article · Conservation Science and Practice
Passive acoustic recorders are increasingly used as valuable instruments for ecological monitoring. Simply gathering audio recordings is insufficient for effective conservation and management, as projects require deliberate planning and structured analysis to produce high quality data. Effective acoustic monitoring programmes rely on establishing partnerships with landowners, Traditional Owners, researchers, and other stakeholders, while establishing clear objectives. They also depend on explicitly identifying target sound signals, planning sensor placement to account for background noise, statistical power, human privacy, and animal disturbance, and justifying recording schedules. In addition, programmes require sound processing methods tailored to their specific questions alongside protocols for permanent data storage and access. Well designed monitoring is necessary to support global biodiversity targets and emerging biodiversity markets.
Acoustic sensors offer a non-invasive way to track wildlife, but poorly planned projects risk collecting unusable data. Establishing clear frameworks ensures that monitoring efforts produce reliable ecological insights. This guidance helps practitioners, communities, and conservation bodies implement sound recording strategies that address critical biodiversity challenges and support international conservation targets.
The work provides operational guidance that can inform services and protocols used in emerging biodiversity markets and large-scale conservation programmes. Environmental consultancies, conservation practitioners, and carbon or biodiversity credit verifiers could apply these recommendations to standardise data collection and processing. As an applied set of best-practice principles, the guidance is immediately actionable for developing monitoring projects.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Abstract Passive acoustic recorders have emerged as powerful tools for ecological monitoring. However, effective monitoring is not simply an act of recording sounds. To have meaning for conservation and management, acoustic monitoring needs to be properly planned and analyzed to yield high quality information. Here, we provide a set of considerations for the design of an effective acoustic monitoring program. We argue that such a program, has the following attributes: (1) has established appropriate partnerships with landowners, Traditional Owners, researchers, or other relevant stakeholders, (2) is based on clear objectives and questions, (3) is explicit in its target sound signals, (4) has considered in‐field sensor placement for a range of factors, including experimental design, statistical power, background noise, and potential impacts on human privacy and animal disturbance, (5) has a justified recording schedule and periodicity, (6) has methods to process sound data in line with objectives, and (7) has protocols for permanent data storage and access. Acoustic monitoring is increasingly used in large‐scale programs and will be important in addressing global biodiversity targets and new biodiversity markets. It is critical that new monitoring programs are designed to effectively and efficiently capture data that address pertinent and emerging issues in conservation.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1111/csp2.13132
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
