Landscape and Ecological Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 121–130 | Cite as

Dominant power spectrums as a tool to establish an ecoacoustic baseline in a premontane moist forest

  • J. AlmeiraEmail author
  • S. Guecha


The establishment of a soundscape baseline might allow the rapid detection of significant environmental changes and could potentially be a holistic instrument for biome conservation. Due to the diversity and variability of the sounds produced in an ecosystem, the establishment of a baseline is complex. Thus we evaluated if, in an ever-changing soundscape, it was possible to find dominant acoustic features on a monthly and hourly scale. Dominant power spectrums (PSs) in an area of premontane moist forest were identified by correlating PSs from February to December 2015, calculating the linear correlation between them, and defining a set of PSs that were strongly correlated (Pearson > = 0.95) to most of the obtained PSs. For any two PSs, the Pearson coefficient > = 0.95 accounted for an equivalence relation between the PSs; these relations allowed us to group spectrums into a few sets. In the daytime, 7.3% (eight out of 109 PSs) of the PSs (i.e., the dominant spectrums) were strongly correlated to 80.7% of the obtained PSs; the remaining 19.3% were singular PSs, weakly correlated to other diurnal PSs. During the night, 6.06% (four out of 66 PSs) of the PSs (i.e., the dominant spectrums) were strongly correlated to 53.0% of the obtained PSs; the remaining 47.0% were singular PSs, weakly correlated to other nocturnal PSs. Strong correlations between the PSs on an hourly scale and monthly scale could be used to denote features that prevail over time. The occurrence of strong associations between PSs (i.e., > 0.98) in spectrums from different months suggests that the generation of sound in the studied forest has a well-defined frequency distribution.


Day-night cycle Soundscape Equivalence relation Acoustic diversity 



We are grateful to Prof. Juan Pablo Gomez for all his valuable insights and advice on the data analysis.


  1. Aide TM, Corrada-Bravo C, Campos-Cerqueira M et al (2013) Real-time bioacoustics monitoring and automated species identification. PeerJ 1:e103. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Balakrishnan R (2005) Species concepts, species boundaries and species identification: a view from the tropics. Syst Biol 54:689–693. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Conti ME, Cecchetti G (2001) Biological monitoring: lichens as bioindicators of air pollution assessment—a review. Environ Pollut 114:471–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deichmann JL, Hernández-Serna A, Delgado CJA et al (2017) Soundscape analysis and acoustic monitoring document impacts of natural gas exploration on biodiversity in a tropical forest. Ecol Indic 74:39–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farina A, Ceraulo M, Bobryk C et al (2015) Spatial and temporal variation of bird dawn chorus and successive acoustic morning activity in a Mediterranean landscape. Bioacoustics 24(3):269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fuller S, Axel AC, Tucker D, Gage SH (2015) Connecting soundscape to landscape: which acoustic index best describes landscape configuration? Ecol Indic 58:207–215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gasc A, Sueur J, Pavoine S et al (2013) Biodiversity sampling using a global acoustic approach: contrasting sites with microendemics in New Caledonia. PLoS One 8:e65311. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Gasc A, Pavoine S, Lellouch L et al (2015) Acoustic indices for biodiversity assessments: analyses of bias based on simulated bird assemblages and recommendations for field surveys. Biol Conserv 191:306–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gasc A, Anso J, Sueur J et al (2017) Cricket calling communities as an indicator of the invasive ant Wasmannia auropunctata in an insular biodiversity hotspot. Biol Invasions. Google Scholar
  10. Gaston KJ, O’Neill MA (2004) Automated species identification: why not? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359:655–667CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones G, Jacobs D, Kunz T et al (2009) Carpe noctem: the importance of bats as bioindicators. Endanger Species Res 8:93–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lengagne T, Slater PJB (2002) The effects of rain on acoustic communication: tawny owls have good reason for calling less in wet weather. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 269:2121–2125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mazaris AD, Kallimanis AS, Chatzigianidis G et al (2009) Spatiotemporal analysis of an acoustic environment: interactions between landscape features and sounds. Landsc Ecol 24:817–831. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mullet TC, Gage SH, Morton JM, Huettmann F (2016) Temporal and spatial variation of a winter soundscape in south-central Alaska. Landsc Ecol 31:1117–1137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pijanowski BC, Farina A, Gage SH et al (2011a) What is soundscape ecology? An introduction and overview of an emerging new science. Landsc Ecol 26:1213–1232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pijanowski BC, Villanueva-Rivera LJ, Dumyahn SL et al (2011b) Soundscape ecology: the science of sound in the landscape. Bioscience 61:203–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rainio J, Niemelä J (2003) Ground beetles (Coleoptera: carabidae) as bioindicators. Biodivers Conserv 12:487–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sueur J, Pavoine S, Hamerlynck O, Duvail S (2008) Rapid acoustic survey for biodiversity appraisal. PLoS One 3:e4065. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V et al (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ulloa JS, Gasc A, Gaucher P et al (2016) Screening large audio datasets to determine the time and space distribution of screaming piha birds in a tropical forest. Ecol Inform 31:91–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Consortium of Landscape and Ecological Engineering and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Engineering FacultyUniversidad LibreSocorroColombia

Personalised recommendations