Principles of Animal Taxonomy By Prof. George Gaylord Simpson. (Columbia Biological Series, No. 20.) Pp. xii + 247. (New York: Columbia University Press; London: Oxford University Press, 1961.) 35s. net.

/pdf/principles-of-animal-taxonomy-4gbxvwbmhr.pdf

Principles of Animal Taxonomy

Are We in the Midst of the Sixth Mass Extinction? A View from the World of Amphibians

As biodiversity decreases worldwide, the development of effective techniques to track changes in ecological communities becomes an urgent challenge. Together with other emerging methods in ecology, acoustic indices are increasingly being used as novel tools for rapid biodiversity assessment. These indices are based on mathematical formulae that summarise the acoustic features of audio samples, with the aim of extracting meaningful ecological information from soundscapes. However, the application of this automated method has revealed conflicting results across the literature, with conceptual and empirical controversies regarding its primary assumption: a correlation between acoustic and biological diversity. After more than a decade of research, we still lack a statistically informed synthesis of the power of acoustic indices that elucidates whether they effectively function as proxies for biological diversity. Here, we reviewed studies testing the relationship between diversity metrics (species abundance, species richness, species diversity, abundance of sounds, and diversity of sounds) and the 11 most commonly used acoustic indices. From 34 studies, we extracted 364 effect sizes that quantified the magnitude of the direct link between acoustic and biological estimates and conducted a meta‐analysis. Overall, acoustic indices had a moderate positive relationship with the diversity metrics (r = 0.33, CI [0.23, 0.43]), and showed an inconsistent performance, with highly variable effect sizes both within and among studies. Over time, studies have been increasingly disregarding the validation of the acoustic estimates and those examining this link have been progressively reporting smaller effect sizes. Some of the studied indices [acoustic entropy index (H), normalised difference soundscape index (NDSI), and acoustic complexity index (ACI)] performed better in retrieving biological information, with abundance of sounds (number of sounds from identified or unidentified species) being the best estimated diversity facet of local communities. We found no effect of the type of monitored environment (terrestrial versus aquatic) and the procedure for extracting biological information (acoustic versus non‐acoustic) on the performance of acoustic indices, suggesting certain potential to generalise their application across research contexts. We also identified common statistical issues and knowledge gaps that remain to be addressed in future research, such as a high rate of pseudoreplication and multiple unexplored combinations of metrics, taxa, and regions. Our findings confirm the limitations of acoustic indices to efficiently quantify alpha biodiversity and highlight that caution is necessary when using them as surrogates of diversity metrics, especially if employed as single predictors. Although these tools are able partially to capture changes in diversity metrics, endorsing to some extent the rationale behind acoustic indices and suggesting them as promising bases for future developments, they are far from being direct proxies for biodiversity. To guide more efficient use and future research, we review their principal theoretical and practical shortcomings, as well as prospects and challenges of acoustic indices in biodiversity assessment. Altogether, we provide the first comprehensive and statistically based overview on the relation between acoustic indices and biodiversity and pave the way for a more standardised and informed application for biodiversity monitoring.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/brv.12890

Acoustic indices as proxies for biodiversity: a meta‐analysis

Back from the deaf: integrative taxonomy revalidates an earless and mute species, Hylodes grandoculis van Lidth de Jeude, 1904, and confirms a new species of Pristimantis Jiménez de la Espada, 1870 (Anura: Strabomantidae) from the Eastern Guiana Shield

Ecology and calling behaviour of the anurans of northern Zululand, South Africa

Vocalizations of anuran amphibians have received much attention in studies of behavioral ecology and physiology, but also provide informative characters for identifying and delimiting species. We here review the terminology and variation of frog calls from a perspective of integrative taxonomy, and provide hands-on protocols for recording, analyzing, comparing, interpreting and describing these sounds. Our focus is on advertisement calls, which serve as premating isolation mechanisms and, therefore, convey important taxonomic information. We provide recommendations for terminology of frog vocalizations, with call, note and pulse being the fundamental subunits to be used in descriptions and comparisons. However, due to the complexity and diversity of these signals, an unequivocal application of the terms call and note can be challenging. We therefore provide two coherent concepts that either follow a note-centered approach (defining uninterrupted units of sound as notes, and their entirety as call) or a call-centered approach (defining uninterrupted units as call whenever they are separated by long silent intervals) in terminology. Based on surveys of literature, we show that numerous call traits can be highly variable within and between individuals of one species. Despite idiosyncrasies of species and higher taxa, the duration of calls or notes, pulse rate within notes, and number of pulses per note appear to be more static within individuals and somewhat less affected by temperature. Therefore, these variables might often be preferable as taxonomic characters over call rate or note rate, which are heavily influenced by various factors. Dominant frequency is also comparatively static and only weakly affected by temperature, but depends strongly on body size. As with other taxonomic characters, strong call divergence is typically indicative of species-level differences, whereas call similarities of two populations are no evidence for them being conspecific. Taxonomic conclusions can especially be drawn when the general advertisement call structure of two candidate species is radically different and qualitative call differences are thus observed. On the other hand, quantitative differences in call traits might substantially vary within and among conspecific populations, and require careful evaluation and analysis. We provide guidelines for the taxonomic interpretation of advertisement call differences in sympatric and allopatric situations, and emphasize the need for an integrative use of multiple datasets (bio-acoustics, morphology, genetics), particularly for allopatric scenarios. We show that small-sized frogs often emit calls with frequency components in the ultrasound spectrum, although it is unlikely that these high frequencies are of biological relevance for the majority of them, and we illustrate that detection of upper harmonics depends also on recording distance because higher frequencies are attenuated more strongly. Bioacoustics remains a prime approach in integrative taxonomy of anurans if uncertainty due to possible intraspecific variation and technical artifacts is adequately considered and acknowledged.

J R Philippe

Papers

The Use Of Bioacoustics In Anuran Taxonomy: Theory, Terminology, Methods And Recommendations For Best Practice