Hearing to the Unseen: AudioMoth and BirdNET as a Cheap and Easy Method for Monitoring Cryptic Bird Species

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Up to day and interesting study evaluating the effectiveness of BirdNET for correctly identifying and detecting two cryptic and forest bird species the Coal Tit (Peripatus ater) and the Short-toed Treecreeper.  I only have minor comments:

In the methods it would be better to say the stage of breeding cycle for both species, this may influence vocal activity pattern.

Discussion

Line 362-264 It seems to me that the converse is true: the decrease in the detectability of vocalizations of the coal tit has led to the fact that its vocalizations during the day are underestimated. Keep in mind that AudioMoth writes about only one male (two at best) of this species, and if the bird moves away from the devices a little, due to the high detection error, its songs are no longer taken into account.  

Line 392-396  Certainly, in many species the activity of singing is higher around sunrise, but still it rarely drops to zero, especially in such diurnal species as tits, so the result looks rather strange.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

This manuscript is well-written and informative. Congratulations! I believe that with some minor revisions and suggestions, this manuscript will be worthy of publication.

Generally, the introduction section could be improved, and more references should be included. A more detailed approach in the methodology section regarding the way that probabilistic scores were developed could be useful. Furthermore, additional details regarding the case study area, including a map that showcases the audio recorders position could also be helpful. The discussion section could also be improved and presented more clearly.

Even though BirdNET was sufficiently explained, it is not clear how the efficiency of the Audiomoth was assessed. Please provide more information.

Several specific comments follow:

L208: Describe the approach on how the probabilistic scores were developed similar to reference 22 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23507

L227: Fix “stableshing”

L362-366: Please provide more information regarding the specific result. Could the acoustic monitoring protocol be inappropriate for the Short -toed treecreeper?

L376-377: How were the assessments specifically conducted for the Coal tit and the Short -toed treecreeper?   

L391-399: These could also stand as results. A generalized timetable (similar to a gantt chart) of the species vocal activities could be useful.    

L397: Seems repetitive.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf