Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology (한국환경생태학회지)

Korean Society of Environment and Ecology (한국환경생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparison of Bioacoustic Recording and Field Survey as Bird Survey Methods - In Dongbaek-dongsan and 1100-altitude Wetland of Jeju Island -

조류 조사 방법으로써 생물음향 녹음과 현장 조사의 비교 - 제주 동백동산과 1100고지 습지를 대상으로 -

  • Se-Jun Choi (Bird Research Center, Korea National Park Research Institute, Korea National Park Service) ;
  • Kyong-Seok Ki (Dept. of Landscape Architecture and Forest Science, Sangji Univ.)
  • 최세준 (국립공원공단 국립공원연구원 조류연구센터) ;
  • 기경석 (상지대학교 조경산림학과)
  • Received : 2023.08.06
  • Accepted : 2023.10.12
  • Published : 2023.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aimed to propose an effective method for surveying wild birds by comparing the results of bioacoustic detection with those obtained through a field survey. The study sites were located at Dongbaek-dongsan and a 1100-altitude wetland in Jeju-do, South Korea. The bioacoustic detection was conducted over the course of 12 months in 2020. For the bioacoustic detection, a Song-meter SM4 device was installed at each study site, recording bird songs in 1-min per hour, .wav, and 44,100 Hz format. The findings of the field survey were taken from the 「Long-term trends of Bird Community at Dongbaekdongsan and 1100-Highland Wetland of Jeju Island, South Korea.」 by Banjade et al. (2019). The results of this study are as follows. First, the avifauna identified using bioacoustic detection comprised 29 families and 46 species in Dongbaek-dongsan, and 16 families and 25 species in the 1100-altitude wetland. Second, based on the song frequency, the dominant species in Dongbaek-dongsan were Hypsipetes amaurotis (Brown-eared Bulbul, 33.62%), Horornis diphone (Japanese Bush Warbler, 12.13%), and Zosterops japonicus (Warbling White-eye, 9.77%). In the 1100-altitude wetland the dominant species were Corvus macrorhynchos (Large-billed Crow, 27.34%), H. diphone (19.43%), and H. amaurotis (16.56%). Third, in the field survey conducted at Dongbaek-dongsan, the number of detected bird species was 39 in 2009, 51 in 2012, 35 in 2015, and 45 in 2018, while the bioacoustic detection identified 46 species. In the field survey conducted in the 1100-altitude wetland, the number of detected bird species was 37 in 2009, 42 in 2012, 34 in 2015, and 38 in 2018, while the bioacoustics detection identified 25 species. Overall, 43.6% of the 78 species detected in the field survey in Dongbaek-dongsan (34 species) were identified using bioacoustic detection, and 38.3% of the 47 species detected in the field survey in the 1100-altitude wetland (18 species) were identified using bioacoustic detection. Fourth, the bioacoustic detection identified 9 families and 12 species of birds in Dongbaek-dongsan, and 3 families and 7 species of birds in the 1100-altitude wetland. No results from field survey were available for these species. The identified birds were predominantly nocturnal, including Otus sunia (Oriental Scops Owl) and Ninox japonica (Northern Boobook), passage migrants, including Larvivora cyane (Siberian Blue Robin), L. sibilans (Rufous-tailed Robin), and winter visitors with a relatively small number of visiting individuals, such as Bombycilla garrulus (Bohemian Waxwing) and Loxia curvirostra (Red Crossbill). Fifth, the birds detected in the field survey but not through bioacoustic detection included 18 families and 48 species in Dongbaek-dongsan and 14 families and 27 species in the 1100-altitude wetland; the most representative families were Ardeidae, Accipitridae, and Muscicapidae. This study is significant as it provides essential data supporting the possibility of an effective survey combining bioacoustic detection with field studies, given the increasing use of bioacoustic devices in ornithological studies in South Korea.

본 연구는 야생조류 생물음향 탐지와 현장 조사의 결과 비교를 통해 효과적인 야생조류 조사 방법을 제시하는데 목적이 있다. 연구대상지는 제주 동백동산과 1100고지 습지였다. 생물음향 탐지 기간은 2020년 12개월간이었다. 생물음향 탐지는 시간당 1분씩, .wav, 44,100Hz 포맷으로 생물음향 측정장비(Song meter SM4)를 각 연구대상지에 설치하여 녹음하였다. 현장 조사는 Banjade et al. (2019)의 「제주 동백동산과 1100고지 습지의 조류군집 장기간 동향」 결과를 인용하였다. 연구결과는 다음과 같다. 첫 번째, 생물음향 탐지 기법을 통해 확인된 조류상은 동백동산에서 29과 46종, 1100고지 습지에서 16과 25종이었다. 두 번째, 울음 빈도를 통해 나타난 종 구성은 동백동산에서 직박구리(33.62%), 섬휘파람새(12.13%), 동박새(9.77%) 순으로 나타났고, 1100고지 습지에서 큰부리까마귀(27.34%), 섬휘파람새(19.43%), 직박구리(16.56%) 순으로 나타났다. 세 번째, 동백동산에서 실시한 현장 조사의 경우 2009년 39종, 2012년 51종, 2015년 35종, 2018년 45종이 조사되었고, 생물음향 탐지를 통해 46종이 확인되었다. 1100고지 습지에서 실시한 현장 조사의 경우 2009년 37종, 2012년 42종, 2015년 34종, 2018년 38종이 조사되었고, 생물음향 탐지를 통해 25종이 확인되었다. 종합적으로 현장 조사를 통해 동백동산에서 확인된 78종 중 43.6%인 34종, 1100고지 습지에서 확인된 47종 중 38.3%인 18종이 생물음향 탐지로 확인되었다. 네 번째, 현장 조사에서 확인되지 않았지만, 생물음향 탐지를 통해 확인된 종은 동백동산에서 9과 12종, 1100고지 습지에서 3과 7종으로 대표적으로 소쩍새, 솔부엉이와 같은 야행성 조류, 쇠유리새, 울새와 같은 나그네새, 도래하는 개체수가 상대적으로 적은 황여새, 솔잣새와 같은 겨울철새가 있다. 다섯 번째, 현장 조사에서 확인된 종 중에서 생물음향 탐지를 통해 확인되지 않은 종은 동백동산에서 18과 48종, 1100고지 습지에서 14과 27종으로 대표적으로 백로과, 수리과, 솔딱새과가 있다. 본 연구는 국내에서 생물음향 장비 운용을 통한 조류 연구가 활성화되고 있는 가운데 현장 조사와 생물음향 탐지를 병행했을 때 효과적인 조사를 실시할 수 있다는 기초 자료를 작성했다는 점에서 의미가 있다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 한국연구재단의 연구비 지원(2020R1I1A20718911322482081470103) 및 국립공원공단, 지방유역환경청의 연구승인 하에 의해 진행하였음.

References

  1. Acevedo, M.A. and L.J. VILLANUEVA-RIVERA(2006) From the field: Using automated digital recording systems as effective tools for the monitoring of birds and amphibians. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(1): 211-214. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[211:UADRSA]2.0.CO;2
  2. Alquezar, R.D. and R.B. Machado(2015) Comparisons between autonomous acoustic recordings and avian point counts in open woodland savanna. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 127(4): 712-723. https://doi.org/10.1676/14-104.1
  3. Banjade, M., S.H. Han, Y.H. Jeong, J.W. Lee and H.S. Oh(2019) Long-term trends of bird community at Dongbaekdongsan and 1100-highland wetland of Jeju Island, South Korea. Kor. J. Orni. 26(2): 54-61. https://doi.org/10.30980/KJO.2019.12.26.2.54
  4. Bibby, C., M. Jones and S. Marsden(1998) Expedition field techniques: Bird surveys. Royal Geographical Society, London.
  5. Buxton, R.T. and I.L. Jones(2012) Measuring nocturnal seabird activity and status using acoustic recording devices: Applications for island restoration. Journal of Field Ornithology 83(1): 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1557-9263.2011.00355.x
  6. Celis-Murillo, A., J.L. Deppe and M.P. Ward(2012) Effectiveness and utility of acoustic recordings for surveying tropical birds. Journal of Field Ornithology 83(2): 166-179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1557-9263.2012.00366.x
  7. Choi, S.J. and K.S. Ki(2019) Nocturnal birds detection and ecological characteristics through bioacoustic monitoring. Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 33(6): 636-644. (in Korean with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2019.33.6.636
  8. Choi, S.J. and K.S. Ki(2022) A study on the nationwide song distribution and phenological characteristics of Fairy Pitta Pitta Nympha, an endangered species. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology 36(2): 139-149. (in Korean with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2022.36.2.139
  9. Gim, J.Y., J.Y. Lee and K.S. Ki(2017) Differences in the soundscape characteristics of a natural park and an urban park. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology 31(1): 112-118. (in Korean with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2017.31.1.112
  10. Gregory, R.D., D.W. Gibbons and P.F. Donald(2004) Bird census and survey techniques. Bird Ecology and Conservation, pp.17-56.
  11. Haselmayer, J. and J.S. Quinn(2000) A comparison of point counts and sound recording as bird survey methods in Amazonian southeast Peru. The Condor 102(4): 887-893. https://doi.org/10.1650/0010-5422(2000)102[0887:ACOPCA]2.0.CO;2
  12. Hobson, K.A., R.S. Rempel, H. Greenwood, B. Turnbull and S.L. Van Wilgenburg(2002) Acoustic surveys of birds using electronic recordings: New potential from an omnidirectional microphone system. Wildlife Society Bulletin, pp.709-720.
  13. Kahl, S., A. Navine, T. Denton, H. Klinck, P. Hart, H. Glotin, H. Goeau, W. Vellinga, R. Planque and A. Joly(2022, September) Overview of BirdCLEF 2022: Endangered bird species recognition in soundscape recordings. In Proceedings of the Working Notes of CLEF 2022-Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum.
  14. Ki, K.S., J.Y. Gim, K.S. Yoon and J.Y. Lee(2016) Effects of tropical night and light pollution on cicadas calls in urban areas. Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 30(4): 724-729. (in Korean with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2016.30.4.724
  15. Leach, E.C., C.J. Burwell, L.A. Ashton, D.N. Jones and R.L. Kitching(2016) Comparison of point counts and automated acoustic monitoring: Detecting birds in a rainforest biodiversity survey. Emu. 116(3): 305-309. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU15097
  16. Park, J.G.(2014) Identification guide to birds of Korea, checklist of organisms in Korea 12 (series). Nature and Ecology Publication, Seoul. (in Korean)
  17. Rempel, R.S., C.M. Francis, J.N. Robinson and M. Campbell(2013) Comparison of audio recording system performance for detecting and monitoring songbirds. Journal of Field Ornithology 84(1): 86-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofo.12008
  18. Robb, M. and K. Mullarney(2008) Petrels night and day: A sound approach. Dorset: The Sound Approach.
  19. Simons, T.R., M.W. Alldredge, K.H. Pollock and J.M. Wettroth(2007) Experimental analysis of the auditory detection process on avian point counts. The Auk 124(3): 986-999. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/124.3.986
  20. Venier, L.A., S.B. Homes, G.W. Holborn, K.A. Mcilwrick and G. Brown(2012) Evaluation of an automated recording device for monitoring forest birds. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36(1): 30-39. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.88
  21. Vold, S.T., C.M. Handel and L.B. McNew(2017) Comparison of acoustic recorders and field observers for monitoring tundra bird communities. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41(3): 566-576. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.785
  22. Vu, T.T. and D. Van Tran(2020) Using autonomous recorders and bioacoustics to monitor the globally endangered wildlife in the Annamite mountain landscape: A case study with crested argus in Song Thanh Nature Reserve. Journal for Nature Conservation 56: 125843.
  23. Wheeldon, A., H.L. Mossman, M.J. Sullivan, J. Mathenge and S.R. De Kort(2019) Comparison of acoustic and traditional point count methods to assess bird diversity and composition in the Aberdare National Park, Kenya. African Journal of Ecology 57(2): 168-176. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12596
  24. Wilson, R.R., D.J. Twedt and A.B. Elliott(2000) Comparison of line transects and point counts for monitoring spring migration in forested wetlands. Journal of Field Ornithology 71(2): 345-355. https://doi.org/10.1648/0273-8570-71.2.345
  25. Zwart, M.C., A. Baker, P.J. McGowan and M.J. Whittingham(2014) The use of automated bioacoustic recorders to replace human wildlife surveys: An example using nightjars. PloS One 9(7): e102770.