Comparing the performance of C-PODs and SoundTrap/PAMGUARD in detecting the acoustic activity of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena)

16Citations
Citations of this article
112Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The C-POD logger is a widely used instrument for passive acoustic monitoring of harbor porpoises, but the absence of a continuous recording in this device makes it difficult to verify its performance. An alternative but more labor-intensive approach is to use a wideband sound recorder and off-line detection software. Here we compare the performance of the C-POD with that of a HF SoundTrap recorder analysed with PAMGUARD software. Seven deployments were made with C-PODs and SoundTraps in the Danish Great and Little Belts between June and November, 2015. There was a positive but generally poor correlation between PAMGUARD and C-POD detections, with the C-PODs detecting only about 21-94% of the click trains detected by PAMGUARD based on the broadband recordings. The main explanation behind this poor correspondence is likely that PAMGUARD performs classification on single clicks, whereas the C-POD classifies groups of clicks ('trains') collectively. Such poor correlation between two common methods can have severe implications for conclusions reached in effect and abundance studies.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sarnocinska, J., Tougaard, J., Johnson, M., Madsen, P. T., & Wahlberg, M. (2016). Comparing the performance of C-PODs and SoundTrap/PAMGUARD in detecting the acoustic activity of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). In Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics (Vol. 27). Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000288

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free