@article{root-gutteridge_smith_kershenbaum_butkiewicz_fontaine_owens_schindler_dassow_2024, title={Not afraid of the big bad wolf: calls from large predators do not silence mesopredators}, volume={2}, ISSN={["1903-220X"]}, DOI={10.1002/wlb3.01226}, abstractNote={Large predators are known to shape the behavior and ecology of sympatric predators via conflict and competition, with mesopredators thought to avoid large predators, while dogs suppress predator activity and act as guardians of human property. However, interspecific communication between predators has not been well‐explored and this assumption of avoidance may oversimplify the responses of the species involved. We explored the acoustic activity of three closely related sympatric canids: wolves Canis lupus, coyotes Canis latrans, and dogs Canis familiaris. These species have an unbalanced triangle of risk: coyotes, as mesopredators, are at risk from both apex‐predator wolves and human‐associated dogs, while wolves fear dogs, and dogs may fear wolves as apex predators or challenge them as intruders into human‐allied spaces. We predicted that risk perception would dictate vocal response with wolves and dogs silencing coyotes as well as dogs silencing wolves. Dogs, in their protective role of guarding human property, would respond to both. Eleven passive acoustic monitoring devices were deployed across 13 nights in central Wisconsin, and we measured the responses of each species to naturally occurring heterospecific vocalizations. Against our expectation, silencing did not occur. Instead, coyotes were not silenced by either species: when hearing wolves, coyotes responded at greater than chance rates and when hearing dogs, coyotes did not produce fewer calls than chance rates. Similarly, wolves responded at above chance rates to coyotes and at chance rates when hearing dogs. Only the dogs followed our prediction and responded at above chance rates in response to both coyotes and wolves. Thus, instead of silencing their competitors, canid vocalizations elicit responses from them suggesting the existence of a complex heterospecific communication network.}, journal={WILDLIFE BIOLOGY}, author={Root-Gutteridge, Holly and Smith, Bethany R. and Kershenbaum, Arik and Butkiewicz, Hannah and Fontaine, Amy Clare and Owens, Jessica L. and Schindler, Loretta and Dassow, Angela}, year={2024}, month={Feb} }
 @article{bru_smith_butkiewicz_fontaine_dassow_owens_root-gutteridge_schindler_kershenbaum_2023, title={Combining acoustic localisation and high-resolution land cover classification to study predator vocalisation behaviour}, volume={2}, ISSN={["1448-5494"]}, DOI={10.1071/WR22007}, abstractNote={Context   The ecology of cryptic animals is difficult to study without invasive tagging approaches or labour-intensive field surveys. Acoustic localisation provides an effective way to locate vocalising animals using acoustic recorders. Combining this with land cover classification gives new insight into wild animal behaviour using non-invasive tools.     Aims   This study aims to demonstrate how acoustic localisation – combined with high-resolution land cover classification – permits the study of the ecology of vocalising animals in the wild. We illustrate this technique by investigating the effect of land cover and distances to anthropogenic features on coyote and wolf vocal behaviour.     Methods   We collected recordings over 13 days in Wisconsin, USA, and triangulated vocalising animals’ locations using acoustic localisation. We then mapped these locations onto land cover using a high-resolution land cover map we produced for the area.     Key results   Neither coyotes nor wolves vocalised more in one habitat type over another. Coyotes vocalised significantly closer to all human features than expected by chance, whereas wolves vocalised significantly further away. When vocalising closer to human features, coyotes selected forests but wolves showed no habitat preference.     Conclusions   This novel combination of two sophisticated, autonomous sensing-driven tools permits us to examine animal land use and behavioural ecology using passive sensors, with the aim of drawing ecologically important conclusions.     Implications   We envisage that this method can be used at larger scales to aid monitoring of vocally active animals across landscapes. Firstly, it permits us to characterise habitat use while vocalising, which is an essential behaviour for many species. Furthermore, if combined with additional knowledge of how a species’ habitat selection while vocalising relates to its general habitat use, this method could permit the derivation of future conclusions on prevailing landscape use. In summary, this study demonstrates the potential of integrating acoustic localisation with land cover classification in ecological research.}, journal={WILDLIFE RESEARCH}, author={Bru, Elisabeth and Smith, Bethany R. and Butkiewicz, Hannah and Fontaine, Amy C. and Dassow, Angela and Owens, Jessica L. and Root-Gutteridge, Holly and Schindler, Loretta and Kershenbaum, Arik}, year={2023}, month={Feb} }
 @article{smith_root-gutteridge_butkiewicz_dassow_fontaine_markham_owens_schindler_wijers_kershenbaum_2021, title={Acoustic localisation of wildlife with low-cost equipment: lower sensitivity, but no loss of precision}, volume={49}, DOI={10.1071/wr21089}, abstractNote={Abstract   Context  Synchronised acoustic recorders can be used as a non-invasive tool to detect and localise sounds of interest, including vocal wildlife and anthropogenic sounds. Due to the high cost of commercial synchronised recorders, acoustic localisation has typically been restricted to small or well funded surveys. Recently, low-cost acoustic recorders have been developed, but until now their efficacy has not been compared with higher specification recorders.   Aims  The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of a newly developed low-cost recorder, the Conservation at Range through Audio Classification and Localisation (CARACAL), with an established, high-end recorder, the Wildlife Acoustics Song Meter (SM).   Methods  Four recorders of each type were deployed in a paired set-up across five nights in Wisconsin, USA. The recordings allowed for manual identification of domestic dog (Canis familiaris), grey wolf (Canis lupus), coyote (Canis latrans) and barred owl (Strix varia) calls, and then the ability of each recorder type to detect and localise the vocalising animals was compared.   Key results  The CARACALs were less sensitive, detecting only 47.5% of wolf, 55% of coyote, 65% of barred owl and 82.5% of dog vocalisations detected by the paired SMs. However, when the same vocalisations were detected on both recorders, localisation was comparable, with no significant difference in the precision or maximum detection ranges.   Conclusions  Low-cost recording equipment can be used effectively for acoustic localisation of both wild and domestic animals. However, the lower sensitivity of the CARACALs means that a denser network of these recorders would be needed to achieve the same efficacy as the SMs. Deploying a greater number of cheaper recorders increases the labour time in the field and the quantity of data to process and store. Thus, there is a trade-off between cost and time to be considered.   Implications  The ability to use low-cost recorders for acoustic localisation provides new avenues for tracking, managing and researching a wide range of wildlife species. Presently, CARACALs are more suited to monitoring species that have small home ranges and high amplitude vocalisations, and for when a large time investment for in situ equipment checks and data processing is feasible.}, number={4}, journal={Wildlife Research}, publisher={CSIRO Publishing}, author={Smith, Bethany R. and Root-Gutteridge, Holly and Butkiewicz, Hannah and Dassow, Angela and Fontaine, Amy C. and Markham, Andrew and Owens, Jessica and Schindler, Loretta and Wijers, Matthew and Kershenbaum, Arik}, year={2021}, pages={372–381} }
 @article{owens_olsen_fontaine_kloth_kershenbaum_waller_2017, title={Visual classification of feral cat Felis silvestris catus vocalizations}, volume={63}, DOI={10.1093/cz/zox013}, abstractNote={Abstract Cat vocal behavior, in particular, the vocal and social behavior of feral cats, is poorly understood, as are the differences between feral and fully domestic cats. The relationship between feral cat social and vocal behavior is important because of the markedly different ecology of feral and domestic cats, and enhanced comprehension of the repertoire and potential information content of feral cat calls can provide both better understanding of the domestication and socialization process, and improved welfare for feral cats undergoing adoption. Previous studies have used conflicting classification schemes for cat vocalizations, often relying on onomatopoeic or popular descriptions of call types (e.g., “miow”). We studied the vocalizations of 13 unaltered domestic cats that complied with our behavioral definition used to distinguish feral cats from domestic. A total of 71 acoustic units were extracted and visually analyzed for the construction of a hierarchical classification of vocal sounds, based on acoustic properties. We identified 3 major categories (tonal, pulse, and broadband) that further breakdown into 8 subcategories, and show a high degree of reliability when sounds are classified blindly by independent observers (Fleiss’ Kappa K = 0.863). Due to the limited behavioral contexts in this study, additional subcategories of cat vocalizations may be identified in the future, but our hierarchical classification system allows for the addition of new categories and new subcategories as they are described. This study shows that cat vocalizations are diverse and complex, and provides an objective and reliable classification system that can be used in future studies.}, number={3}, journal={Current Zoology}, publisher={Oxford University Press (OUP)}, author={Owens, Jessica L. and Olsen, Mariana and Fontaine, Amy and Kloth, Christopher and Kershenbaum, Arik and Waller, Sara}, year={2017}, month={Feb}, pages={331–339} }