesabiasedestimateofhabitatuseandpossiblytrendsovertime.Thisproblemisknownasdetectionerror.Understandingwhat“detectionerror”meansandhowwemeasureitiscrucialforinterpretationofthiseffect.Iftheindividualwaspresentwithinthesamplingduringthetimeofobservationandcouldhavebeendetected,thisisdetectionerror.Toproperlyestimatedetectionerrorratesrequirestheanimalbe
![Page 16: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
presentintheareasampledwhenasurveywasdone.Thisisknownastheclosureassumption.Iftheclosureassumptionismet,onewaytoestimatedetectionerroristocomputedetectionprobabilities.Detectionprobability,whenalltheothersourcesoferror(i.e.observererroranddistancesareunderstood),isafunctionofsinging/callingrate.Adjustingprobabilityofobservationtoanewmetriccalledoccupancycanbedonebycomputingsinging/callingrates.Therearemanywaystocomputesinging/callingrate.Oneapproachbeingusedextensivelyintheliteratureistorepeatedlyvisitthesamestationatdifferenttimes.ThisisknownasthemultiplevisitapproachandwasrecommendedbyFisheretal.(2011)intheowlproposaltotheEMCLA,albeitwithcaveatshighlightedbyBayne.Muchoftheliteratureonmultiplevisitapproachessamplesthesamestationonxdifferentdays.Visitingonaseparatedayensurestheassumptionofindependenceismet.Independencemeanstheobserverisnotbiasedtohearingthesamespeciestheyheardinthepreviousvisit.Independenceislessofaconcernthanassumptionsaboutclosure,properidentificationofspecies,andareasampled.Thus,visitsdonothavetooccurondifferentdays.Recommendationsbythedevelopersofthemultiplevisitapproachsuggestalargenumberofvisitstothesamestationarerequiredtogetaccurateestimatesofdetectionprobabilityforuncommonspecies.Thisisfinanciallyandlogisticallychallengingandeffectivelytradesoffgoingtodifferentstations(akeydeterminantofstatisticalpowerfortrendandhabitatmodeling)versusaccuratelyestimatingdetectionprobability.Theresourcesrequiredtoaddmultiplevisitstostandardplaybackmethodsaresubstantive.Thus,theefficacyofmultiplevisitsandtheirinterpretationmustbecriticallyevaluatedtominimizecostsandmaximizedataprecision.Inthenextsection,wegothroughanevaluationofthedifferentwaysrepeatvisitsurveyscanbeusedanddiscusstheprosandconsofeachmethodandwhattheytellusaboutowlhabitatuseversusabundance.
![Page 17: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
CUMULATIVEPROBABILITYOFOBSERVATION,OCCUPANCY,&DETECTIONERROR:
WHYMOVEMENTINFLUENCESINTERPRETATION
CANSPACEREPLACETIMETOESTIMATEPROBABILITYOFOBSERVATION?Visitingthesamestationondifferentdayswithplaybackisintendedto:A)ensurethatvariationwithinandbetweenspeciesinsinging/callingrateasafunctionofweather,timeofyearetcaresufficientlyrandomizedtoreducethechancesofmissinganowlobservation;andB)toincreasethechancethattheobserverandtheowlinteractinthesamespacetherebyallowingtheowltoheartheplaybackandgivearesponsethattheobservercandetect.
Theassumptionthatvisitingondifferentdaysachievestheseobjectiveshasnotbeenwelltested.InourpreviousreportonowlstoEMCLA(Fisheretal.2011)wefoundlittleevidencethattheprobabilityofobservationusingplaybackwasinfluencedbytheweekoftheyearwhendatawerecollected(withexceptionofNorthernSaw‐whetOwl).Timeofnightwhensurveywasdonehadlargereffects,butwasnotparticularlyimportantaslongassurveysweredonebetweenabout9PMand3AMforthenocturnallyactiveowls.
Thus,iftheobjectiveofamonitoringprogramissimplytodeterminetheprobabilityofobservationofowlsinanarea,spendingresourcestocomebackonanothernightmaybelessdesirablethansimplyputtingmoreeffortintosamplingmorestationswithinanareaonasinglevisit.
Table6showsthecumulativeprobabilityofobservationofowlsusingplaybacktechniquesonroadsfromacrossAlberta(usesdatadescribedinTable3).Cumulativeprobabilityofobservationiswhetherornotaspecieswasdetectedwithxamountofeffort,notthenumberoftimesitwasdetectedwiththateffort.Thistablecomparesthecumulativeprobabilityofobservationachievedbygoingtoasinglestationtwiceversusspendingthesameeffortgoingtotwostationswithinthesamevisit.Thisisalsodoneforcomparisonsof3visitsvs.3stationsand4visitsvs.4stations.Ifthegoalistomaximizetheprobabilityofobservationforanarea,thistablesuggeststhatgoingtomorepointswithinanareaisequallyeffectiveasvisitingthesamestationmultipletimesondifferentdays.
Thereasonthisrelationshipexistsisbecauseowlsmovewidelythroughoutthelandscapeandhaverelativelylargehomerangescomparedtothedistanceoverwhichowlcallscanbeheard.Thus,whenvisitingastationonanygivennightthereisacertainprobabilitythattheowlwillbepresenttoheartheplaybackandgiveacuethattheobservercanhear.Alternatively,theowlmaysimplybeinanareaofitshomerangeoutsidetheareaoverwhichtheplaybackcanbeheard.Movingthroughoutanareaandtherebytryingtogettoallareasofthehomerangeinanefforttoessentiallyfindtheowl,worksaseffectivelyasgoingbacktothesameplaceoverseveralnightsandwaitingfortheowltomoveintotheareawheretheplaybackcanbeheard.
![Page 18: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Basedonthisanalysis,extraeffortinvestedinplaybacksurveysonasinglenightcouldbeequallyeffectiveinincreasingtheprobabilityofobservationforanareathancomingbacktothesamestation.Themainassumptionofthisanalysisisthattheowlbeingdetectedisthesameindividual.Asspatialextentincreasesthereisahigherprobabilityofcountingtwodifferentindividualswhichalterswhatisbeingmeasured.
Table6‐Cumulativeprobabilityofobservationformultiplevisitstothesamestopcomparedtothesamesubsetofdatawherethecumulativeprobabilityofobservationforanequivalenteffortplacedtosamplingagreaterspatialextentduringasinglevisit.Samplesizechangesbecausetheamountofdataavailablewithmultiplevisitsvaried.Comparingestimatesof1stop:xvisitsorxstops:1visitshouldbedonecautiouslybecausethespatiallocationandplaybackmethodswherethexvisitdatawerecollectedvary.Comparisonsbetweentemporalversusspatialeffort(i.e.1stop:2visitsvs.2stops:1visitaredirectlycomparablebecausetheyuseidenticaldatasetstocomputeestimates.ThesedatacomefromsurveysdoneacrossallofborealAlberta.
Species 1stop:1visit(n=8418
1stop:2visits(n=2816
2stops:1visit(n=2748
1stop:3visits(n=488
3stops:1visit(n=444
1stop:4visits(n=102
4stops:1visit(n=108
BADO 0.039 0.084 0.085 0.100 0.124 0.147 0.185BOOW 0.067 0.133 0.139 0.227 0.259 0.314 0.351GGOW 0.014 0.028 0.030 0.047 0.056 0.039 0.046GHOW 0.090 0.151 0.150 0.156 0.189 0.196 0.241LEOW 0.010 0.018 0.019 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000NHOW <0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000NPOW 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.007 0.029 0.046NSWO 0.103 0.180 0.186 0.225 0.216 0.156 0.194SEOW <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000AnyOwl 0.280 0.462 0.472 0.564 0.622 0.647 0.713
![Page 19: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
OCCUPANCY&DETECTIONERROR:SEPARATEVISITSONDIFFERENTDAYS
Therationaleforcomingbackondifferentdaysforowlsisthatseasonalvariationincallingratemayinfluencewhetherornotanowlrespondstoplayback.Callingbyowlsisaformofterritorialand/ormatedefensethatmaychangewiththestageofbreeding.Assumingthattheassumptionofclosurehasbeenmet(i.e.theowlispresentintheareasampledduringtwodifferentdays)thendetectionrateisameasureofhowlikelythespeciesistogiveacuethattheobservercanrecord.TheoriginallogicofthetwovisitstothesamestationduringplaybacksurveysasenvisionedbyFisheretal.(2011),wasthisapproachwouldprovidesuchanestimatewhichthencouldbeusedtocorrectnaïveprobabilityofobservationtoanoccupancyestimate.UsingplaybackdatafromacrossAlberta(Table7),wefounddetectionprobabilityacrossspecieswasabout0.25formostspecies.Thismeansthatreturningtothesamestationandusingplaybackonadifferentdayresultsinanowlofasinglespeciesbeingdetectedonly1outofevery4times.
Assumingtheassumptionofclosureismet,thismeansthatowlsdonotalwaysrespondtoplayback.Iftheassumptionofclosureisnotmetandtheowlhasleftthesamplingarea,thenthisresultsuggeststhat75%ofthetimewhenanobserverisconductingaplaybacksurvey,theowlisinanotherlocationwheretheowlcan’theartheplaybackandtherebygiveacuethattheobservercandetect.
Incontrast,ARUshaveamuchlowerprobabilityofdetection(between0.05to0.1).Admittedly,morerecordingsanddataareneededtoproperlyestimatethisvalue.ThisdifferencesuggeststhatplaybackDOESincreasedetectionrateforowlsconsiderably.However,whythisoccursisnotentirelyclear.First,playbackmayelicitowlstocallmorefrequentlythanwhatisrecordedpassively.Second,playbackmaycausetheowlstomovetowardstheobservertherebyincreasingthechancethattheobservercandetectanacousticcuegivenbyanowl.Owlscanhearconsiderablyfurtherthanhumans,soplaybacklikelydrawsowlstowardstheobserver.Thus,thedistanceandareathatyousamplechangesbetweenpassiveandplaybackmethods.
Whatisimportanttorealizefromthisanalysis,isthatdetectionrateasestimatedbyreturningtothesamestationondifferentdayshasalargeeffectonoccupancyestimatesdependingonwhetheryouuseplaybackversuspassivesampling.Naïveestimatesofprobabilityofobservationarerelativelysimilarbetweenplaybackandpassivesampling.However,whendetectionerroriscorrectedfor,occupancyestimatesdifferwidelybetweenthetwoapproaches.Ifoccupancyestimatesaretobeviewedasameasureofabundance,thetwotechniqueswouldimplya4‐5folddifferenceinthenumberofowlspresentinthelandscape.
Thismayinpartbeasamplesizeissueforthepassivelisteningdonethusfar.However,webelieveitisafundamentaldifferenceininterpretationcausedbydifferentialviolationsoftheclosureassumptionofplaybackversuspassivelistening.
1) Theareasampledbypassivelisteningisprobablysmallerthanthatsampledbyplaybackbecauseowlsmovetowardsplaybackandthisoccursbecauseowlscanhear
![Page 20: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
furtherthanahumanobserverlisteningtoanARU.
2) BothplaybackandARUrecordingassumethattheowlisalwayspresentintheill‐definedsamplingareawhichisveryunlikely.Itismorelikelythattheowlwillmoveintothesamplingareaduringaplaybacksurveythanduringapassivesurveytherebyreducingtheamountthatoccupancyestimatesarecorrected.
3) AtthistimeourconclusionisthatreturningtothesamestationondifferentdayswhetherbyARUorplaybackwillNOTprovidevalidinformationaboutowlabundanceunlessadditionalinformationiscollected.Occupancyinthiscontextisprobablybestviewedastheprobabilityanowlwilluseaparticularareaduringtheentiresamplingseason(i.e.theprobabilityanowlwoulduseanareasometimeduringMarchthroughendofApril).ThelackofinformationabouttheareasampledbyplaybackandARUpassivelisteninglimitsinterpretationofthismetrictosomeill‐definedmeasureofrelativeuseofhabitatbyowlsnotowlabundance.
![Page 21: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Table7–Naïveestimatesofprobabilityofobservation,occupancy,anddetectionratefordifferentspeciesofowlsasestimatedbyplaybackmethodsversuspassivelisteningtoARUrecordingsondifferentdateswithinEMCLAarea.Inthisexample,thestationistheunitofreplicationforestimatingoccupancy.Eachstationwasvisited2to9timesondifferentdaysintheseanalyses.
2‐5playbackvisitsondifferentdates(n=3148stations
Species Naïve Occupancy DetectionBADO 0.082 0.175 0.251BOOW 0.129 0.263 0.269GGOW 0.029 0.085 0.175GHOW 0.144 0.316 0.242LEOW 0.017 0.038 0.238NHOW 0.001 N/A N/ANPOW 0.009 0.023 0.198NSWO 0.179 0.385 0.249SEOW <0.001 N/A N/AAnyOwl 0.447 0.664 0.408
2‐9ARUvisitsondifferentdates(n=156stations
BADO 0.115 0.660 0.063BOOW 0.057 0.992 0.021GGOW 0.013 0.961 0.005GHOW 0.167 0.401 0.183LEOW 0.012 0.066 0.075NHOW N/A N/A N/ANPOW N/A N/A N/ANSWO 0.090 0.262 0.146SEOW N/A N/A N/AAnyOwl 0.353 0.743 0.215
![Page 22: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
OCCUPANCY&DETECTIONERROR:SITELEVELOCCUPANCYUSINGMULTIPLETEMPROALVISITSTOASITE
Whileitmayseemobviousthatclosureisviolatedatthestation/stoplevel,itislesscertainwhetheritwouldbeviolatedatthesiteorroutelevel.Thisassumptionispredicatedonthenotionthatthehomerangeoftheowlisentirelywithintheareathatissampled.Oftentimes,onlyasmallportionofthehomerangemayoverlaptheareasampledsuchthatclosureisviolated.IdentifyingthenumberofstopsornumberofARUsandtheareaoverwhichtheymustbeplacedtoensurethattheentirehomerangeisencompassedwithinthesamplingareaisafundamentalunknown.AspartofourproposedworkplanwithinEMCLAwewanttopartnerwithAlbertaEnvironmentandSustainableResourceDevelopmenttodeterminewhatasamplinggridwouldhavetolookliketoachievethisfortheBarredOwl.
Usingrepeatvisitsurveystothesamesite,wefoundthatthenaïveprobabilityofobservationwassomewhathigherwhenusingplaybackoverARUs.Importantlyhowever,detectabilitywasmuchhigherusingplayback.Whenyouadjustnaïveprobabilityofobservationfordetectionerroryouestimateoccupancyrate.Ourfindingwastheoccupancyestimatesweremoresimilartonaïveestimatesofprobabilityatthesitelevelthanatthestationlevelsuggestingclosureismorelikelytohavebeenachieved.Incontrast,detectabilityatthesitelevelusingARUswasmuchlowerwhichresultedinmuchhigherestimateofoccupancy.
ThisfindingrequiresmoreinvestigationandisinfluencedbythenumberofminutesARUsarelistenedto.Identifyingasitescalethatworksforallowlshoweverisproblematic.Thus,amajorfocusoftheEMCLAprogramisidentifyingthescaleofanalysisthatisappropriateforthespeciesofinterestbasedonthesizeoftheirhomerange.
![Page 23: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Table8‐Naïveestimatesofprobabilityofobservation,occupancy,anddetectionratefordifferentspeciesofowlsasestimatedbyplaybackmethodsfromroad‐sidesurveysversuspassivelisteningtoARUrecordings.Inthisanalysis,thesiteistheunitofreplication.Repeatvisitsondifferentdaysoftheyeararethereplicatesusedtocreatedetectionhistories.Asitewasdefinedasroad‐sideroutewith6stopsversusanARUsitewhichwasasitewith6ARUrecorders.
Species NaïveProb.Obs.Playbackn=293
PlaybackOccupancyTemporal
PlaybackDetectionTemporal
NaïveProb.Obs.ARUn=27
ARUOccupancyTemporal
ARUDetectionTemporal
BADO 0.334 0.427 0.509 0.259 0.593 0.250BOOW 0.461 0.560 0.558 0.296 0.998 0.148GGOW 0.174 0.357 0.261 N/A N/A N/AGHOW 0.553 0.703 0.511 0.444 0.907 0.285LEOW 0.092 0.169 0.297 N/A N/A N/ANHOW 0.010 0.012 0.534 N/A N/A N/ANPOW 0.078 0.226 0.174 N/A N/A N/ANSWO 0.621 0.725 0.594 0.185 0.197 0.749SEOW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AAnyOwl 0.928 0.947 0.855 0.667 0.750 0.667
![Page 24: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
OCCUPANCY&DETECTIONERROR:STATIONSASSPATIALREPLICATESUSINGASINGLEVISITTOASITE
Giventhatowlsmoverelativelylargedistanceswithintheirhomerangeseachnight,analternativeapproachtomeasuringoccupancyanddetectionerroristoreplacetemporalreplicationwithspatialreplication(Hinesetal.2010.Specifically,multiplesurveystationscanbeselectedfromeachsiterandomlyandwithreplacementandarethensurveyedasingletime,usuallyonthesameday(MacKenzieetal.2006).Thisallowsestimationofoccupancyatthelevelofthesampleunit(notatthelevelofthespecificsitesorlocationswithineachunit).Whenthespeciesoccupiesasamplingunit,butisnotpresentatallstationswithinthesamplingunit,detectionprobabilityconsistsoftwocomponents:1)theprobabilitythatthespeciesispresentwithinthesiteand2)probabilityofdetectiongiventhatthespeciesispresentatthesurveysite.Thestopsalongaroad‐sideplaybacksurveyortheindividualARUunitswithinasitesampledonasinglenightcouldbeviewedasreplicatesurveyswithinthesitewhichtherebyistheunitofanalysis.
Therearetwowaystomodelsuchdata.Thefirstistoassumethatdetectionhistoriesinthesitearerandom,wherebytheanimalrandomlymovesthroughoutthesitetogenerateadetectionhistory.TheotherapproachistoassumethatthereissomedegreeofspatialdependencybetweenstationsthatareclosertogetherwhichrequiresaMarkovianspatialprocessmodel.Hereweshowtheresultsfromtherandommovementmodel.
UsingthestopsasspatialreplicateswefoundthattheoccupancyanddetectionratesforowlswererelativelysimilarbetweenARUandplaybackmethodsformostspecies(Table9).Admittedlythiscomparisonisnotperfectastheareacoveredbystopsonaplaybackrouteisdifferentthantheareasampledby6ARUsbecauseoflayoutandthedistanceoverwhichacousticcuescanbedetected.
Achallengewithusingthespacefortimeapproachtomeasureoccupancyisidentifying:A)whatthesizeofthesitesshouldbe;andB)howmanystationshavetobeplacedinasitetoensuresufficientprecision;andC)knowingifthismetricaccuratelyreflectsabundancegiventhatmultipleindividualscouldbedetectedwithinasite.Thekeytousingthisanalyticalapproachisensuringthatthesiteisscaledappropriatelytotheorganismofinterestandthescaleatwhichsoundtransmits.Inotherwords,thesizeofthesamplingareaforasiteneedstobeproportionaltothehomerangeoftheanimalofinterestandhowfarthatanimalcanbeheardover.Ifthesiteistoobig,thentheestimateofabundanceisaminimalestimatorofabundancebecausemorethanoneindividualmightbepresent.Ifthesiteistoosmall,thentheassumptionofclosurewillnotbemet.Thisresultsinadetectionerrorestimatethatismorelikelytobecausedbymovement.Correctingoccupancyestimatesfordetectionerrorwhenmovementoccurswillleadtooverestimatesofanimalabundance.Alsoyouneedtounderstandthedistanceoverwhichsoundscanbeheard.
![Page 25: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Forthistobethemodelingapproachusedinowlmonitoring,severalissueshavetobeaddressed.Thismodelassumesthatobservationsofowlsatdifferentplaybackstationswouldbeindependent.Itishighlyplausiblethatowlsmoveinresponsetoplaybackandcouldintheoryfollowtheobserverfrompointtopointcreatingadetectionhistorythatwouldresultinaseverebiasinoccupancyestimation.
Withpassivelistening,thetimingofsurveyswouldhavetobevaried.IfyouuseddatafromalloftheARUrecordingsfromthesamedateandtimeacrossasiteyoushouldgetadetectionhistorywithasingle1andtherestzeros.Thiswouldbecausedbythefactthatifonlyoneispresentitshouldonlybedetectedatonerecorder.Todeterminethespatialmovementofananimalacrossthesiteandgetasuitablecapturehistory,itwouldbebettertolistentodifferentARUsatdifferenttimesofdayanddate.
Inbiodiversitymonitoringalloftheseissuescreateasignificantchallengebecausethehomerangesizeofdifferentorganismsvarieswidely,meaningthatthesiteneedstodifferinsizefordifferentspeciestoestimateabundance.Soundtransmissionalsovariesamongstspeciessothattheareasampleddiffersbasedonthefrequencyandamplitudeatwhichaspeciescalls.HowtooptimizethelayoutofplaybackstationsorARUlocationsatanappropriatescaleforthelargestnumberofspeciespossibleisasignificantchallengethattheEMCLAneedstoaddressifthegoalistoobtainametricthatreflectsthetrueabundanceofowls.Table9‐Naïveestimatesofprobabilityofoccurrence,occupancy,anddetectionratefordifferentspeciesofowlsasestimatedbyplaybackmethodsfromroad‐sidesurveysversuspassivelisteningtoARUrecordings.Inthisanalysis,thesitewastheunitforwhichoccupancywasestimatedandthepresenceofaspeciesatastationwasthereplicatesamplesusedtocreateadetectionhistory.Asitewasdefinedasroad‐sideroutewith6stopsversusanARUsitewhichwasasitewithin6ARUrecorders.
Species NaïveProb.Obs.Playback
PlaybackOccupancy
PlaybackDetection
NaïveProb.Obs.ARU
ARUOccupancy
ARUDetection
BADO 0.159 0.299 0.124 0.109 0.197 0.205BOOW 0.235 0.339 0.188 0.072 0.404 0.048GGOW 0.074 0.281 0.051 0.018 N/A N/AGHOW 0.353 0.548 0.166 0.209 0.455 0.156LEOW 0.047 0.181 0.051 0.018 N/A N/ANHOW 0.019 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANPOW 0.101 0.163 0.156 N/A N/A N/ANSWO 0.387 0.541 0.199 0.118 0.347 0.105SEOW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AAnyOwl 0.775 0.867 0.337 0.372 0.633 0.239
![Page 26: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
OCCUPANCY&DETECTIONERROR:“SUBVISIT”DETECTIONERROR
Asthepreviousanalysesinthissectiondemonstrate,theassumptionofclosureisveryimportantforinterpretingwhataparticularmethodtellsusaboutowlabundanceversusowluseofanarea.Ensuringthattheareasampledislargeenoughtocovertheentirehomerangeofananimalisonewaytoensureclosure.Theother,istochangethetemporalextentoverwhichrepeatsurveysareconductedtominimizethechangeoftheanimalmovingduringtheperiodofobservation.ARUanalysisisideallysuitedtochangingthetemporaldefinitionofa“visit”.DuringtheARUrecordingswerecordedfor10minuteseachhour.WithARUswecanstoprecordings,writedowninformation,andthencontinuewithlistening.Thismakesitquiteeasytodetermineexactlywhenaspeciesgivesanaudiocueontherecording.Inourdatabase,werecordthetimewithineach1minuteintervaloftheentire10minuteperiodwhenanindividualofaspecieswasfirstheard.Ifweassumethatduringthe10minuteswhenthelisteningwasdonethatorganismsdonotmoveoutsidetheareathattheARUcanhear,ourapproachallowsestimationoftheminutebyminutedetectionprobability.Detectionprobabilityinthiscasemostlyreflectsanestimateofsinging/callingrateandisamoreaccuratemeasureoftruedetectionrateusingpassivelisteningmethodsthanlisteningtorecordingsondifferentdaysorpotentiallyevendifferenthours.
Table10showstheminutebyminutedetectionrateofowlsattheARUlocations.Differentdefinitionsofrepeatsamplesareshown(10–1minuterepeatsamples,5–2minuterepeatsamples,and2–5minuterepeatsamples.Occupancyestimationinthiscaseisverysimilartothenaïveprobabilityofobservation.Thisisbecausethesinging/callingrateofowlswithina10‐minuteperiodisinfactquitehigh.Formostspeciesdetected,anacousticcuewasgivenevery2ndminute.Ifanowlgaveanacousticcueinthefirst5minutesofapassivelisteningsession,therewasabouta75%chancetheywouldgiveacuethatwasdetectedinthe2ndfiveminuteperiod.
Becausethedetectionratewithina10‐minuteperiodissohigh,occupancyestimatesfromthisapproachdonotchangemuchrelativetothenaïveestimateofprobabilityofobservation.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthisisagoodmeasureoftrueabundancehowever.Occupancyinthisparticularcaseisaninstantaneousmeasureofhabitatusebyowls.Inotherwords,itistheprobabilitythatanowlaspresentatastationatthesametimethatanobserverwasthere(probabilityofusewithinthe10minuteperiodofobservation).Asstatedearlier,mostowlshavehomerangesthatarelikelylargerthantheareaofobservationforanARUrecordersuchthatonlyaportionoftheowl’shomerangeiswithinthesamplingareaoftheARU.Estimatingdensityfromsuchdatarequiresinformationaboutthedistanceatwhichtheowlwaslocatedand/ortheproportionoftheterritorywithinthesamplingareaoftherecorder.
Anissuethatshouldbeconsideredwhenusingthismetricisthatthepresenceofasecondowlofthesameordifferentspeciesmayalterthesingingrateofthefocalowl.Intra‐specificcompetitionmaycauseeachowltocallathigherratesthanwhentheyarealone.Inter‐specificcompetitioncouldcauseareverseeffectifsmallerowlschoosenottocallwhenalargerandperhapspredatoryowlcalls.Theseeffectscanbiasoccupancyestimatesifnottakenintoaccount.Forexample,if
![Page 27: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
GreatHornedOwlsmoveintomorehumandisturbedareas,smallerowlsmaybepresentbutlesslikelytocall.
Table10‐Naïveestimatesofprobabilityofoccurrence,occupancy,anddetectionratefordifferentspeciesofowlsasestimatedbyARUrecordings.Heredetectionismeasuredusing1‐minute,2‐minute,or5‐minutesubintervalswithina10‐minuterecordingasthetemporalreplicates.Detectionratemeasuredinthiswayisameasureofcallingratebyowlsasclosureislikelyachieved.
10ARU“subvisits”(n=464pointcountsSpecies Naïve Occupancy DetectionBADO 0.047 0.047 0.435BOOW 0.019 0.020 0.327GGOW N/A N/A N/AGHOW 0.081 0.081 0.470LEOW N/A N/A N/ANHOW N/A N/A N/ANPOW N/A N/A N/ANSWO 0.041 0.041 0.500SEOW N/A N/A N/AAnyOwl 0.159 0.160 0.494
5ARU“subvisits”(n=464pointcountsBADO 0.047 0.048 0.544BOOW 0.019 0.021 0.385GGOW N/A N/A N/AGHOW 0.081 0.082 0.570LEOW N/A N/A N/ANHOW N/A N/A N/ANPOW N/A N/A N/ANSWO 0.041 0.041 0.627SEOW N/A N/A N/AAnyOwl 0.159 0.161 0.602
2ARU“subvisits”(n=464pointcountsBADO 0.047 0.052 0.706BOOW 0.019 0.033 0.364GGOW N/A N/A N/AGHOW 0.081 0.089 0.712LEOW N/A N/A N/ANHOW N/A N/A N/ANPOW N/A N/A N/ANSWO 0.041 0.043 0.774SEOW N/A N/A N/AAnyOwl 0.159 0.170 0.756
![Page 28: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
OCCUPANCY&DETECTIONERROR:ROBUSTMODELSOFMOVEMENT&SINGINGRATEATSTATIONLEVEL
Apracticalwaytoaddresstheclosureassumptionistosamplepopulationsusingtherobustdesign,whichwasoriginallydevelopedforcapture–recapturesampling(Rotaetal.2009.Intherobustdesign,samplingconsistsofsecondarysamplingperiodsnestedwithinprimarysamplingperiods.Populationsareassumedtobeclosedtodemographicchangesormovementbetweensecondarysamplingperiodsandopentodemographicchangesbetweenprimarysamplingperiods.UsingthismodelatthestoplevelfortheARUdata,weestimatedtheprobabilityofoccurrenceduringthetwovisitstoasiteondifferentdaysandthedetectionratewithinthe10‐minutesamplingperiodwheretherecorderwasmonitoringowlcalls.
Thismodelislikelythemostrealisticwayofmeasuringoccupancyforowlsatthestationlevelasitensuresthattheassumptionofclosureismet.Theresultsfromthismodel(Table11)suggest:
A) Whenpresent,owlscallrelativelyfrequentlywithinthesamplingareaoftheARUwhenmeasuredonaminutebyminutebasis.Inotherwords,owlsdogivecuesthatcanbedetectedpassively.
B) OwlsmoveextensivelyandquiteoftenarenotpresentinthesamplingareaofanARUoranobserverusingplayback.70‐75%ofthetimeowlsarelikelytohavemovedfromastationwheretheyhavepreviouslybeenrecordedbasedontherobustmodel.
C) StationlevelsurveysprovideanindexofowluseofhabitatNOTmeasuresofowlabundance.ThesmallerthehomerangeofanowlspeciesthemorelikelystationsurveyswilltellussomethingaboutabundancebutwhetherasingleARUcanbeusedtoestimateabundanceforanyowlspeciesisnotclear.
D) Onlybypoolingstationstogethercananestimateofowlabundancebegeneratedthatcorrelateswithpopulationsize.Thus,thesiteneedstobetheunitofreplicationforallfuturemonitoring.Morethanonestationislikelyneededformostspecies.Howlargeasiteneedstobetoestimateabundancedependsonthespecieslifehistory,theirhomerangesize,andhowfardifferentspecies’callstransmitindifferentconditions.
![Page 29: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Table11‐Naïveestimatesofprobabilityofoccurrence,occupancyduringthefirstandsecondvisitsondifferentdaystothesamestationwithARUrecorders.DetectionratefordifferentspeciesofowlsasestimatedbyARUrecordingsaredonewithina10‐minuteperiod.Theprobabilitythatanowlmovesintoorawayfromthatstationonthesecondvisitarealsoshown.
ARUvisitedon2separatedayswithinsameyearwith10‐1minutesubsamplesmeasuredduringeachvisit(n=156stations
Species Naïve1stvisit
Naïve2ndVisit
Occupancyon1stVisit
Occupancyon2ndVisit
“Arrive”on2ndVisit
“Leave”by2ndVisit
SubvisitDetectionRate
BADO 0.026 0.071 0.026 0.071 0.066 0.749 0.425BOOW 0.019 0.038 0.020 0.039 0.040 1.000 0.327GGOW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AGHOW 0.064 0.071 0.064 0.071 0.061 0.800 0.456LEOW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANHOW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANPOW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANSWO 0.038 0.019 0.045 0.019 0.007 0.571 0.469SEOW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AAnyOwl 0.132 0.168 0.132 0.168 0.152 0.727 0.467
ARUvisitedon2separatedayswithinsameyearwith2‐5minutesubsamplesmeasuredduringeachvisit(n=156stations
BADO 0.026 0.071 0.031 0.086 0.079 0.694 0.571BOOW 0.019 0.038 0.032 0.065 0.067 0.999 0.363GGOW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AGHOW 0.064 0.071 0.069 0.076 0.066 0.783 0.727LEOW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANHOW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANPOW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANSWO 0.038 0.019 0.040 0.020 0.006 0.652 0.800SEOW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AAnyOwl 0.132 0.168 0.143 0.182 0.163 0.704 0.717
![Page 30: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
OCCUPANCY&DETECTIONERROR:ROBUSTMODELSOFMOVEMENT&SINGINGRATEATSITELEVEL
Basedonourpreviousanalyses,therobustmodelislikelytoprovidethebestmeasureofhabitatuseatthestationlevelbasedonARUs.Wealsobelievethatthismodelwillbeofutilityinestimatingabundanceatthesitelevelbyincorporatingthevarioustypesoferrorassociatedwithlisteningsurveys.However,tothebestofourknowledgetherehasnotbeenanyevaluationofhowtherobustmodelshouldbescaledfromthestationtoasitelevel.Weproposethefollowingmodelbetested:
1) VisitxnumberofstationswithARUslevelwithinasite.Thesiteshouldbescaledappropriatelyforthespeciesofinterestbasedonliteraturereviewaboutowlhomerangesize.
2) HavetheARUsallcomeonatexactlythesametimeandsamedate.Aslongastherecordersarefarenoughaparttonothearthesameowl,youwillhaveanindependentseriesofreplicatesforthatowl.ThenumberofunitswilldependonsizeofhomerangeandtheareaoverwhichtheARUcanhearowls.
3) IfthereisonlyoneowlinthesitethenitshouldbedetectedatonerecorderifitisgivinganacousticcuewithinthesamplingareaofanARU,assumingspacingiscorrect.IfitisnotwithinrangeofanARUthennoowlsshouldbedetected.
4) Alternatively,anowlmaybeinrangeofanARUbutnotprovideanacousticcue.
5) Toestimatethefrequencyofanowlgivingacousticcues,thesubvisitapproachwithineach10minuteintervalcanbeusedtoestimatecallingrate.Callingrateismeasuredbyestimatingthedetectionerrorwhichwouldbecausedbyananimalnotgivingacuewithinaparticularminuteofthe10minutesequence.Themostappropriatesub‐visitlengthmustbedetermined.
6) Callingratewithinthesiteiscomputedbydeterminingwhetherany1‐minuteinterval,anywhereinthesite,hadanowldetected.Inotherwords,theoccurrenceofanyowlatanystationwithineachofthe1‐minuteintervalsofthe10‐minuterecordingsmadebyeachARUbecomesthedetectionhistoryforthesite.
7) Theextinctionrateparameteris,assumingtheanimaldoesnotdieorpermanentlyemigrate,anestimateofthemovementratewithinthesitebytheowl.WhentheowlisnotdetectedatanystationthiscouldbecausedbytheowlnotbeinginthedetectionareaORtheowlnotgivinganaudiblecue.Thismodelshouldallowseparationofthoseeffectsbecausetheentiresamplingareaisbeingsampledinstantanteously.Assuchthepositionof
![Page 31: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
theowlisfixedduringthe10‐minuteintervalofsampling.
8) Withthisinformationtheoccupancyratefortheentiresite(whichbydesignislargeenoughtoincludethehomerangeofoneowl)canbeestimated.Thenumberofsitesoccupiedcanthenbeusedasanestimatorofpopulationsize.
9) Ifmorethanoneowlispresentwithinthearea,thisapproachcanbeestimatedbecausedetectionwouldoccurontworecorderssimultaneously.Ann‐mixturemodificationofrobustoccupancymodelsforcountscouldalsobeemployed.
10) Currentlywecan’ttestthismodelbecausewechosetorandomlypickwhichowltimesanddaystolistentowithineachsite.Weareintheprocessofre‐listeningtocreateamatchedsetofobservationsthatwillallowustotestthisideausingARUdata.
11) Anadditionalcomponentthatcouldbeadded,conditionalonbudgets,isestimationofdistancefromtheowltotherecorder.Thismodificationtothemodelrequiresthedevelopmentoftwotechnologieshowever.
12) THISANALYTICALAPPROACHISNOTPOSSIBLEWITHPLAYBACKMETHODS.
![Page 32: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
WHATDOWENEEDTODOTOTRACK
“POPULATONSIZE”INOWLS?
Whichassumptionaboutclosureiscorrecthassignificantimplicationsforinterpretingtheresultsfrommultiple‐visitanalysisandhowsuchastrategyshouldbeusedinamonitoringdesign.Whenclosureismetanddetectabilityislow,estimatesofoccupancyrelativetoprobabilityofobservationchangedramatically.Manyresearchersviewoccupancyasabettermeasureofrelativeabundanceorabsolutedensitythanprobabilityofobservation.Asdetectionrateisoftenconsiderablylessthanonethenthenumberofanimalsestimatedtobeinanareawilloftenbeconsiderablyhigherusingmultiplevisitanalysesthannaïveapproachesthatdonotcorrectfordetectionerror.However,iftheassumptionofclosureisnotmetthentheadjustmenttooccupancyratecanartificiallyinflatepopulationsizeestimatesbecausethedetectionerrorisconfoundedwithmovementwhichartificiallyaltersdetectionrates.
Table12showspopulationestimatesofowlsintheLowerAthabascaregionifweassume:1)stationsandsiteswererandomsamplesfromtheregion;2)fornaïveestimatesbasedonprobabilityofobservation,detectionrateassumedtobe100%;3)forestimatesderivedatthestationscale,owlswerealwayspresentwithina800metreradiusofthestationcentroid;
4)forestimatesderivedatthesitescale,owlswerealwayspresentwith800metresoftheroad;5)onlyowlswithin800metresofsurveylocationsweredetected;Table12demonstratesthattherearesignificantdifferencesintheabsolutenumbersofbirdsassumedtobeintheLowerAthabascausingdifferenttechniquesandsurveytimes.Daytimesurveysresultinverylowpopulationestimateswhenusingnaïvemethodsbecausetheprobabilityofobservinganowlissolow.ThisispartiallybecausewedonotuseplaybackofthenocturnalowlsatthistimeofthedayandviceversafordiurnalspeciesliketheNorthernHawkOwl.Adjustingoccupancyatthestationleveltoadjustfordetectionerrorduringtheday,resultsinanestimateofpopulationsizethatis126timeslargerthanusingprobabilityofobservation.Atthesitelevel,thisdifferenceis15.4times.Atnight,thedifferencebetweennaïveandcorrectedpopulationsizeestimatesisat7.6timeslargeratthestationlevel.Atthesitelevel,thedifferenceisonly1.8times.
WESTRESSTHEASSUMPTIONSREQUIREDTOESTIMATEPOPULATIONSIZEOFOWLSAREVIOLATEDTOUNKNOWNDEGREESINALLDATAEVERCOLLECTEDONOWLS.POPULATIONESTIMATESSHOWNHEREAREINCORRECTANDONLYPROVIDEDASANEXAMPLE.
![Page 33: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Ourobjectiveinshowingthisresultistodemonstratethatnaïveoccupancyestimatesarelikelytotoolowbecauseplaybackdoesnotincreasedetectionrateto1.Incontrast,multiplevisitestimatesareoverestimatedbecausetheassumptionofclosureislikelyviolatedaswellasdetectionerrorbeingaproblem.Atthestationlevel,thepopulationestimatesaretoolargetobetakenasevenreasonable.DetectionratecannotbeproperlyestimatedatthestationlevelovertwovisitsusingplaybackORARUswhensurveyaredoneondifferentdaysbecauseviolationsofclosureareensured.Otherapproachestocalculatingdetectionrateatthestationlevelthataccountformovementarepossiblebutnotusingahumanobserverandplaybacktechniques.
Atthesitelevel,particularlyduringthenighttime,multiplevisitmethodsholdmorepromiseasasamplingstrategy.Occupancyanddetectionrateparameterswerestableandcouldbeestimatedformostspeciesatthisscaleandatthistimeoftheday.Atthisspatialscale,thereisagreaterlikelihoodtheassumptionofclosureismetbecauseeventhoughaspeciesmaymovebetweenstations,itisstilldetectedwithinthesitewhenvisitedonadifferentday.Importantly,thismaynotrequirevisitingexactlythesamestationsondifferentvisits.Aswell,whiletheassumptionthatclosureismetincreasesasthesizeofthesamplingincreasesrelativetothesizeofthehomerangeoftheanimalsurveyed,itdoesnotguaranteeit.BothARUsandplaybackmayallowsuchestimatestobecalculated.ARUsprovidegreaterflexibilitytogetmorerefinedestimatesofdetectionerrorandmovementrates.FurtherworkisneededhowevertodetermineoptimalARUspacingandthenumberofrecordingsthatmustbelistenedtohowever.
![Page 34: TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING …bioacoustic.abmi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EMCLA-Owl-Monit… · TECHNICAL REPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060807/608be7ed406a61500b32d414/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Table12–Examplethatshowsthemagnitudeofvariationinpopulationsizeestimatesofowlsderivedfromusingstationandsiteleveldatafromplaybackfordaytimeandnighttimesurveysdoneusingnaïveprobabilityofobservationandoccupancyratecorrectedfordetection.
Species Daytime Nighttime Populationestimatebasedonstationleveldensity Naïve Occupancy Naïve OccupancyAnyOwl 2,197 7,742 18,108 38,929
BarredOwl 185 46,360 4,682 37,459
BorealOwl 185 46,360 6,245 46,360
GreatGrayOwl 0 0 1,405 3,904
GreatHornedOwl 366 46,360 5,619 28,173
Long‐earedOwl 185 46,360 1,247 3,162
N.HawkOwl 366 413 158 46,360
N.PygmyOwl 732 46,360 0 0
N.Saw‐whetOwl 185 46,360 3,755 9,504
SumofOwlSpecies 2,207 278,573 23,110 174,921
PopulationestimatebasedonsiteleveldensityAnyOwl 1,656 2,980 4,491 4,565
BarredOwl 166 4,636 2,318 3,621
BorealOwl 166 4,636 2,753 3,769
GreatGrayOwl 0 0 1,014 1,467
GreatHornedOwl 331 4,636 2,608 3,477
Long‐earedOwl 166 4,636 869 1,159
N.HawkOwl 166 166 145 4,636
N.PygmyOwl 662 4,636 0 0
N.Saw‐whetOwl 166 4,636 2,318 3,621
SumOfOwlSpecies 1,821 27,982 12,025 21,749