To bag or not to bag? How AudioMoth-based passive acoustic monitoring Is impacted by protective coverings

Abstract

Bare board AudioMoth recorders offer a low-cost, open-source solution to passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) but need protecting in an enclosure. We were concerned that the choice of enclosure may alter the spectral characteristics of recordings. We focus on polythene bags as the simplest enclosure and assess how their use affects acoustic metrics. Using an anechoic chamber, a series of pure sinusoidal tones from 100 Hz to 20 kHz were recorded on 10 AudioMoth devices and a calibrated Class 1 sound level meter. The recordings were made on bare board AudioMoth devices, as well as after covering them with different bags. Linear phase finite impulse response filters were designed to replicate the frequency response functions between the incident pressure wave and the recorded signals. We applied these filters to ~1000 sound recordings to assess the effects of the AudioMoth and the bags on 19 acoustic metrics. While bare board AudioMoth showed very consistent spectral responses with accentuation in the higher frequencies, bag enclosures led to significant and erratic attenuation inconsistent between frequencies. Few acoustic metrics were insensitive to this uncertainty, rendering index comparisons unreliable. Biases due to enclosures on PAM devices may need to be considered when choosing appropriate acoustic indices for ecological studies. Archived recordings without adequate metadata may potentially produce biased acoustic index values and should be treated cautiously.

More information

Identifiers

ORCID for Patrick E. Osborne: orcid.org/0000-0001-8919-5710

ORCID for Paul R. White: orcid.org/0000-0002-4787-8713

Catalogue record

Export record

Altmetrics