Two listeners detect slightly more birds than a single listener when interpreting acoustic recordings

Acoustic recorders are increasingly important for monitoring bird populations and have potential to augment existing monitoring programs such as the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). An advantage of acoustic recordings is that they can be reviewed multiple times by multiple experts, potentially yielding improved estimates of species abundance and community richness. Yet, few studies have examined how frequently successive listeners disagree on acoustic interpretations and how strongly estimates of species richness and abundance are altered when multiple experts review each recording. We assigned multiple expert listeners to interpret recordings at 690 BBS stops, and subsequently assigned second listeners to conduct a review of first listeners’ interpretations. We examined the extent to which listeners agreed with each other and quantified the effect of disagreements on resultant estimates of species occurrence, abundance, and stop-level richness. We also compared estimates from acoustic recordings to those obtained during simultaneous field surveys. Estimates were highly correlated for number of species per stop (r = 0.92) and detection probabilities of species (r = 0.97) based on first and second-listener data. Second listeners disagreed with ~9% of first listeners’ interpretations and added an average of ~15% additional species and 16% additional birds not reported by first listeners. Estimates based on acoustic recordings were also highly correlated with those obtained from field surveys, though listeners were unable to count flocks. A single expert reviewer can provide a reasonable approximation of the relative abundance and species composition of birds available for acoustic detection during BBSs. However, acoustic review by multiple listeners may still be important for species that are rare, difficult to identify, or of high conservation concern.