Posted by: "Dan Dugan"
> Walt, you wrote,
>
>> >The majority have no or little scientific value. The detailed habitat
>> >and site documentation is not there. Often there is no precise location=
,
>> >no weather data and so on. For bioacoustics, the equipment is unreliabl=
y
>> >calibrated if it's calibrated at all. There is no detailed protocol
>> >statement. That does not make them of no value, just seriously wounds
>> >any scientific value. It especially makes elaborate analysis of the
>> >sonograms and so on of poor value. Unpublishable, the pros can't use it=
.
>
> I'm painfully aware that much of that applies to my efforts. I think
> the only solution will be to make the collection of most of that data
> automatic. Again, if the lowly .jpg carries with it the camera and
> exposure data, why not the lowly .wav carrying mic id, recorder type
> and settings, location and time...with an easy way to note additional
> stuff while recording.
I'd not hold the digital camera data tag up as a example. Yes, modern
digital cameras record a bunch of data about how the camera was set. But
the problem comes afterward. Every piece of software I've used to edit
those .jpegs drops the data! Or modifies it losing part. So it's a
standard only for the original files.
People here use the poorly supported metadata in audio file formats.
Even easier to have vanish from the file.
It's for this reason I don't bother with the metadata. I'll read and use
it if it's still there, but I don't depend on it because it's so easy to
be accidentally lost. I maintain a proper Filemaker database to store
important data about the files. That is designed for the job, and it's
point is not losing data. What I'm watching for is more like something
that will automatically harvest the data in the image files into a
proper database file.
I don't see any way that the collection of field data could be
automatic. Too much of it is observation by the scientist in the field.
It's also specific to the purpose of the study, not the same across all
studies.
And, of course the question of calibrated equipment that will be
acceptable to bioacoustics for publication is probably impossible to
deal with without spending a lot more money than things like MKH mics
cost. That calibration is the key to any detailed quantitative analysis
of the sound, and without it anything you get is near meaningless. Why
bioacoustics is so picky about how sound is collected. You are pretty
much limited to a relatively small list of expensive specialized
equipment to be publishable without a lot of hassle.
What the non-scientific members of this group can contribute is
documentation of the distribution of species and recordings for ID
purposes. That does not involve any quantitative measurement of the
sounds, all you need is a recording that a expert on the calls will have
no trouble identifying. Almost any way people record now will produce a
clear sonogram too. And precise information on the location needs to be
recorded. It's also helpful to have some weather and habitat
observations included. In many states there are programs of bird survey,
and even frog survey set up. If contributing to science is important to
you then you should volunteer and have your work conform to their
requirements. You will learn a lot about your subjects by working on
these. And a lot about what is and is not essential to science.
I'm part of a small group of experts setting up a new study in Georgia
that will have need for a bunch of long term volunteer observers
starting next year to run the routes we are formally selecting this
year. This is part of a national survey of frogs. There are precise
requirements for volunteers to meet, including passing a quiz on
frogcalls every year. I personally think this national protocol is too
much oriented toward statistics and not enough toward the realities of
the biology of frogs and their habitats to provide much good data. We
shall see, it's basically the bird survey protocol modified. It will
provide some data.
That's only one of two ways you can volunteer here on frogs. The other
program is more flexible, you are not stuck with a strict schedule or
fixed sites forever but have much more latitude in that. I kind of
expect that this less formal survey may end up producing more and better
data about frog distribution.
For birds the surveys have a much longer history, and again volunteers
are needed and appreciated. The protocols for the surveys have been in
place for a long time.
It's a matter of being realistic about what you can contribute. Too many
seem to think science is all about detailed quantitative analysis of the
recordings. That is very tough to do without plenty of funding. But
producing well documented recordings in which the callers can be
identified by experts is much easier. In fact virtually everything we
record could fit that as long as the documentation is good enough. Best
done in the context of a organized volunteer effort where there are
experts in the calls for you to access, it can be very rewarding and
educational.
Walt
|