Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 16, Issue 14, pp 4081–4093 | Cite as

Psychoacoustic sampling as a reliable, non-invasive method to monitor orthopteran species diversity in tropical forests

Original Paper


We evaluated trained listener—based acoustic sampling as a reliable and non-invasive method for rapid assessment of ensiferan species diversity in tropical evergreen forests. This was done by evaluating the reliability of identification of species and numbers of calling individuals using psychoacoustic experiments in the laboratory and by comparing psychoacoustic sampling in the field with ambient noise recordings made at the same time. The reliability of correct species identification by the trained listener was 100 % for 16 out of 20 species tested in the laboratory. The reliability of identifying the numbers of individuals correctly was 100% for 13 out of 20 species. The human listener performed slightly better than the instrument in detecting low frequency and broadband calls in the field, whereas the recorder detected high frequency calls with greater probability. To address the problem of pseudoreplication during spot sampling in the field, we monitored the movement of calling individuals using focal animal sampling. The average distance moved by calling individuals for 17 out of 20 species was less than 1.5 m in half an hour. We suggest that trained listener—based sampling is preferable for crickets and low frequency katydids, whereas broadband recorders are preferable for katydid species with high frequency calls for accurate estimation of ensiferan species richness and relative abundance in an area.


Acoustic monitoring Ambient noise recordings Crickets Focal animal sampling Hearing threshold India Katydids Species diversity Tropical forests 


  1. Alexander RD (1967) Acoustical communication in arthropods. Ann Rev Entomol 12:495–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson SE, Dave AS, Margoliash D (1996) Template-based automatic recognition of birdsong syllables from continuous recordings. J Acous Soc Am 100:1209–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennet-Clark HC (1989) Song and the physics of sound production. In: Huber F, Moore TE, Loher W (eds) Cricket Behavior and Neurobiology. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA (1992) Bird census techniques. Academic Press, London EnglandGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandes TS, Naskrecki P, Figueroa HK (2006) Using image processing to detect and classify narrow – band cricket and frog calls. J Acous Soc Am 120:2950–2957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bridges AS, Dorcas ME (2000) Temporal variation in anuran calling behaviour: Implications for surveys and monitoring programs. Copeia 2:587–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diwakar S, Balakrishnan R (2006) Male and female stridulation in an Indian weta (Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae). Bioacoustics 16:75–85Google Scholar
  8. Diwakar S, Balakrishnan R (in press) The assemblage of acoustically communicating crickets of a tropical evergreen forest in Southern India: call diversity and diel calling patterns. BioacousticsGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer FP, Schulz U, Schubert H, Knapp P, Schmöger M (1997) Quantitative assessment of grassland quality: acoustic determination of population sizes of orthopteran indicator species. Ecol Appl 7:909–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forrest TG (1988) Using insect sounds to estimate and monitor their populations. Fla Entomol 71:416–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaston KJ, May RM (1992) Taxonomy of taxonomists. Nature 356:281–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haselmayer J, Quinn JS (2000) A comparison of point counts and sound recording as bird methods in Amazonian southeast Peru. Condor 102:887–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heyer W, McDiarmid RW, Donnelly M, Hayek L (eds) (1994) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity – standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Nischk F, Riede K (2001) Bioacoustics of two cloud forest ecosystems in Ecuador compared to a lowland rainforest with special emphasis on singing cricket species. In: Neider J, Barthlott W (eds) Epiphytes and canopy fauna of the Otongan rainforest (Ecuador), vol 2. Results of the Bonn-Quito Epiphyte Project, funded by Volkswagen Foundation. pp 217–242Google Scholar
  15. Nityananda V, Balakrishnan R (2006) A diversity of songs among morphologically indistinguishable katydids of the genus Mecopoda (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) from Southern India. Bioacoustics 15:223–250Google Scholar
  16. O’Farrell MJ, Gannon WL (1999) A comparison of acoustic versus capture techniques for the inventory of bats. J Mammal 80:24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Otte D (1994) The crickets of Hawaii. Origin, systematics and evolution. The Orthopterist’s Society at the Academy of Natural Sciences, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  18. Parsons S, Jones G (2000) Acoustic identification of 12 species of echolocating bats by discriminant function analysis and artificial neural networks. J Exp Biol 203:2641–2656PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Riede K (1993) Monitoring Biodiversity: Analysis of Amazonian rainforest sounds. Ambio 22:546–548Google Scholar
  20. Riede K (1997) Bioacoustic monitoring of insect communities in a Bornean rainforest canopy. In: Stork NE et al (eds) Canopy Arthropods. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 442–452Google Scholar
  21. Riede K (1998) Acoustic monitoring of Orthoptera and its potential for conservation. J Insect Conserv 2:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Riede K, Nischk F, Dietrich C, Thiel C, Schwenker F (2006) Automated annotation of Orthoptera songs: first results from analysing the DORSA sound repository. J Orth Res 15:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stork NE (1988) Insect diversity: facts, fiction and speculation. Biol J Linn Soc 35:321–337Google Scholar
  24. Vaughan N, Jones G, Harris H (1997) Identification of British bat species by multivariate analysis of echolocation call parameters. Bioacoustics 7:189–207Google Scholar
  25. Walker TI (1964) Cryptic species among sound – producing ensiferan Orthoptera (Gryllidae and Tettigoniidae). Q Rev Biol 39:345–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilson EO (1989) Threats to biodiversity. Sci Am 60:60–66Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Swati Diwakar
    • 1
  • Manjari Jain
    • 1
  • Rohini Balakrishnan
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Ecological SciencesIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations