Investigation of Unsupervised Models for Biodiversity Assessment

  • KVSN Rama Rao
  • Saurabh GargEmail author
  • James Montgomery
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11320)


Significant animal species loss has been observed in recent decades due to habitat destruction, which puts at risk environmental integrity and biodiversity. Traditional ways of assessing biodiversity are limited in terms of both time and space, and have high cost. Since the presence of animals can be indicated by sound, recently acoustic recordings have been used to estimate species richness. Bioacoustic sounds are typically recorded in habitats for several weeks, so contain a large collection of different sounds. Birds are of particular interest due to their distinctive calls and because they are useful ecological indicators. To assess biodiversity, the task of manually determining how many different types of birds are present in such a lengthy audio is really cumbersome. Towards providing an automated support to this issue, in this paper we investigate and propose a clustering based approach to assist in automated assessment of biodiversity. Our approach first estimates the number of different species and their volumes which are used for deriving a biodiversity index. Experimental results with real data indicates that our proposed approach estimates the biodiversity index value close to the ground truth.


Biodiversity Unsupervised model Bioacoustics 



This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship. We sincerely thank the Samford Ecological Research Facility (SERF), Queensland University of Technology, Australia for providing us the labelled dataset.


  1. 1.
    Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A., Mustoe, S.: Bird Census Techniques. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wimmer, J., Towsey, M., Roe, P., Williamson, I.: Sampling environmental acoustic recordings to determine bird species richness. Ecol. Appl. 23, 1419–1428 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eichinski, P., Sitbon, L., Roe, P.: Clustering acoustic events in environmental recordings for species richness surveys. Proc. Comput. Sci. 51, 640–649 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Phillips, Y.F., Towsey, M., Roe, P.: Revealing the ecological content of long-duration audio-recordings of the environment through clustering and visualisation. PloS One 13(3), e0193345 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seoane, J., Bustamante, J., Daz-Delgado, R.: Effect of expert opinion on the predictive ability of environmental models of bird distribution. Conserv. Biol. 19(2), 512–522 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Riede, K.: Monitoring biodiversity: analysis of Amazonian rainforest sounds. Ambio 546–548 (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colwell, R.K., Coddington, J.A.: Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 345(1311), 101–118 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Celis-Murillo, A., Deppe, J.L., Allen, M.F.: Using soundscape recordings to estimate bird species abundance, richness, and composition. J. Field Ornithol. 80(1), 64–78 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    BioDiversityGroup: Biodiversity Website (2017). Accessed May 2017
  10. 10.
    Cai, J., Ee, D., Pham, B., Roe, P., Zhang, J.: Sensor network for the monitoring of ecosystem: bird species recognition. In: 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information, ISSNIP 2007, pp. 293–298. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Furui, S.: Speaker-independent isolated word recognition using dynamic features of speech spectrum. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. 34(1), 52–59 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hanson, B., Applebaum, T.: Robust speaker-independent word recognition using static, dynamic and acceleration features: experiments with Lombard and noisy speech. In: 1990 International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, ICASSP-90. IEEE (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Akaike, H.: Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory, Tsahkadsor, Armenia, 28 September 1971Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schwarz, G.: Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat. 6, 461–464 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wimmer, J., Towsey, M., Roe, P., Williamson, I.: Sampling environmental acoustic recordings to determine bird species richness. Ecol. Appl. 23, 1419–1428 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thakur, A., Rajan, P.: Model-based unsupervised segmentation of birdcalls from field recordings. In: 2016 10th International Conference on Signal Processing and Communication Systems (ICSPCS), pp. 1–6. IEEE, December 2016Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Agranat, I.: Bat species identification from zero crossing and full spectrum echolocation calls using hidden Markov models, fisher scores, unsupervised clustering and balanced winnow pairwise classifiers. In: Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics ICA2013, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 010016. ASA, June 2013Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salamon, J., Bello, J.P.: Unsupervised feature learning for urban sound classification. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 171–175. IEEE, April 2015Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Somervuo, P., Härmä, A.: Analyzing bird song syllables on the self-organizing map. In: Workshop on Self-Organizing Maps (WSOM 2003), September 2003Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peet, R.K.: The measurement of species diversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5(1), 285–307 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Technology, Environments and DesignUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations