An evaluation of manual and automated methods for detecting sounds of maned wolves (Chrysocyon brachyurus Illiger 1815)

Although bioacoustics is increasingly used to study species and environments for their monitoring and conservation, detecting calls produced by species of interest is prohibitively time consuming when done manually. Here we compared four methods for detecting and identifying roar-barks of maned wolves (Chrysocyon brachyurus) within long sound recordings: (1) a manual method, (2) an automated detector method using Raven Pro 1.4, (3) an automated detector method using XBAT and (4) a mixed method using XBAT's detector followed by manual verification. Recordings were done using a song meter installed at the Serra da Canastra National Park (Minas Gerais, Brazil). For each method we evaluated the following variables in a 24-h recording: (1) total time required analysing files, (2) number of false positives identified and (3) number of true positives identified compared to total number of target sounds. Automated methods required less time to analyse the recordings (77–93 min) when compared to manual method (189 min), but consistently presented more false positives and were less efficient in identifying true positives (manual = 91.89%, Raven = 32.43% and XBAT = 84.86%). Adding a manual verification after XBAT detection dramatically increased efficiency in identifying target sounds (XBAT+manual = 100% true positives). Manual verification of XBAT detections seems to be the best way out of the proposed methods to collect target sound data for studies where large amounts of audio data need to be analysed in a reasonable time (111 min, 58.73% of the time required to find calls manually).