Posted by: "Wild Sanctuary"
> In equatorial to temperate zones, the dawn chorus is usually the
> richest in density during spring seasons of both hemispheres. This is
> typically followed by the evening (dusk) chorus, then other times in
> between. They're all important signatures to become familiar with and
> note any way we can. That's the only way to guage changes over the
> long arc of time.
I suppose dawn chorus is ok if you are addicted to feathered dinosaurs.
But there is other fauna, take it from a frog recordist. For frogs it's
through the night, from late dusk to earliest pre dawn. There are some
day calls too. If you were setting up for documenting frogs you need to
get out and listen to your intended spot in all different seasons at all
times of the night. some frogs only call part of the night, some call
all night. Some only call after a rain, and so on. Around here it's like
a bunch kind of call it quits about 11 PM. Then there are others that
really don't get going steady until after that time. Many frogcall
surveys are flawed by not understanding these things.
Note that many mammals are more active at night.
My DNR friends involved in tracking populations of feathered dinosaurs
find my night recordings very valuable. They say most bird folks neglect
night callers so the data on population and distribution is pretty
spotty. The documentation recordings I turned in for frogs during the
survey were listened to for birds as well. As a result I'm listed as
documenting some new areas for distribution for night birds in Georgia,
even though I was not targeting them.
>>>
>>>I'm not likely to ever assemble the costly Sennheiser MKH30/40 MS rig
>>>that many consider to be a "standard," but I suppose carefully
>>>documenting the recording chain -- whatever it is -- is a reasonable
>>>start. Your thoughts?
>
>
> Don't worry too much about the gear. Hi MDs are nearly as good as
> some of the more expensive recorders. And a pair of Sony ECM55B lavs
> (which we use as alternatives to the Sennheisers and which several of
> us used in Alaska) work just fine (the $300.00 range each).
This is one of the pieces of mythology, that scientific recording must
be done with only the most expensive, highly calibrated gear. If you can
hear and identify it in the recording, it has scientific value. Experts
in calls can cull data from really awful recordings. For the most part
they don't even ask what you used to record it.
Incidentally, the bioacoustics bunch would probably sneer at the MKH
mics. They have very limited and hugely expensive gear that they are
stuck on for the most part. Most of that gear is also very hard to use
in the field.
> Finally, Richard Lyttle's comment jumped out at me:
>>
>
>>>> I sense a weary, grouchy ( in behavior, calls ) fauna.
This, of course, is applying human emotions and human interpretation to
non human fauna. Every beginning biologist is taught to not make this error=
.
> From my perspective the weight on the natural world is human (fast
> food'll do it). Not biblical.
It's probably nematodes, bacteria or fungus, but that's a different
perspective. And also ignores the weight of plants.
Walt
|