Automated echolocation classifiers vary in accuracy for northeastern U.S. bat species
Acoustic surveys of bat echolocation calls are an important management tool for determining presence and probable absence of threatened and endangered bat species. In the northeastern United States, software programs such as Bat Call Identification (BCID), Kaleidoscope Pro (KPro), and Sonobat can au...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2024-06, Vol.19 (6), p.e0300664-e0300664 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0300664 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | e0300664 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Solick, Donald I Hopp, Bradley H Chenger, John Newman, Christian M |
description | Acoustic surveys of bat echolocation calls are an important management tool for determining presence and probable absence of threatened and endangered bat species. In the northeastern United States, software programs such as Bat Call Identification (BCID), Kaleidoscope Pro (KPro), and Sonobat can automatically classify ultrasonic detector sound files, yet the programs' accuracy in correctly classifying calls to species has not been independently assessed. We used 1,500 full-spectrum reference calls with known identities for nine northeastern United States bat species to test the accuracy of these programs using calculations of Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), Sensitivity (SN), Specificity (SP), Overall Accuracy, and No Information Rate. We found that BCID performed less accurately than other programs, likely because it only operates on zero-crossing data and may be less accurate for recordings converted from full-spectrum to zero-crossing. NPV and SP values were high across all species categories for SonoBat and KPro, indicating these programs' success at avoiding false positives. However, PPV and SN values were relatively low, particularly for individual Myotis species, indicating these programs are prone to false negatives. SonoBat and KPro performed better when distinguishing Myotis species from non-Myotis species. We expect less accuracy from these programs for acoustic recordings collected under normal working conditions, and caution that a bat acoustic expert should verify automatically classified files when making species-specific regulatory or conservation decisions. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0300664 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_3069269493</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A796141772</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_ac13d4bf043e4173a859d6d531f580a5</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A796141772</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-d527t-9782d0058bfdccba56d622f29e19e0b9b7515d86590bdd849b1396423361965c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl1rFDEUhgdRbK3-A9EBQfRix3xPciVL8WOhULCutyGTZHazZCdrkin235u2o-xILyQXCSfPec95D6eqXkLQQNzCD7swxkH55hAG2wAMAGPkUXUKBUYLhgB-fPQ-qZ6ltAOAYs7Y0-oEc44EJ-1ptV6OOexVtqa2eht80Cq7MNTaq5Rc72xM9bWKN7UbaqX1GJW-qfsQ6yHEvLUqZRuHet1cNXWncp0OVjubnldPeuWTfTHdZ9X686fv518XF5dfVufLi4WhqM0L0XJkSle8643WnaLMMIR6JCwUFnSiaymkhjMqQGcMJ6KDWDCCMGZQMKrxWfX6XvfgQ5LTRJLEgAnEBBG4EKt7wgS1k4fo9sWMDMrJu0CIG6lidtpbqTTEhnQ9INgS2GLFqTDMUAx7yoGiRevjVG3s9tZoO-So_Ex0_jO4rdyEawkhJIxxXhTeTQox_BxtynLvkrbeq8GG8a5xUmqRti3om3_Qh-1N1EYVB27oQymsb0XlshUMFh8tKlTzAFWOsXuny_70rsRnCe9nCYXJ9lfeqDElubr69v_s5Y85-_aILevj8zYFP96uXJqDr45H_XfGfxYX_wa27ex-</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3069269493</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Automated echolocation classifiers vary in accuracy for northeastern U.S. bat species</title><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PubMed Central(OA)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Solick, Donald I ; Hopp, Bradley H ; Chenger, John ; Newman, Christian M</creator><creatorcontrib>Solick, Donald I ; Hopp, Bradley H ; Chenger, John ; Newman, Christian M</creatorcontrib><description>Acoustic surveys of bat echolocation calls are an important management tool for determining presence and probable absence of threatened and endangered bat species. In the northeastern United States, software programs such as Bat Call Identification (BCID), Kaleidoscope Pro (KPro), and Sonobat can automatically classify ultrasonic detector sound files, yet the programs' accuracy in correctly classifying calls to species has not been independently assessed. We used 1,500 full-spectrum reference calls with known identities for nine northeastern United States bat species to test the accuracy of these programs using calculations of Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), Sensitivity (SN), Specificity (SP), Overall Accuracy, and No Information Rate. We found that BCID performed less accurately than other programs, likely because it only operates on zero-crossing data and may be less accurate for recordings converted from full-spectrum to zero-crossing. NPV and SP values were high across all species categories for SonoBat and KPro, indicating these programs' success at avoiding false positives. However, PPV and SN values were relatively low, particularly for individual Myotis species, indicating these programs are prone to false negatives. SonoBat and KPro performed better when distinguishing Myotis species from non-Myotis species. We expect less accuracy from these programs for acoustic recordings collected under normal working conditions, and caution that a bat acoustic expert should verify automatically classified files when making species-specific regulatory or conservation decisions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300664</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38829847</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Acoustic properties ; Acoustics ; Agreements ; Animals ; Automation ; Bats ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Chiroptera - classification ; Chiroptera - physiology ; Classification ; Computer and Information Sciences ; Datasets ; Echolocation ; Echolocation - physiology ; Ecology and Environmental Sciences ; Endangered & extinct species ; Endangered species ; Engineering and Technology ; Management decisions ; Myotis ; New England ; Physical Sciences ; Population decline ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Sensors ; Social Sciences ; Software ; Species Specificity ; Threatened species ; Ultrasonic testing ; Vocalization, Animal - physiology ; Wildlife conservation ; Wind power ; Working conditions</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2024-06, Vol.19 (6), p.e0300664-e0300664</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2024 Solick et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2024 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2024 Solick et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2024 Solick et al 2024 Solick et al</rights><rights>2024 Solick et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0009-0006-7539-5133</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11146688/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11146688/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38829847$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Solick, Donald I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hopp, Bradley H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chenger, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Newman, Christian M</creatorcontrib><title>Automated echolocation classifiers vary in accuracy for northeastern U.S. bat species</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Acoustic surveys of bat echolocation calls are an important management tool for determining presence and probable absence of threatened and endangered bat species. In the northeastern United States, software programs such as Bat Call Identification (BCID), Kaleidoscope Pro (KPro), and Sonobat can automatically classify ultrasonic detector sound files, yet the programs' accuracy in correctly classifying calls to species has not been independently assessed. We used 1,500 full-spectrum reference calls with known identities for nine northeastern United States bat species to test the accuracy of these programs using calculations of Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), Sensitivity (SN), Specificity (SP), Overall Accuracy, and No Information Rate. We found that BCID performed less accurately than other programs, likely because it only operates on zero-crossing data and may be less accurate for recordings converted from full-spectrum to zero-crossing. NPV and SP values were high across all species categories for SonoBat and KPro, indicating these programs' success at avoiding false positives. However, PPV and SN values were relatively low, particularly for individual Myotis species, indicating these programs are prone to false negatives. SonoBat and KPro performed better when distinguishing Myotis species from non-Myotis species. We expect less accuracy from these programs for acoustic recordings collected under normal working conditions, and caution that a bat acoustic expert should verify automatically classified files when making species-specific regulatory or conservation decisions.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Acoustic properties</subject><subject>Acoustics</subject><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Automation</subject><subject>Bats</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Chiroptera - classification</subject><subject>Chiroptera - physiology</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Computer and Information Sciences</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Echolocation</subject><subject>Echolocation - physiology</subject><subject>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Endangered & extinct species</subject><subject>Endangered species</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Management decisions</subject><subject>Myotis</subject><subject>New England</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Population decline</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Sensors</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Species Specificity</subject><subject>Threatened species</subject><subject>Ultrasonic testing</subject><subject>Vocalization, Animal - physiology</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><subject>Wind power</subject><subject>Working conditions</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl1rFDEUhgdRbK3-A9EBQfRix3xPciVL8WOhULCutyGTZHazZCdrkin235u2o-xILyQXCSfPec95D6eqXkLQQNzCD7swxkH55hAG2wAMAGPkUXUKBUYLhgB-fPQ-qZ6ltAOAYs7Y0-oEc44EJ-1ptV6OOexVtqa2eht80Cq7MNTaq5Rc72xM9bWKN7UbaqX1GJW-qfsQ6yHEvLUqZRuHet1cNXWncp0OVjubnldPeuWTfTHdZ9X686fv518XF5dfVufLi4WhqM0L0XJkSle8643WnaLMMIR6JCwUFnSiaymkhjMqQGcMJ6KDWDCCMGZQMKrxWfX6XvfgQ5LTRJLEgAnEBBG4EKt7wgS1k4fo9sWMDMrJu0CIG6lidtpbqTTEhnQ9INgS2GLFqTDMUAx7yoGiRevjVG3s9tZoO-So_Ex0_jO4rdyEawkhJIxxXhTeTQox_BxtynLvkrbeq8GG8a5xUmqRti3om3_Qh-1N1EYVB27oQymsb0XlshUMFh8tKlTzAFWOsXuny_70rsRnCe9nCYXJ9lfeqDElubr69v_s5Y85-_aILevj8zYFP96uXJqDr45H_XfGfxYX_wa27ex-</recordid><startdate>20240603</startdate><enddate>20240603</enddate><creator>Solick, Donald I</creator><creator>Hopp, Bradley H</creator><creator>Chenger, John</creator><creator>Newman, Christian M</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7539-5133</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240603</creationdate><title>Automated echolocation classifiers vary in accuracy for northeastern U.S. bat species</title><author>Solick, Donald I ; Hopp, Bradley H ; Chenger, John ; Newman, Christian M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-d527t-9782d0058bfdccba56d622f29e19e0b9b7515d86590bdd849b1396423361965c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Acoustic properties</topic><topic>Acoustics</topic><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Automation</topic><topic>Bats</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Chiroptera - classification</topic><topic>Chiroptera - physiology</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Computer and Information Sciences</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Echolocation</topic><topic>Echolocation - physiology</topic><topic>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Endangered & extinct species</topic><topic>Endangered species</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Management decisions</topic><topic>Myotis</topic><topic>New England</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Population decline</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Sensors</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Species Specificity</topic><topic>Threatened species</topic><topic>Ultrasonic testing</topic><topic>Vocalization, Animal - physiology</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><topic>Wind power</topic><topic>Working conditions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Solick, Donald I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hopp, Bradley H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chenger, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Newman, Christian M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Complete (ProQuest Database)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database (1962 - current)</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies & aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials science collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Solick, Donald I</au><au>Hopp, Bradley H</au><au>Chenger, John</au><au>Newman, Christian M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Automated echolocation classifiers vary in accuracy for northeastern U.S. bat species</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2024-06-03</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e0300664</spage><epage>e0300664</epage><pages>e0300664-e0300664</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Acoustic surveys of bat echolocation calls are an important management tool for determining presence and probable absence of threatened and endangered bat species. In the northeastern United States, software programs such as Bat Call Identification (BCID), Kaleidoscope Pro (KPro), and Sonobat can automatically classify ultrasonic detector sound files, yet the programs' accuracy in correctly classifying calls to species has not been independently assessed. We used 1,500 full-spectrum reference calls with known identities for nine northeastern United States bat species to test the accuracy of these programs using calculations of Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), Sensitivity (SN), Specificity (SP), Overall Accuracy, and No Information Rate. We found that BCID performed less accurately than other programs, likely because it only operates on zero-crossing data and may be less accurate for recordings converted from full-spectrum to zero-crossing. NPV and SP values were high across all species categories for SonoBat and KPro, indicating these programs' success at avoiding false positives. However, PPV and SN values were relatively low, particularly for individual Myotis species, indicating these programs are prone to false negatives. SonoBat and KPro performed better when distinguishing Myotis species from non-Myotis species. We expect less accuracy from these programs for acoustic recordings collected under normal working conditions, and caution that a bat acoustic expert should verify automatically classified files when making species-specific regulatory or conservation decisions.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>38829847</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0300664</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7539-5133</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2024-06, Vol.19 (6), p.e0300664-e0300664 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_3069269493 |
source | Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; MEDLINE; PubMed Central(OA); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Directory of Open Access Journals; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Accuracy Acoustic properties Acoustics Agreements Animals Automation Bats Biology and Life Sciences Chiroptera - classification Chiroptera - physiology Classification Computer and Information Sciences Datasets Echolocation Echolocation - physiology Ecology and Environmental Sciences Endangered & extinct species Endangered species Engineering and Technology Management decisions Myotis New England Physical Sciences Population decline Research and Analysis Methods Sensors Social Sciences Software Species Specificity Threatened species Ultrasonic testing Vocalization, Animal - physiology Wildlife conservation Wind power Working conditions |
title | Automated echolocation classifiers vary in accuracy for northeastern U.S. bat species |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T09%3A49%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Automated%20echolocation%20classifiers%20vary%20in%20accuracy%20for%20northeastern%20U.S.%20bat%20species&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Solick,%20Donald%20I&rft.date=2024-06-03&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e0300664&rft.epage=e0300664&rft.pages=e0300664-e0300664&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0300664&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA796141772%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3069269493&rft_id=info:pmid/38829847&rft_galeid=A796141772&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_ac13d4bf043e4173a859d6d531f580a5&rfr_iscdi=true |