Next Article in Journal
Identifying Meteorologic and Oceanic Conditions Contributing to a Unique Phytoplankton Bloom Occurrence in Micronesia during October 2013
Previous Article in Journal
The Application of Life Cycle Assessment to Evaluate the Environmental Impacts of Edible Insects as a Protein Source
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Earth
Volume 3
Issue 3
10.3390/earth3030055
earth-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Sound of Drystones: A Novel Hot-Spot of Ecoacoustics Research

by
Maria Minioti
1,
Aggelos Tsaligopoulos
2,*,
Yiannis G. Matsinos
2 and
Gerasimos Pavlogeorgatos
1
1
Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean, 81100 Mytilene, Greece
2
Acoustic Ecology Laboratory, Department of the Environment, University of the Aegean, 81100 Mytilene, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Earth 2022, 3(3), 939-950; https://doi.org/10.3390/earth3030055
Submission received: 14 June 2022 / Revised: 20 July 2022 / Accepted: 22 August 2022 / Published: 26 August 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Drystone terraces offer a series of ecosystem services including both biological and cultural benefits. The aesthetic contribution towards the landscape and the increase in biodiversity levels, constitute drystone terraces and other similar constructions, as important biocultural assets. The low maintenance and the eventual abandonment of drystone terraces cause a series of drawbacks regarding the sustainability of agricultural environments. The main goal of this research was to assess the effect of drystone terrace maintenance level on biodiversity. For that reason, two closely distant agricultural areas of Lesbos Island (North Aegean, Greece) in which olive grove drystone terraces dominate were compared. The non-intrusive method of ecoacoustics was selected, and the levels of the acoustic complexity and acoustic diversity were statistically analyzed for areas that included highly maintained and poorly maintained olive grove drystone terraces. The results indicated an increase in acoustic biodiversity levels in the poorly maintained drystone terraces area. At this early stage, the results highlighted the fact that the increased resources in the poorly maintained drystone terraces, in terms of nesting and feeding opportunities, increased the biodiversity levels. Nevertheless, the spatiotemporal expansion of this research is undeniably important.

1. Introduction

Drystone masonry is a form of construction with the application of stones without the use of mortar [1]. Drystone constructions, also known as xerolithic [2] constructions (coming from the Greek words xero/dry and lithic/stone) involve a worldwide spread technique [3]. The expertise of skilled masons [4] that are able to wisely employ raw local materials [5], in order to achieve a construction with the use of interlocking stones is required. The types of drystone constructions range from field boundary stone walls [6,7] and agricultural drystone terraces that are built in order to increase cultivation land in otherwise difficult-to-crop areas [3]. Other constructions include linear structures similar to drystone walls, water channels and paths, individual buildings similar to drystone wall shelters, and individual structures similar to drystone sheepfolds, ovens, and masonry ponds [8,9,10].
The rystonee construction technique required experience and knowledge and was passed on from one generation to another. The specific construction system can be associated with the notion of ecological wisdom as it is developed through reflective ecological practice [11,12]. The construction methods vary and require tools, patience, and time. The aesthetical contribution towards the landscape shaped the cultural identity of the region [1]. At the same time, the use of material acquired from local quarries or directly from the construction site gave drystone structures a sustainable character [6,13] offering a series of co-benefits [14] and ecosystem services [15].
Drystone constructions and drystone terraces pose a significant role in averting landslides, floods, and avalanches while reducing the risk of erosion and the desertification of the land [16]. Furthermore, they enhance biodiversity and create adequate microclimatic conditions for agriculture [17]. Furthermore, rainwater conservation and the increase in soil moisture boost land productivity and improve habitat conditions [16]. Other ecosystem services regard erosion control, runoff reduction, biomass accumulation, soil water recharge, nutrient enhancement, the enhancement of plant seedlings’ survival rates, ecosystem restoration promotion, and crop yield increase [14] (Arnaez).
Drystone constructions are the interface between culture and nature [18]. Apart from their aesthetic and historical value, drystone terraces enhance habitat heterogeneity by providing nesting cavities and feeding opportunities, hence increasing biodiversity levels [19]. Drystone walls and terraces can increase the number of micro-habitats [20], increasing the species richness of various types and scales [21].
Other ecological values that have been attributed to drystone constructions include the support of the endemic flora and fauna, their use as seed reserves, the provision of shelter for scrub and other adjacent habitats, the provision of nesting and roosting locations in exposed areas, and the provision of niche opportunities in open and exposed landscapes low in vegetative cover [22]. Furthermore, they act as ecological corridors, promoting ecological and structural connectivity [23,24,25]. The fact that the specific constructions have the potential to be ecologically engineered encourages even greater diversity and range of species [22]. Drystone constructions can be described as biocultural heritage assets shaping both the biological and material characteristics of the landscape [26,27,28,29]. The term biocultural heritage can be defined as “the understanding of cultural landscapes as the result of long-term biological and social relationships, shaping the biological and material features of the landscape and also memory, experience and knowledge” [30,31]. Previous research regarding the characteristics of biocultural heritage highlighted the fact that cultural landscapes can be biologically rich [27,30]. Therefore, conservation efforts regarding the biocultural characteristics of drystone constructions would be beneficial. Several social and economic changes over time, the economic collapse of agricultural activities, population changes, and the migration of residents, are the main socio-economic factors of drystone decline [13]. The abandonment of drystone terraces and of agricultural lands in general due to the aforementioned economic and social changes are followed by significant impacts on the environment including soil erosion [32] and possible landsliding [3,14,33,34].
The abandonment of terraced agricultural systems has a negative impact on the landscape [35], while eventually, a more open landscape with less local character is produced [36]. Nevertheless, it has been documented that in Mediterranean areas, the drystone agricultural land abandonment is followed by a natural vegetation regeneration, resulting in soil erosion decreasing [13,32,37,38,39]. The maintenance of drystone terraces is of vital importance for both the natural and the cultural aspects of the agricultural environment. Furthermore, the biocultural importance of drystone terraces is undeniable, and a monitoring system is tested [40,41,42,43], involving non-invasive techniques [44] similar to the ecoacoustic method [45] that is used in order to monitor ecosystems.
The variety of ways that sounds are generated, spread, and received is fundamentally interconnected to the landscape structure [46,47]. The sounds produced by vocalizing animals differ amongst temporal and spatial scales [48,49] and can be quantified, thus providing valuable biodiversity-oriented information [46,50,51]. Consequently, an acoustic community, which can be described as a group of organisms interacting acoustically with each other in a specific habitat [52,53], can be used as a proxy for biodiversity richness.
Any change in the environment has a direct impact on the acoustic behavior of organisms. Therefore, sound stands as a proxy for biodiversity alterations and environmental health [54]. For example, an important aspect of the acoustic communication of avian species can be expressed through the intensity and complexity of their songs, which is also associated with ecosystem health [55]. The newly founded scientific field of ecoacoustics [45], although closely related to bioacoustics, differs as it recognizes sound as an indicator of ecological processes at population and community levels, whereas bioacoustics is a field of species behavior research studying sound as a signal that carries information between individuals [45].
The ecoacoustics method stands as a rapid [56], non-invasive [57], and low-cost biodiversity assessment approach regarding the vocalizing species [58] and can be used in a variety of habitats [59]. The main assessment tool of the ecoacoustics approach is the detection and analysis of ecoacoustics events, which can be described as the emergent sonic patterns that result from the individual or combinatory transmission of sound of biological, geophysical, and anthropogenic origin [60]. An ecoacoustic event with major ecological significance that can be used as a proxy of biodiversity richness and a habitat health descriptor is the chorus vocalization of animals which occurs at dawn and dusk [61,62].
Choruses have been used by ecologists and ecoacousticians in order to assess the abundance of populations and refer to the simultaneous complex vocalizations of several species in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats [63]. The specific synchronized vocal display is strongly correlated with sunrise and sunset [64] and is more easily detectible in songbirds [65] and other territorial animals [66]. The major hypotheses that attempt to explain the factors contributing to this ecoacoustic event are the intrinsic factors tied to the circadian testosterone cycles, the environmental factors regarding the intensity of light, atmospheric conditions, habitat structure, and finally, the social factors referring to mate attraction and territory defense [67]. Farina et al. (2015) highlighted the temporal variations of bird dawn choruses and divide the acoustic activity into three periods of equal length regarding the pre-dawn and post-dawn chorus periods [68], comprising the dawn chorus phenomenon.
The assessment of biodiversity through acoustic monitoring can be achieved with the use of acoustic biodiversity indicators. An acoustic biodiversity indicator can be described as a statistical quantity that summarizes some aspects of acoustic energy distribution and other information in a sound recording [51]. Several indicators similar to the Shannon diversity index [69] have been adopted in order to assess acoustic diversity [70]. Furthermore, ecological concepts similar to ecological complexity have also been adopted [47,71] and successfully used [72,73,74]. As mentioned in Eldridge et al. (2018), using the computational R packages seewave [75] and soundecology [71], the acoustic indicators can be extracted. They are designed to capture the distribution of acoustic energy across time and/or frequency in a digital audio file of fixed length [76] and reflect bird species richness [77].
A quick way to quantify bird vocalizations is the processing of the intensities recorded in an audio file, leading to the extraction of the Acoustic Complexity Index (ACI) [72,78]. The specific acoustic indicator is linked with the ecological complexity concept [79] and is based on the observation that biological sounds present an intrinsic variability of intensities, in contradiction with human-generated noise that presents constant intensity values [72]. Another commonly used acoustic indicator is the Acoustic Diversity Index [47,71] (ADI), which uses a similar analogy between species distribution and the distribution of sound energy [75,80,81,82,83]. With the use of acoustic indicators, the ecological role of sound, including the dawn chorus phenomenon, can be quantified and compared.
The biocultural aspects of specific drystone constructions similar to drystone terraces, the unique landscape formation created, and as an extension, the unique acoustic environment shaped, and in several cases, the rich historical, cultural, and natural background of specific areas, constitute xerolithic sites as hot spots of ecoacoustic research [84].
Considering the above, the purpose of this research was:
  • To contribute with knowledge regarding the xerolithic heritage of Lesbos Island, focusing on drystone olive grove terraces;
  • To better understand the impact of drystone terraces on biodiversity levels using a small-scale and non-invasive ecoacoustics approach;
  • To compare the effect of drystone terrace maintenance level on acoustic complexity and diversity;
  • To highlight a novel and rich sound recording site for ecoacousticians, aiming towards the long-term preservation of drystone constructions.

2. Materials and Methods

On the island of Lesbos, Greece, 80% of the agricultural land is covered by olive groves, and more than 11 million olive trees have been counted [32,39]. The rural landscape of Lesvos mainly involves pastures and olive groves which are dominated by drystone terraces. Until the mid-1960s, cultivation terraces were the main form of cultivation, livestock raising and beekeeping practice, and also were the most significant human intervention in the Aegean Islands, similar to Lesbos Island [85].
For this research, agricultural areas that included highly maintained and poorly maintained olive grove drystone terraces in two different but close proximity regions of Lesbos were used as passive acoustic monitoring checkpoints. Both areas are located in the northeastern part of Lesbos Island and have a distance of about 3 km from each other. The highly maintained drystone terraces located in the Thermi area (39.168299, 26.499782) and the poorly maintained drystone terraces located in the Pamfila area (39.155401, 26.517737) were randomly selected. At this point, the authors of this research wish to declare that the degree of the maintenance of the checkpoints selected does not reflect the overall quality of the drystone terraces in both areas. In Figure 1 the highly maintained drystone terraces, located in the Thermi area and the poorly maintained terraces in the Pamfila area, are presented.

Data Acquisition and Analysis

For each type of drystone terrace, stereo sound recordings were conducted using two TASCAM DR-05x digital sound recorders. The recorders were placed near trees at the height of 1.5 m and programmed to record at 44.1 kHz sampling rate using the built-in omni-directional microphones in order to collect 24-bit uncompressed WAVE audio files. For ten consecutive days, sound recordings were carried out simultaneously in a paired manner in order to compare the highly and poorly maintained drystone terraces, respectively. Each recording lasted one hour and was carried out during the dawn chorus period (more specifically the post-dawn chorus periods, [68] 7.30 am–8.30 am) from 10 April to 20 April 2019. The one-hour audio files were analyzed using one-minute sections and later were averaged. In total, ten hours of uncompressed WAVE audio files were collected, which were processed in order to obtain information related to the acoustic biodiversity levels of the area. The weather conditions during the ten-day sound recording period were moderate (temperature 16–18 °C), with low wind speed and no rain. Due to the fact that the sound recordings were conducted simultaneously in close distance (approximately 3 km apart) and in similarly shaped olive grove terraces regarding size and shape, we can assume that the recording sessions were carried out at identical conditions, with the only difference being the degree of maintenance.
The R Statistics software [86] was used in order to extract the acoustic biodiversity indicators. In particular, the R computational packages, seewave [45,87] and soundecology [71,88], were used in order to obtain the acoustic biodiversity indicators. For this research the acoustic complexity index (ACI) and the acoustic diversity index (ADI) were extracted, as they are two of the most effective and commonly used indicators [89,90], thus allowing future comparisons.
The acoustic complexity index is based on the observation that biotic sounds such as birdsong are characterized by the variability of intensities, while anthropogenic sounds similar to road traffic noise have constant intensity values. Furthermore, the acoustic diversity index is an adaptation of the species diversity Shannon index considering the proportion of the signals present on the audio file processed.
The resulting acoustic biodiversity indicators were statistically compared in order to detect differences amongst the sites of interest. For the specific small-scale research, we determined the statistical differences of the acoustic indicator levels in two different drystone terrace sites using the SPSS software (IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 28.0.1.0). Descriptive statistics were used in order to illustrate the mean, median, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis of the acoustic indicators (Table 1). Furthermore, using the Z-scores of the resulting acoustic indicators, boxplots were created for comparison (Figure 2). Secondly, an appropriate mean difference comparison test was chosen according to the distribution of the data. The null hypothesis H0 was that there is no significant difference in the acoustic indicator levels at different conditions of drystone terraces during the post-dawn chorus period. In order to estimate the magnitude of difference between the two means of indicators, the effect size for t-tests was estimated [91,92]. More specifically, the effect size according to Cohen’s d classification of effect sizes was calculated [93] by dividing the paired samples’ mean difference with the pooled estimated standard deviation. According to the Shapiro–Wilk test conducted, the distribution of the data collected was not significantly different from the normal distribution (sig. > 0.05). Therefore, due to the fact that the assumption of normality has been met, a paired samples t-test was conducted.

3. Results

The resulting acoustic indicators for both conditions of drystone terraces present fluctuations for every recording day. The dissimilarities regarding the levels of acoustic complexity and diversity can be observed in Figure 2. The poorly maintained drystone terrace site presents, in all cases, higher levels of both acoustic complexity and diversity. On the 4th day of the recording session at the poorly maintained drystone terrace site, the acoustic conditions of the day resulted in a higher level of acoustic complexity. The specific out-of-scope acoustic event was identified as an outlier and regarded as a missing value for the statistical analysis conducted. The decision to exclude this exogenous event highlights the sensitivity of the acoustic indicators and the involved risk, in accordance with the strict time frame available.
The descriptive statistics shown in Table 1 provide information regarding the characteristics and distribution of the resulting values, along with the spread and centers of the data set presented (Figure 2). The resulting skewness and kurtosis levels and the Shapiro–Wilk test of normality results for the acoustic complexity indicator of the highly maintained drystone terraces (M = 766.92, Std. = 279.57) highlight a right-skewed leptokurtic normal distribution. Additionally, the results regarding the poorly maintained drystone terraces (M = 1812.42, Std. = 106.57), present a left-skewed platykurtic normal distribution. Similarly, the acoustic diversity levels of the highly maintained drystone terraces (M = 0.0287, Std. = 0.01657) present a left-skewed leptokurtic normal distribution. Finally, the results of the poorly maintained drystone terraces (M = 0.1233, Std. = 0.0103), present a left-skewed platykurtic normal distribution.
A paired samples t-test (Table 2) was carried out in order to identify whether there were significant acoustic complexity and diversity differences amongst olive grove drystone terraces at different conditions. The results for the acoustic complexity levels in the poorly maintained drystone terraces, in relation to the highly maintained ones, differ significantly: t(7) = 8.007, p = 0.000 < 0.001, with an effect size of D = 2.83. Similarly, the acoustic diversity levels also indicate mean differences: t(9) = 12.322, p = 0.000 < 0.001, with an effect size of D = 3.89, thus rejecting the null hypothesis. Both resulting effect sizes are very large according to Cohen’s D classification of effect sizes [94,95].

4. Discussion

For this research, the effect of olive grove drystone terrace conditions on acoustic biodiversity was studied by means of sound recordings. The sound recording analysis and the acoustic indicator extraction highlighted differences amongst the biodiversity levels of drystone terraces of different maintenance. The small-scale experiment that was conducted, found that, for this case, the poorly maintained drystone terraces positively affect the acoustic biodiversity levels of the surrounding area.
Previous research has shown that abandoned or partially managed fields with drystone wall boundaries can often give rise to spontaneous scrub vegetation. The spontaneous emergence of vegetation due to bird activity may enhance the ecological values of drystone constructions [6].
The argument could involve the notion of agricultural intensification in contrast to a more sustainable approach. As discussed above, drystone terrace landscapes need to be maintained, well managed, and protected in order to avoid the problems that could derive from agricultural land abandonment [13,96]. Nevertheless, it has been discussed that farmland abandonment could result in an opportunity for biodiversity appraisal [97,98,99].
A more spatiotemporally advanced sound recording protocol is needed in order to avoid possible biases. There are several factors contributing to the increase in the acoustic biodiversity indicators, that are not necessarily of biological origin [100]. The biocultural complexity is highly influential regarding the numerical outcome of these indicators [26]. Additionally, the background noise of any acoustic environment under study could also cause implications for the reliability of the acoustic biodiversity indicators. Nevertheless, these shortcomings mainly affect urban acoustic environments in which anthropogenic noise is omnipresent [25]. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the acoustic biodiversity indicators relies on the presence of vocalized species similar to birds. It is undeniable that birds alone do not reflect the totality of the biodiversity in an area. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that the existence of birds in an area could be directly associated with the abundance of available resources regarding feeding and nesting opportunities.
This could be due to the behavioral plasticity [101] of the species under study and increased nesting opportunities by various organisms taking advantage of the loose rocks and cavities of the drystone construction. Furthermore, the available trees supported by the drystone terraces also present great nesting and feeding opportunities. The increased availability of feeding and nesting chances for insectivorous birds is probably the main reason for biodiversity appraisal that is aurally expressed.
It is a well-proven fact that drystone constructions, and especially the ones in agricultural landscapes, offer several ecosystem services, amongst which is biodiversity appraisal. As discussed in the introduction section, the abandonment of agricultural territories presents gradual landscape alternations that are reflected in the ecology of the area. The issue of poorly maintained drystone terraces could not necessarily suggest a permanent improvement in biodiversity levels. Other forthcoming risks, involving soil erosion and hydrogeological hazards, could eventually cause bigger ecological challenges. The authors of this work believe that the spatiotemporal development of this research is of vital importance. It is considered necessary to conclude whether the increased acoustic biodiversity levels in poorly maintained drystone terraces are a result of good practice in terms of ecological wisdom or the epilogue of a final performance of an otherwise semi-abandoned and destined-to-fail agricultural ecosystem.

5. Conclusions

This research highlighted the usefulness of sound recording as an ecosystem health assessment tool. An acoustic environment can reflect the current state of an ecosystem at various scales, with the use of acoustic biodiversity indicators. Therefore, a long-term acoustic monitoring network is suggested for various land-use scenarios as an early evaluation apparatus regarding exosystemic health and environmental pressure assessment. As mentioned, drystone terraces and walls, along with other drystone constructions, present numerous ecosystem services. The degree of maintenance, keeping a balance between intensiveness and abandonment in terms of sustainability, can be a key factor regarding the overall effectiveness of drystone terraces.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M. and A.T.; methodology, M.M. and A.T.; software, A.T.; formal analysis, Y.G.M.; investigation, M.M.; data curation, A.T. and Y.G.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M. and A.T.; writing—review and editing, A.T., Y.G.M. and G.P.; supervision, Y.G.M. and G.P.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Villemus, B.; Morel, J.C.; Boutin, C. Experimental Assessment of Dry Stone Retaining Wall Stability on a Rigid Foundation. Eng. Struct. 2007, 29, 2124–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gkoltsiou, A.; Mougiakou, E. The Use of Islandscape Character Assessment and Participatory Spatial SWOT Analysis to the Strategic Planning and Sustainable Development of Small Islands. The Case of Gavdos. Land Use Policy 2021, 103, 105277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Preti, F.; Errico, A.; Caruso, M.; Dani, A.; Guastini, E. Dry-Stone Wall Terrace Monitoring and Modelling. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 1806–1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Colas, A.-S.; Morel, J.-C.; Garnier, D. Full-Scale Field Trials to Assess Dry-Stone Retaining Wall Stability. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 1215–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Morel, J.C.; Mesbah, A.; Oggero, M.; Walker, P. Building Houses with Local Materials: Means to Drastically Reduce the Environmental Impact of Construction. Build. Environ. 2001, 36, 1119–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Collier, M.J. Field Boundary Stone Walls as Exemplars of ‘Novel’ Ecosystems. Landsc. Res. 2013, 38, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. McCombie, P.F.; Mundell, C.; Heath, A.; Walker, P. Drystone Retaining Walls: Ductile Engineering Structures with Tensile Strength. Eng. Struct. 2012, 45, 238–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Grove, R.; Evans Pim, J.; Serrano, M.; Cidrás, D.; Viles, H.; Sanmartín, P. Pastoral Stone Enclosures as Biological Cultural Heritage: Galician and Cornish Examples of Community Conservation. Land 2020, 9, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kremenić, T.; Andlar, G.; Varotto, M. How Did Sheep Save the Day? The Role of Dry Stone Wall Heritage and Agropastorality in Historical Landscape Preservation. A Case-Study of the Town of Cres Olive Grove. Land 2021, 10, 978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chapagain, T.; Raizada, M.N. Agronomic Challenges and Opportunities for Smallholder Terrace Agriculture in Developing Countries. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Patten, D.T. The Role of Ecological Wisdom in Managing for Sustainable Interdependent Urban and Natural Ecosystems. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 155, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Liao, K.-H.; Chan, J.K.H. What Is Ecological Wisdom and How Does It Relate to Ecological Knowledge? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 155, 111–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Petanidou, T.; Kizos, T.; Soulakellis, N. Socioeconomic Dimensions of Changes in the Agricultural Landscape of the Mediterranean Basin: A Case Study of the Abandonment of Cultivation Terraces on Nisyros Island, Greece. Environ. Manag. 2008, 41, 250–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Arnáez, J.; Lana-Renault, N.; Lasanta, T.; Ruiz-Flaño, P.; Castroviejo, J. Effects of Farming Terraces on Hydrological and Geomorphological Processes. A Review. Catena 2015, 128, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Song, H.; Chen, P.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y. Study Progress of Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (IAHS): A Literature Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bertolino, M.A.; Corrado, F. Rethinking Terraces and Dry-Stone Walls in the Alps for Sustainable Development: The Case of Mombarone/Alto Eporediese in Piedmont Region (Italy). Sustainability 2021, 13, 12122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bonardi, L. Terraced Vineyards in Europe: The Historical Persistence of Highly Specialised Regions. In World Terraced Landscapes: History, Environment, Quality of Life; Varotto, M., Bonardi, L., Tarolli, P., Eds.; Environmental History; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 7–25. ISBN 978-3-319-96815-5. [Google Scholar]
  18. Tieskens, K.F.; Schulp, C.J.E.; Levers, C.; Lieskovský, J.; Kuemmerle, T.; Plieninger, T.; Verburg, P.H. Characterizing European Cultural Landscapes: Accounting for Structure, Management Intensity and Value of Agricultural and Forest Landscapes. Land Use Policy 2017, 62, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Assandri, G.; Bogliani, G.; Pedrini, P.; Brambilla, M. Beautiful Agricultural Landscapes Promote Cultural Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Conservation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 256, 200–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Manenti, R. Dry Stone Walls Favour Biodiversity: A Case-Study from the Appennines. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 23, 1879–1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Blaise, C.; Mazzia, C.; Bischoff, A.; Millon, A.; Ponel, P.; Blight, O. Vegetation Increases Abundances of Ground and Canopy Arthropods in Mediterranean Vineyards. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 3680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Francis, R.A.; Lorimer, J. Urban Reconciliation Ecology: The Potential of Living Roofs and Walls. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 1429–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Fritz, R.; Merriam, G. Fencerow Habitats for Plants Moving between Farmland Forests. Biol. Conserv. 1993, 64, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hollingsworth, L.; Collier, M. Ground Flora of Field Boundary Dry Stone Walls in the Burren, Ireland. Br. Ir. Bot. 2020, 2, 352–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tsaligopoulos, A.; Karapostoli, A.; Radicchi, A.; Economou, C.; Kyvelou, S.; Matsinos, Y.G. Ecological Connectivity of Urban Quiet Areas: The Case of Mytilene, Greece. Cities Health 2021, 5, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kyvelou, S.S.; Bobolos, N.; Tsaligopoulos, A. Exploring the Effects of “Smart City” in the Inner-City Fabric of the Mediterranean Metropolis: Towards a Bio-Cultural Sonic Diversity? Heritage 2021, 4, 690–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lindholm, K.-J.; Ekblom, A. A Framework for Exploring and Managing Biocultural Heritage. Anthropocene 2019, 25, 100195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. De Pasquale, G.; Livia, S. Biocultural Diversity in the Traditional Landscape of Vallecorsa. Biodivers Conserv 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Agnoletti, M.; Conti, L.; Frezza, L.; Monti, M.; Santoro, A. Features Analysis of Dry Stone Walls of Tuscany (Italy). Sustainability 2015, 7, 13887–13903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Eriksson, O. What Is Biological Cultural Heritage and Why Should We Care about It? An Example from Swedish Rural Landscapes and Forests. Nat. Conserv. 2018, 28, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. UNESCO. Links between Biological and Cultural Diversity: Report of the International Workshop—UNESCO Digital Library. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000159255 (accessed on 19 July 2022).
  32. Koulouri, M.; Giourga, C. Land Abandonment and Slope Gradient as Key Factors of Soil Erosion in Mediterranean Terraced Lands. Catena 2007, 69, 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lesschen, J.P.; Cammeraat, L.H.; Nieman, T. Erosion and Terrace Failure Due to Agricultural Land Abandonment in a Semi-Arid Environment. Earth Surf. Processes Landf. 2008, 33, 1574–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tarolli, P.; Preti, F.; Romano, N. Terraced Landscapes: From an Old Best Practice to a Potential Hazard for Soil Degradation Due to Land Abandonment. Anthropocene 2014, 6, 10–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Uchida, K.; Ushimaru, A. Biodiversity Declines Due to Abandonment and Intensification of Agricultural Lands: Patterns and Mechanisms. Ecol. Monogr. 2014, 84, 637–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Watson, A. Removal of Dry-stone Walls on Some North-East Scottish Farms. Landsc. Res. 1989, 14, 18–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Palmer, C.; Colledge, S.; Bevan, A.; Conolly, J. Vegetation Recolonisation of Abandoned Agricultural Terraces on Antikythera, Greece. Environ. Archaeol. 2010, 15, 64–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kizos, T.; Dalaka, A.; Petanidou, T. Farmers’ Attitudes and Landscape Change: Evidence from the Abandonment of Terraced Cultivations on Lesvos, Greece. Agric. Hum. Values 2010, 27, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kizos, T.; Koulouri, M. Agricultural Landscape Dynamics in the Mediterranean: Lesvos (Greece) Case Study Using Evidence from the Last Three Centuries. Environ. Sci. Policy 2006, 9, 330–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Arévalo, J.R.; Tejedor, M.; Jiménez, C.; Reyes-Betancort, J.A.; Díaz, F.J. Plant Species Composition and Richness in Abandoned Agricultural Terraces vs. Natural Soils on Lanzarote (Canary Islands). J. Arid Environ. 2016, 124, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Stein-Bachinger, K.; Preißel, S.; Kühne, S.; Reckling, M. More Diverse but Less Intensive Farming Enhances Biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2022, 37, 395–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cicinelli, E.; Caneva, G.; Savo, V. A Review on Management Strategies of the Terraced Agricultural Systems and Conservation Actions to Maintain Cultural Landscapes around the Mediterranean Area. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dardonville, M.; Bockstaller, C.; Villerd, J.; Therond, O. Resilience of Agricultural Systems: Biodiversity-Based Systems Are Stable, While Intensified Ones Are Resistant and High-Yielding. Agric. Syst. 2022, 197, 103365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Desjonquères, C.; Gifford, T.; Linke, S. Passive Acoustic Monitoring as a Potential Tool to Survey Animal and Ecosystem Processes in Freshwater Environments. Freshw. Biol. 2020, 65, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sueur, J.; Farina, A. Ecoacoustics: The Ecological Investigation and Interpretation of Environmental Sound. Biosemiotics 2015, 8, 493–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fuller, S.; Axel, A.C.; Tucker, D.; Gage, S.H. Connecting Soundscape to Landscape: Which Acoustic Index Best Describes Landscape Configuration? Ecol. Indic. 2015, 58, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pijanowski, B.C.; Villanueva-Rivera, L.J.; Dumyahn, S.L.; Farina, A.; Krause, B.L.; Napoletano, B.M.; Gage, S.H.; Pieretti, N. Soundscape Ecology: The Science of Sound in the Landscape. BioScience 2011, 61, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pijanowski, B.C.; Farina, A.; Gage, S.H.; Dumyahn, S.L.; Krause, B.L. What Is Soundscape Ecology? An Introduction and Overview of an Emerging New Science. Landsc. Ecol. 2011, 26, 1213–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pijanowski, B.C.; Farina, A. Introduction to the Special Issue on Soundscape Ecology. Landsc. Ecol. 2011, 26, 1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Blumstein, D.T.; Mennill, D.J.; Clemins, P.; Girod, L.; Yao, K.; Patricelli, G.; Deppe, J.L.; Krakauer, A.H.; Clark, C.; Cortopassi, K.A.; et al. Acoustic Monitoring in Terrestrial Environments Using Microphone Arrays: Applications, Technological Considerations and Prospectus. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 758–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bradfer-Lawrence, T.; Gardner, N.; Bunnefeld, L.; Bunnefeld, N.; Willis, S.G.; Dent, D.H. Guidelines for the Use of Acoustic Indices in Environmental Research. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2019, 10, 1796–1807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lellouch, L.; Pavoine, S.; Jiguet, F.; Glotin, H.; Sueur, J. Monitoring Temporal Change of Bird Communities with Dissimilarity Acoustic Indices. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2014, 5, 495–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Farina, A.; James, P. The Acoustic Communities: Definition, Description and Ecological Role. Biosystems 2016, 147, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Krause, B.; Farina, A. Using Ecoacoustic Methods to Survey the Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 195, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Farina, A. Soundscape and Landscape Ecology. In Soundscape Ecology: Principles, Patterns, Methods and Applications; Farina, A., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 1–28. ISBN 978-94-007-7374-5. [Google Scholar]
  56. Bobryk, C.W.; Rega-Brodsky, C.C.; Bardhan, S.; Farina, A.; He, H.S.; Jose, S. A Rapid Soundscape Analysis to Quantify Conservation Benefits of Temperate Agroforestry Systems Using Low-Cost Technology. Agroforest Syst. 2016, 90, 997–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Greenhalgh, J.A.; Stone, H.J.R.; Fisher, T.; Sayer, C.D. Ecoacoustics as a Novel Tool for Assessing Pond Restoration Success: Results of a Pilot Study. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2021, 31, 2017–2028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sangermano, F. Acoustic Diversity of Forested Landscapes: Relationships to Habitat Structure and Anthropogenic Pressure. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 226, 104508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Carruthers-Jones, J.; Eldridge, A.; Guyot, P.; Hassall, C.; Holmes, G. The Call of the Wild: Investigating the Potential for Ecoacoustic Methods in Mapping Wilderness Areas. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 695, 133797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Farina, A.; Gage, S.H.; Salutari, P. Testing the Ecoacoustics Event Detection and Identification (EEDI) Approach on Mediterranean Soundscapes. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 85, 698–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Farina, A. Acoustic Codes from a Rural Sanctuary: How Ecoacoustic Events Operate across a Landscape Scale. Biosystems 2019, 183, 103986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Farina, A.; Ceraulo, M. The Acoustic Chorus and Its Ecological Significance. In Ecoacoustics; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 81–94. ISBN 978-1-119-23072-4. [Google Scholar]
  63. Brumm, H.; Slater, P. Animal Communication: Timing Counts. Curr. Biol. 2007, 17, R521–R523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sánchez-Gendriz, I.; Padovese, L.R. A Methodology for Analyzing Biological Choruses from Long-Term Passive Acoustic Monitoring in Natural Areas. Ecol. Inform. 2017, 41, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Malavasi, R.; Farina, A. Neighbours’ Talk: Interspecific Choruses among Songbirds. Bioacoustics 2013, 22, 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Snijders, L.; van Rooij, E.P.; Henskens, M.F.A.; van Oers, K.; Naguib, M. Dawn Song Predicts Behaviour during Territory Conflicts in Personality-Typed Great Tits. Anim. Behav. 2015, 109, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ecology and Evolution of Acoustic Communication in Birds; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-1-5017-3695-7.
  68. Farina, A.; Ceraulo, M.; Bobryk, C.; Pieretti, N.; Quinci, E.; Lattanzi, E. Spatial and Temporal Variation of Bird Dawn Chorus and Successive Acoustic Morning Activity in a Mediterranean Landscape. Bioacoustics 2015, 24, 269–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Spellerberg, I.F.; Fedor, P.J. A Tribute to Claude Shannon (1916–2001) and a Plea for More Rigorous Use of Species Richness, Species Diversity and the ‘Shannon–Wiener’ Index. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2003, 12, 177–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Acoustic_diversity: Acoustic Diversity Index in Soundecology: Soundscape Ecology. Available online: https://rdrr.io/cran/soundecology/man/acoustic_diversity.html (accessed on 13 June 2022).
  71. Villanueva-Rivera, L.J.; Pijanowski, B.C.; Doucette, J.; Pekin, B. A Primer of Acoustic Analysis for Landscape Ecologists. Landsc. Ecol. 2011, 26, 1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pieretti, N.; Farina, A. Application of a Recently Introduced Index for Acoustic Complexity to an Avian Soundscape with Traffic Noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2013, 134, 891–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bateman, J.; Uzal, A. The Relationship between the Acoustic Complexity Index and Avian Species Richness and Diversity: A Review. Bioacoustics 2021, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tsaligopoulos, A.; Kyvelou, S.; Votsi, N.-E.; Karapostoli, A.; Economou, C.; Matsinos, Y.G. Revisiting the Concept of Quietness in the Urban Environment—Towards Ecosystems’ Health and Human Well-Being. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sueur, J.; Pavoine, S.; Hamerlynck, O.; Duvail, S. Rapid Acoustic Survey for Biodiversity Appraisal. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e4065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Eldridge, A.; Guyot, P.; Moscoso, P.; Johnston, A.; Eyre-Walker, Y.; Peck, M. Sounding out Ecoacoustic Metrics: Avian Species Richness Is Predicted by Acoustic Indices in Temperate but Not Tropical Habitats. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 95, 939–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Dröge, S.; Martin, D.A.; Andriafanomezantsoa, R.; Burivalova, Z.; Fulgence, T.R.; Osen, K.; Rakotomalala, E.; Schwab, D.; Wurz, A.; Richter, T.; et al. Listening to a Changing Landscape: Acoustic Indices Reflect Bird Species Richness and Plot-Scale Vegetation Structure across Different Land-Use Types in North-Eastern Madagascar. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 120, 106929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Pieretti, N.; Farina, A.; Morri, D. A New Methodology to Infer the Singing Activity of an Avian Community: The Acoustic Complexity Index (ACI). Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 868–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Farina, A. Ecoacoustic Codes and Ecological Complexity. Biosystems 2018, 164, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Zsebők, S.; Schmera, D.; Laczi, M.; Nagy, G.; Vaskuti, É.; Török, J.; Zsolt Garamszegi, L. A Practical Approach to Measuring the Acoustic Diversity by Community Ecology Methods. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2021, 12, 874–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rajan, S.C.; Athira, K.; Jaishanker, R.; Sooraj, N.P.; Sarojkumar, V. Rapid Assessment of Biodiversity Using Acoustic Indices. Biodivers. Conserv. 2019, 28, 2371–2383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pekin, B.K.; Jung, J.; Villanueva-Rivera, L.J.; Pijanowski, B.C.; Ahumada, J.A. Modeling Acoustic Diversity Using Soundscape Recordings and LIDAR-Derived Metrics of Vertical Forest Structure in a Neotropical Rainforest. Landsc. Ecol. 2012, 27, 1513–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gasc, A.; Sueur, J.; Jiguet, F.; Devictor, V.; Grandcolas, P.; Burrow, C.; Depraetere, M.; Pavoine, S. Assessing Biodiversity with Sound: Do Acoustic Diversity Indices Reflect Phylogenetic and Functional Diversities of Bird Communities? Ecol. Indic. 2013, 25, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Matsinos, Y.G.; Tsaligopoulos, A. Hot Spots of Ecoacoustics in Greece and the Issue of Background Noise. JEA 2018, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. LIFE TERRACESCAPE—Employing Land Stewardship to Transform Terraced Landscapes into Green Infrastructures to Better Adapt to Climate Change. Available online: http://www.lifeterracescape.aegean.gr/en/ (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  86. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 14 June 2022).
  87. R-Forge: Wave (Music, Speech, …) Analyses in R: Project Home. Available online: https://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/tuner/ (accessed on 14 June 2022).
  88. Zeileis, A.; Kleiber, C. Ineq: Measuring Inequality, Concentration, and Poverty; 2014. V. 0.2-13, R-packages. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ineq (accessed on 13 June 2022).
  89. Shaw, T.; Hedes, R.; Sandstrom, A.; Ruete, A.; Hiron, M.; Hedblom, M.; Eggers, S.; Mikusiński, G. Hybrid Bioacoustic and Ecoacoustic Analyses Provide New Links between Bird Assemblages and Habitat Quality in a Winter Boreal Forest. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2021, 11, 100141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Jorge, F.C.; Machado, C.G.; da Cunha Nogueira, S.S.; Nogueira-Filho, S.L.G. The Effectiveness of Acoustic Indices for Forest Monitoring in Atlantic Rainforest Fragments. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 91, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Aoki, S. Effect Sizes of the Differences between Means without Assuming Variance Equality and between a Mean and a Constant. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Nakagawa, S.; Cuthill, I.C. Effect Size, Confidence Interval and Statistical Significance: A Practical Guide for Biologists. Biol. Rev. 2007, 82, 591–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Cohen, J. The Statistical Power of Abnormal-Social Psychological Research: A Review. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1962, 65, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1988; ISBN 978-0-203-77158-7. [Google Scholar]
  95. Bowring, A.; Telschow, F.J.E.; Schwartzman, A.; Nichols, T.E. Confidence Sets for Cohen’s d Effect Size Images. NeuroImage 2021, 226, 117477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wei, W.; Chen, D.; Wang, L.; Daryanto, S.; Chen, L.; Yu, Y.; Lu, Y.; Sun, G.; Feng, T. Global Synthesis of the Classifications, Distributions, Benefits and Issues of Terracing. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2016, 159, 388–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Queiroz, C.; Beilin, R.; Folke, C.; Lindborg, R. Farmland Abandonment: Threat or Opportunity for Biodiversity Conservation? A Global Review. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2014, 12, 288–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Reidsma, P.; Tekelenburg, T.; van den Berg, M.; Alkemade, R. Impacts of Land-Use Change on Biodiversity: An Assessment of Agricultural Biodiversity in the European Union. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 114, 86–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Kohsaka, R.; Ito, K.; Miyake, Y.; Uchiyama, Y. Cultural Ecosystem Services from the Afforestation of Rice Terraces and Farmland: Emerging Services as an Alternative to Monoculturalization. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 497, 119481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Tsaligopoulos, A.; Matsinos, Y.G. Approaching Quietness as an Urban Sustainability Opportunity. Environments 2022, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Hui, T.Y.; Williams, G.A. Behavioural Plasticity in the Monsoonal Tropics: Implications for Thermoregulatory Traits in Sandy Shore Crabs. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2021, 75, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Earth 03 00055 g001 550
Figure 1. On the left (a) the highly maintained drystone terrace sound recording spot in the Thermi area, and on the right (b) the poorly maintained drystone terrace sound recording spot in the Pamfila area.
Figure 1. On the left (a) the highly maintained drystone terrace sound recording spot in the Thermi area, and on the right (b) the poorly maintained drystone terrace sound recording spot in the Pamfila area.
Earth 03 00055 g001
Earth 03 00055 g002 550
Figure 2. Top left (a) The resulting acoustic complexity index levels for each day of measurement for the highly and poorly maintained drystone terraces, bottom left. (b) The resulting acoustic diversity index levels for each day of measurement for the highly and poorly maintained drystone terraces, on the right. (c) The box plot of the acoustic indicators Z-scores in relation to different conditions of drystone terraces. The boxes represent the upper and lower quartile ranges and the solid line in each box represents the median.
Figure 2. Top left (a) The resulting acoustic complexity index levels for each day of measurement for the highly and poorly maintained drystone terraces, bottom left. (b) The resulting acoustic diversity index levels for each day of measurement for the highly and poorly maintained drystone terraces, on the right. (c) The box plot of the acoustic indicators Z-scores in relation to different conditions of drystone terraces. The boxes represent the upper and lower quartile ranges and the solid line in each box represents the median.
Earth 03 00055 g002
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Shapiro-Wilk (SW) test of normality results.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Shapiro-Wilk (SW) test of normality results.
Drystone Terrace ConditionMeanMdnSDMin.Max.SkewnessKurtosisSWdfp
Acoustic complexity of
highly maintained drystone terraces 		766.92697.23279.57459.211364.611.1191.0790.905100.248
Acoustic complexity of
poorly maintained drystone terraces		1812.421784.62 106.571680.291997.550.700−0.3910.94190.618
Acoustic diversity of
highly maintained drystone terraces		0.02870.02500.016570.010.060.619−1.0770.904100.240
Acoustic diversity of
poorly maintained drystone terraces		0.12330.12810.010350.100.13−0.927−0.6330.849100.056
Table
Table 2. Paired Samples Test results and effect size results.
Table 2. Paired Samples Test results and effect size results.
Paired Samples Test
95% CI of the
Difference
Drystone Terrace ConditionMeanSDStd. Error MeanLowerUppertdfSig.Cohen’s D
Pair 1Acoustic complexity of
highly maintained drystone terraces 		992.05350.41123.89699.091285.018.00770.0002.83
Acoustic complexity of
poorly maintained drystone terraces
Pair 2Acoustic diversity of
highly maintained drystone terraces		0.094540.024260.007670.077180.1119012.32290.0003.89
Acoustic diversity of
poorly maintained drystone terraces
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Minioti, M.; Tsaligopoulos, A.; Matsinos, Y.G.; Pavlogeorgatos, G. The Sound of Drystones: A Novel Hot-Spot of Ecoacoustics Research. Earth 2022, 3, 939-950. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth3030055

AMA Style

Minioti M, Tsaligopoulos A, Matsinos YG, Pavlogeorgatos G. The Sound of Drystones: A Novel Hot-Spot of Ecoacoustics Research. Earth. 2022; 3(3):939-950. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth3030055

Chicago/Turabian Style

Minioti, Maria, Aggelos Tsaligopoulos, Yiannis G. Matsinos, and Gerasimos Pavlogeorgatos. 2022. "The Sound of Drystones: A Novel Hot-Spot of Ecoacoustics Research" Earth 3, no. 3: 939-950. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth3030055

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop