Hello , I’m photoglapher in Japan.
My main photo target is wild plants.
I often think why I have to take wild plants and What is the reason for recording(picutre ,word ,sentence…and more)
…I have a some vague answers.
I thought one of the answers was habitat sound, so I started recording.
I think , habitat sound has a lot of information.
So , What do you think about habitat sound ?
Does habitat sound record make sense ?
Please tell us your opinion about habitat sound.
Adding natural sound from your location is definitely a nice touch, I like hearing the sounds of wind and waves. With most observations though it’s not really necessary. Observers use it for recording more vocal animals like birds, frogs, or insects. The pictures you provide of wildflowers are definitely sufficient, granted enough defining features are visible.
If you find it meaningful, go ahead. But it’s not needed if your goal is to get plants identified.
The extra data may or may not be useful in the long run.
I think appreciating habitat sounds are a nice enhancement for you increasing awareness of nature around you. When I’ve tried using my phone for nature recordings, I hear so much more undesired background noise than I thought was there. Things like the sounds of handling the phone, walking, cars or airplanes going by, people talking, barking dogs, etc. I went for a short walk in on a forest path yesterday. It was quite a treat to take my mask off when no one was nearby to enjoy the scents around me. I would not mind having a recording of those scents. :)
I agree with it being a nice touch. Two habitats come to mind when i think of habitat sound, one being the sound of aspen leaves in a breeze, the other being the sound of wind sighing thru the canopy of a pine forest, which on a warm summer day is one of the most calming, nap-inducing sounds there is.
I am in favor of being able to add more info about the habitat to observations, but I tend to think in terms of being able to upload an image or two which show the habitat well.
I know that one can do that if the organism is also visible in the photo, but a lot of the organisms I photograph are so small or low down that you cannot get a shot that shows both the habitat and also features the organism.
Th problem with habitat sounds is apparently they don’t always carry much info about the habitat. For example, in the habitat sound for your Beach Naupaka observation, I can’t hear the ocean in the background. I also can’t hear any sea birds, so in reality it is not telling me much about the habitat.
Thank you for your reply :)
I’m glad that the habitat sound was received favorably.
I’ll continue to record the sounds of habitat. @teellbee
That’s sound good !
As soon as I can record the scent , I’ll start recording .
Scent is one of the important elements of plants. @susanhewitt
I think so too.
But,Habitat sound is real sound in the field.
My captured Naupaka was grow far shore (maybe 20m, and this field is shallow sea)
The characteristic of Naupaka is that they bloom along the coast, but not all of them bloom along the coast.
Yes, If I must choice one sound , I choice shore break sounds and sea birds :）
I need to think about whether to record the sound on the spot or the characteristic sound.
If you are going to record it and submit it as part of the observation, then it has to be the sound on the spot where you also took the photo.
My suggestion would be to record the background sound if there is useful information in it, but not to record sound if it does not have any useful identifiable components in it, such as bird sound, insect sounds, or sea sound.
If the organism isn’t “depicted” in the sound, it shouldn’t be added to iNaturalist as if it were evidence of the organism. I do think these are pretty cool though! One option is to upload it to Soundcloud and link it in the observation description.
Thank you for your advice.
I used sound cloud.
But, sound cloud have upload limit…
But, iNat sarver is too.
My HP have same information.
It may be good to put a My HP link.