Abstract
SummaryRobust estimates of the density or abundance of cetaceans are required to support a wide range of ecological studies and inform management decisions. Considerable effort has been put into the development of line‐transect sampling techniques to obtain estimates of absolute density from aerial‐ and boat‐based visual surveys. Surveys of cetaceans using acoustic loggers or digital cameras provide alternative methods to estimate relative density that have the potential to reduce cost and provide a verifiable record of all detections. However, the ability of these methods to provide reliable estimates of relative density has yet to be established.These methodologies were compared by conducting aerial visual line‐transect surveys (n = 10 days) and digital video strip‐transect surveys (n = 4 days) in the Moray Firth, Scotland. Simultaneous acoustic data were collected from moored echolocation detectors (C‐PODs) at 58 locations across the study site. Density surface modelling (DSM) of visual survey data was used to estimate spatial variation in relative harbour porpoise density on a 4 × 4 km grid.DSMwas also performed on the digital survey data, and the resulting model output compared to that from visual survey data. Estimates of relative density from visual surveys around acoustic monitoring sites were compared with several metrics previously used to characterise variation in acoustic detections of echolocation clicks.There was a strong correlation between estimates of relative density from visual surveys and digital video surveys (Spearman's ρ = 0·85). A correction to account for animals missed on the transect line [previously calculated for visual aerial surveys of harbour porpoise in the North Sea was used to convert relative density from the visual surveys to absolute density. This allowed calculation of the first estimate of a proxy for detection probability in digital video surveys, suggesting that 61% (CV = 0·53) of harbour porpoises were detected. There was also a strong correlation between acoustic detections and density with Spearman's ρ = 0·73 for detection positive hours.These results provide confidence in the emerging use of digital video and acoustic surveys for studying the density of small cetaceans and their responses to environmental and anthropogenic change.
Highlights
Reliable information on the distribution and density of cetaceans is required to support a wide range of fundamental and applied ecological studies (e.g. Schipper et al 2008)
Estimates of relative density from visual surveys around acoustic monitoring sites were compared with several metrics previously used to characterise variation in acoustic detections of echolocation clicks
A correction to account for animals missed on the transect line [previously calculated for visual aerial surveys of harbour porpoise in the North Sea was used to convert relative density from the visual surveys to absolute density
Summary
Reliable information on the distribution and density of cetaceans is required to support a wide range of fundamental and applied ecological studies (e.g. Schipper et al 2008). Reliable information on the distribution and density of cetaceans is required to support a wide range of fundamental and applied ecological studies The management of exploitation and bycatch has driven important developments in These requirements have spurred investigation into the use of alternative survey methods to provide more cost-effective estimates of density when addressing finer-scale questions. The development of relatively low-cost echolocation detectors and data loggers (e.g. T-PODs and C-PODs; Chelonia Ltd., MouseholeCornwall, UK) has led to their extensive use in a wide range of studies of spatiotemporal changes in distribution Brandt et al 2011; Thompson et al 2013) These studies are based on the assumption that variations in acoustic detection provide a reliable index of density; this remains untested. Methods for directly estimating absolute density from acoustic data are in development (e.g. Marques et al 2013); these remain constrained by the difficulty of estimating detection probabilities and variations in the rate at which individuals echolocate (Thomas & Marques 2012)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
