Field tests of small autonomous recording units: an evaluation of in-person versus automated point counts and a comparison of recording quality

The proliferation of small autonomous recorders makes it easier than ever to sample terrestrial acoustic animals and soundscapes. I conducted a comparison of four small recorders to evaluate their performance in a field setting: Wildlife Acoustics Song Meter Mini; Wildlife Acoustics Song Meter Micro; Open Acoustics Audiomoth; and Cornell SwiftOne. I address two questions: (1) How do in-person point counts compare to recorder-based point counts using these small autonomous recorders? (2) How does the quality of the recordings compare across these small autonomous recorders? To evaluate the performance of the recorders in point counts, I conducted in-person and recording-based point counts at ten locations. Each of the recorders performed similarly well at point counts, producing comparable estimates of species richness, although all of the autonomous recorders under-estimated species richness. To evaluate recording quality, I conducted a sound transmission test, broadcasting and re-recording sounds. Recorders varied in their frequency response above 12 kHz, but showed only subtle differences in the frequency response at frequencies below 12 kHz. I conclude that each of these types of small recorders provide bioacousticians with useful tools for conducting point counts, and for passive monitoring of animal sounds, with only subtle differences across the investigated models.