Ecoacoustics can detect ecosystem responses to environmental water allocations. (14th January 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Linke, Simon; Deretic, Jo‐Anne
• Other Names: Linke Simon guestEditor.; Gifford Toby guestEditor.; Desjonquères Camille guestEditor.
• Is Part Of: Freshwater biology. Volume 65:Number 1(2020)
• Page Start: 133
• Page End: 141
• Publication Date: 2019-01-14
• Subjects: bioacoustics -- ecoacoustics -- environmental flows -- ecological monitoring -- water allocations; Freshwater biology -- Periodicals; Biologie d'eau douce -- Périodiques; 577.605
• DOI: 10.1111/fwb.13249
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0046-5070

Abstract

Abstract: Globally, water abstraction for human consumption and irrigated agriculture leads to significant changes in aquatic ecosystems. To counter these detrimental effects, water releases—often termed environmental water allocations —restore overbank flow or are delivered to artificially disconnected wetlands. While a suite of monitoring methods is available, few programmes track continuous change in biota, mainly because repeated remote site visits can be prohibitively expensive. In this paper, we propose a new approach to environmental flow monitoring, using ecoacoustic methods. We test acoustic monitoring of frog and waterbird responses to environmental water deliveries in the Goulburn Broken, a valley in the southern Murray–Darling river system. Response to three major environmental water deliveries within 2 years was monitored at four sites along Reedy swamp. Every 2 weeks, 30 s were recorded every 30 min, for a total of 24 hr. We used two analysis strategies—manual counts of bird calls, as well as ecoacoustic indices, which describe the sonic properties of the acoustic spectrum at a site. Manual counts demonstrated that water‐dependent birds were clearly responding to environmental water deliveries, whereas non‐water‐dependent species did not show any increases in activity. After restricting the analysis to the dawn chorus of birds and frogs, two acoustic indices (the median amplitude and the acoustic complexity index) showed responses to watering events. Ecoacoustic methods show promise for continuous response monitoring to environmental water allocations. However, the first strategy—manual annotation of calls—might be too labour intensive for standard monitoring programmes. The second strategy—index‐based approaches—can also detect ecological responses, although further investigation using control sites is needed. Automated call classifiers are an alternative that is currently being developed for endangered species. We also encourage simultaneous monitoring of the soundscape above and under water.