4.7 Review

Terrestrial Passive Acoustic Monitoring: Review and Perspectives

Journal

BIOSCIENCE
Volume 69, Issue 1, Pages 15-25

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biy147

Keywords

audio recorders; auditory monitoring; automated data collection; bioacoustics; ecoacoustics; faunal survey; soundscapes

Categories

Funding

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2015/25316-6, 2017/15772-0]
  2. The Rufford Foundation
  3. National Council of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) [310144/2015-9]
  4. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)
  5. European Commission [H2020, EAVESTROP-661408]
  6. Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Competitividad [CGL2017-88764-R]
  7. Comunidad de Madrid (CAM, Spain) [2016-T2/AMB-1722]
  8. [2014/07113-8]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is quickly gaining ground in ecological research, following global trends toward automated data collection and big data. Using unattended sound recording, PAM provides tools for long-term and cost-effective biodiversity monitoring. Still, the extent of the potential of this emerging method in terrestrial ecology is unknown. To quantify its application and guide future studies, we conducted a systematic review of terrestrial PAM, covering 460 articles published in 122 journals (1992-2018). During this period, PAM-related studies showed above a fifteenfold rise in publication and covered three developing phases: establishment, expansion, and consolidation. Overall, the research was mostly focused on bats (50%), occurred in northern temperate regions (65%), addressed activity patterns (25%), recorded at night (37%), used nonprogrammable recorders (61%), and performed manual acoustic analysis (58%), although their applications continue to diversify. The future agenda should include addressing the development of standardized procedures, automated analysis, and global initiatives to expand PAM to multiple taxa and regions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available