物种特征预测了非洲山区天空岛鸟类调查方法的有效性

IF 2.1 3区 生物学 Q1 ORNITHOLOGY
Ibis Pub Date : 2026-03-22 Epub Date: 2025-10-21 DOI:10.1111/ibi.13459
Vikram Malhi, Gino Brignoli, Jane Hallam, Peter Njoroge, Luc Lens, Marius Somveille, Julia J. Day
{"title":"物种特征预测了非洲山区天空岛鸟类调查方法的有效性","authors":"Vikram Malhi,&nbsp;Gino Brignoli,&nbsp;Jane Hallam,&nbsp;Peter Njoroge,&nbsp;Luc Lens,&nbsp;Marius Somveille,&nbsp;Julia J. Day","doi":"10.1111/ibi.13459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Biodiversity conservation requires effective monitoring of ecological communities in remote locations, where limited accessibility often restricts survey efforts. Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is becoming an established method for measuring biodiversity, facilitated by the increased accessibility of autonomous recording units. Comparing the performance of PAM and traditional survey methods can provide insights into how species characteristics such as foraging strata, vocal behaviour and taxonomy influence the detection ability of each method. Here, avian species occurrences were collected using PAM and point count surveys (PCS) across three forest fragments in the Taita Hills, an Afromontane sky-island in southeastern Kenya. These montane forests contain high species-richness and endemism, but they have been severely fragmented and degraded as a result of deforestation, making comprehensive monitoring critical for conservation. We grouped detected species into clusters based on their foraging strata, using partitioning around medoid cluster analysis. From 25 survey sites, PAM and PCS detected 60 and 57 species, respectively, indicating that PAM is as effective as PCS for surveying montane tropical birds. However, species that primarily foraged on the ground and secondarily used the understorey, and species that primarily used the understorey and secondarily used the canopy, were more likely to be recorded by PAM than by PCS. Species that only used the understorey were more likely to be recorded by PCS. Investigation of broad taxonomic groupings showed that PAM was 20% more likely to record non-passerines than PCS, while passerines were equally likely to be recorded by either method. This study highlights how species characteristics, such as foraging strata and taxonomic group, influence the performance of surveying methods. By identifying which species are best monitored by each method, this study can inform more targeted monitoring strategies, improving accuracy and supporting biodiversity management efforts to mitigate ongoing species loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":13254,"journal":{"name":"Ibis","volume":"168 2","pages":"520-540"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ibi.13459","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Species characteristics predict the effectiveness of avian survey methods in an Afromontane sky-island\",\"authors\":\"Vikram Malhi,&nbsp;Gino Brignoli,&nbsp;Jane Hallam,&nbsp;Peter Njoroge,&nbsp;Luc Lens,&nbsp;Marius Somveille,&nbsp;Julia J. Day\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ibi.13459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Biodiversity conservation requires effective monitoring of ecological communities in remote locations, where limited accessibility often restricts survey efforts. Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is becoming an established method for measuring biodiversity, facilitated by the increased accessibility of autonomous recording units. Comparing the performance of PAM and traditional survey methods can provide insights into how species characteristics such as foraging strata, vocal behaviour and taxonomy influence the detection ability of each method. Here, avian species occurrences were collected using PAM and point count surveys (PCS) across three forest fragments in the Taita Hills, an Afromontane sky-island in southeastern Kenya. These montane forests contain high species-richness and endemism, but they have been severely fragmented and degraded as a result of deforestation, making comprehensive monitoring critical for conservation. We grouped detected species into clusters based on their foraging strata, using partitioning around medoid cluster analysis. From 25 survey sites, PAM and PCS detected 60 and 57 species, respectively, indicating that PAM is as effective as PCS for surveying montane tropical birds. However, species that primarily foraged on the ground and secondarily used the understorey, and species that primarily used the understorey and secondarily used the canopy, were more likely to be recorded by PAM than by PCS. Species that only used the understorey were more likely to be recorded by PCS. Investigation of broad taxonomic groupings showed that PAM was 20% more likely to record non-passerines than PCS, while passerines were equally likely to be recorded by either method. This study highlights how species characteristics, such as foraging strata and taxonomic group, influence the performance of surveying methods. By identifying which species are best monitored by each method, this study can inform more targeted monitoring strategies, improving accuracy and supporting biodiversity management efforts to mitigate ongoing species loss.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ibis\",\"volume\":\"168 2\",\"pages\":\"520-540\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ibi.13459\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ibis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ibi.13459\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/10/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORNITHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ibis","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ibi.13459","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORNITHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物多样性保护需要对偏远地区的生态群落进行有效监测,而这些地区的可达性有限往往限制了调查工作。被动声学监测(PAM)正在成为测量生物多样性的一种既定方法,这得益于自主记录装置的日益普及。比较PAM和传统调查方法的性能,可以深入了解物种特征(如觅食层、发声行为和分类)如何影响每种方法的检测能力。在这里,使用PAM和点计数调查(PCS)收集了肯尼亚东南部非洲山脉天空岛泰塔山(Taita Hills)的三个森林碎片上的鸟类物种发生情况。这些山地森林拥有丰富的物种和特有的物种,但由于森林砍伐,它们已经严重破碎和退化,因此全面监测对保护至关重要。采用中间聚类分析法,将检测到的物种根据其觅食层进行聚类。在25个调查点中,PAM和PCS分别检测到60种和57种,表明PAM在山地热带鸟类调查中与PCS一样有效。然而,以地面为主要觅食地,其次利用林下的物种,以及以林下为主要觅食地,其次利用林冠的物种,PAM比PCS更容易被记录。仅利用林下层的物种更有可能被PCS记录。广泛的分类分组调查表明,PAM记录非雀形目的可能性比PCS高20%,而通过两种方法记录雀形目的可能性相同。该研究强调了物种特征,如觅食层和分类群,如何影响调查方法的性能。通过确定每种方法最适合监测的物种,本研究可以为更有针对性的监测策略提供信息,提高准确性并支持生物多样性管理工作,以减轻正在进行的物种损失。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Species characteristics predict the effectiveness of avian survey methods in an Afromontane sky-island

Species characteristics predict the effectiveness of avian survey methods in an Afromontane sky-island

Biodiversity conservation requires effective monitoring of ecological communities in remote locations, where limited accessibility often restricts survey efforts. Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is becoming an established method for measuring biodiversity, facilitated by the increased accessibility of autonomous recording units. Comparing the performance of PAM and traditional survey methods can provide insights into how species characteristics such as foraging strata, vocal behaviour and taxonomy influence the detection ability of each method. Here, avian species occurrences were collected using PAM and point count surveys (PCS) across three forest fragments in the Taita Hills, an Afromontane sky-island in southeastern Kenya. These montane forests contain high species-richness and endemism, but they have been severely fragmented and degraded as a result of deforestation, making comprehensive monitoring critical for conservation. We grouped detected species into clusters based on their foraging strata, using partitioning around medoid cluster analysis. From 25 survey sites, PAM and PCS detected 60 and 57 species, respectively, indicating that PAM is as effective as PCS for surveying montane tropical birds. However, species that primarily foraged on the ground and secondarily used the understorey, and species that primarily used the understorey and secondarily used the canopy, were more likely to be recorded by PAM than by PCS. Species that only used the understorey were more likely to be recorded by PCS. Investigation of broad taxonomic groupings showed that PAM was 20% more likely to record non-passerines than PCS, while passerines were equally likely to be recorded by either method. This study highlights how species characteristics, such as foraging strata and taxonomic group, influence the performance of surveying methods. By identifying which species are best monitored by each method, this study can inform more targeted monitoring strategies, improving accuracy and supporting biodiversity management efforts to mitigate ongoing species loss.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ibis
Ibis 生物-鸟类学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
9.50%
发文量
118
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: IBIS publishes original papers, reviews, short communications and forum articles reflecting the forefront of international research activity in ornithological science, with special emphasis on the behaviour, ecology, evolution and conservation of birds. IBIS aims to publish as rapidly as is consistent with the requirements of peer-review and normal publishing constraints.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书