Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLamont, TAC
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, B
dc.contributor.authorChapuis, L
dc.contributor.authorPrasetya, ME
dc.contributor.authorSeraphim, MJ
dc.contributor.authorHarding, HR
dc.contributor.authorMay, EB
dc.contributor.authorJanetski, N
dc.contributor.authorJompa, J
dc.contributor.authorSmith, DJ
dc.contributor.authorRadford, AN
dc.contributor.authorSimpson, SD
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-23T11:06:48Z
dc.date.issued2021-12-07
dc.date.updated2021-11-22T19:05:19Z
dc.description.abstract1. Pantropical degradation of coral reefs is prompting considerable investment in their active restoration. However, current measures of restoration success are based largely on coral cover, which does not fully reflect ecosystem function or reef health. 2. Soundscapes are an important aspect of reef health; loud and diverse soundscapes guide the recruitment of reef organisms, but this process is compromised when degradation denudes soundscapes. As such, acoustic recovery is a functionally important component of ecosystem recovery. 3. Here, we use acoustic recordings taken at one of the world’s largest coral reef restoration projects to test whether successful restoration of benthic and fish communities is accompanied by a restored soundscape. We analyse recordings taken simultaneously on healthy, degraded (extensive historic blast fishing) and restored reefs (restoration carried out for 1–3 years on previously-degraded reefs). We compare soundscapes using manual counts of biotic sounds (phonic richness), and two commonly used computational analyses (acoustic complexity index [ACI] and sound-pressure level [SPL]). 4. Healthy and restored reef soundscapes exhibited a similar diversity of biotic sounds (phonic richness), which was significantly higher than degraded reef soundscapes. This pattern was replicated in some automated analyses but not others; the ACI exhibited the same qualitative result as phonic richness in a low-frequency, but not a high-frequency bandwidth, and there was no significant difference between SPL values in either frequency bandwidth. Further, the low-frequency ACI and phonic richness scores were only weakly correlated despite showing a qualitatively equivalent overall result, suggesting that these metrics are likely to be driven by different aspects of the reef soundscape. 5. Synthesis and applications: These data show that coral restoration can lead to soundscape recovery, demonstrating the return of an important ecosystem function. They also suggest that passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) might provide functionally important measures of ecosystemlevel recovery – but only some PAM metrics reflect ecological status, and those that did are likely to be driven by different communities of soniferous animals. Recording soundscapes represents a potentially valuable tool for evaluating restoration success across ecosystems, but caution must be exercised when choosing metrics and interpreting results.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNatural Environment Research Council (NERC)en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipSwiss National Science Foundationen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipUniversity of Exeteren_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipMARS Sustainable Solutionsen_GB
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 7 December 2021en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/1365-2664.14089
dc.identifier.grantnumberNE/L002434/1en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumberP2SKP3–181384en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/127915
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherWiley / British Ecological Societyen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://doi.org/10.24378/exe.3703en_GB
dc.rights© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
dc.subjectbioacousticsen_GB
dc.subjectcoral reefen_GB
dc.subjectecoacousticsen_GB
dc.subjectecosystem monitoringen_GB
dc.subjectpassive acoustic monitoringen_GB
dc.subjectrestorationen_GB
dc.subjectsoundscapeen_GB
dc.titleThe sound of recovery: coral reef restoration success is detectable in the soundscape (article)en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2021-11-23T11:06:48Z
dc.identifier.issn1365-2664
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from Wiley via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.descriptionThe dataset associated with this article is available in ORE at https://doi.org/10.24378/exe.3703en_GB
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Applied Ecologyen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Applied Ecology
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-10-20
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2021-10-20
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2021-11-23T11:03:38Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2021-12-10T15:55:33Z
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.