CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 106Animal Vocal Communication and BehaviorWildlife Ecology and ConservationMarine animal studies overview

Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation

Open access
Bradfer‐Lawrence, Tom, Desjonqueres, Camille, Eldridge, Alice, Johnston, Alison, Metcalf, Oliver·2023·Methods in Ecology and Evolution
DOI 10.1111/2041-210x.14194
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The rise of passive acoustic monitoring and the rapid growth in large audio datasets is driving the development of analysis methods that allow ecological inferences to be drawn from acoustic data. Acoustic indices are currently one of the most widely applied tools in ecoacoustics. These numerical summaries of the sound energy contained in digital audio recordings are relatively straightforward and fast to calculate but can be challenging to interpret. Misapplication and misinterpretation have produced conflicting results and led some to question their value. To encourage better use of acoustic indices, we provide nine points of guidance to support good study design, analysis and interpretation. We offer practical recommendations for the use of acoustic indices in the study of both whole soundscapes and individual taxa and species, and point to emerging trends in ecoacoustic analysis. In particular, we highlight the critical importance of understanding the links between soundscape patterns and acoustic indices. Acoustic indices can offer insights into the state of organisms, populations, and ecosystems, complementing other ecological research techniques. Judicious selection, appropriate application and thorough interpretation of existing indices is vital to bolster robust developments in ecoacoustics for biodiversity monitoring, conservation and future research.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This Perspective provides nine points of guidance for using acoustic indices in ecology across study design, analysis, and interpretation, distinguishing soundscape-descriptor and biodiversity-proxy paradigms. It argues acoustic indices can describe soundscapes but do not consistently predict biodiversity, so judicious selection, validation, and clear interpretation are essential.

Key findings

  • The paper provides nine guidance points across three research phases, stressing that researchers must decide whether acoustic indices are being used as soundscape descriptors or as biodiversity proxies, because these paradigms require different analyses and interpretation.
  • Acoustic indices can discriminate among habitat types, monitor habitat disturbance, track restoration and recovery, and detect strong temporal and spatial soundscape trends; false-colour spectrograms can condense large datasets for rapid visualisation.
  • As biodiversity proxies, indices are not straightforward: there do not appear to be any acoustic indices with a consistent relationship to species richness or density across regions or taxonomic communities, and the paper gives four reasons for caution, including that biodiversity metrics are already simplified, soundscapes shift rapidly, relationships are non-linear, and species are not represented equally.
  • Figure 2 reports three 15-s Amazonia spectrograms with Acoustic Complexity Index calculated between 0 and 4 kHz: anuran chorus ACI 78.67, Spix’s Red-handed Howler Monkey chorus ACI 78.45, and the same location about 1 h later ACI 86.18, illustrating that different ecological sources can produce similar spectral signatures and index values.

Methods

  • This is a Perspective/guidance paper, not an empirical study; the authors state there were no data or code.
  • The ideas emerged from the authors’ own soundscape research over the last decade and were consolidated through discussion with the international ecoacoustic community at two workshops in 2022: the UKAN+ “Monitoring UK biodiversity” symposium at Manchester Metropolitan University in June 2022 and the “Full-stack Bioacoustics” workshop at the Lorentz Centre, Leiden, in August 2022.
  • The guidance is organised around nine key points at three principal stages of the ecoacoustic research process (Figure 1), with a glossary of key terms and Table S1 overviewing widely used acoustic indices.

Limitations

  • Stated: there were no data or code in this Perspective; detailed advice on parameter tuning is beyond its scope and can be found in Metcalf et al. (2021, 2023); the authors cannot provide more detailed analysis guidance because each study is unique.
  • Stated: current acoustic indices do not consistently predict simple biodiversity metrics, and there is no widely generalisable relationship between acoustic diversity and biodiversity; contradictory findings may arise from research design issues and from soundscape differences among species, acoustic communities, biomes, and ecosystems.
  • Evident from the text: the guidance is based on author experience and workshop consensus rather than a systematic review or empirical validation, and the emerging deep-learning alternatives discussed are noted as prone to overfitting, opaque, and energy intensive.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/2041-210x.14194

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 59 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Sounds from very different ecological sources can produce similar spectral signatures and hence similar acoustic index values.

    “Sounds from very different ecological sources can produce similar spectral signatures and hence similar acoustic index values.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Premisecitation

    Using acoustic indices it is possible to track habitat recovery following restoration.

    “track habitat recovery following restoration (Borker et al., 2020;Lamont et al., 2022;Müller et al., 2022)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Borker et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lamont et al., 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Müller et al., 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    Applications of acoustic indices can be divided into two main analytical frameworks: those describing soundscape patterns and dynamics, and those using indices as proxies for biodiversity metrics such as species richness or functional diversity.

    “To date, applications of acoustic indices can be divided into two main analytical frameworks: (i) those describing soundscape patterns and dynamics, and (ii) those using indices as proxies for biodiversity metrics such as species richness or functional diversity (Alcocer et al., 2022).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Alcocer et al., 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    No single acoustic index can provide a comprehensive description of the original recording.

    “No single index can provide a comprehensive description of the original recording and dozens of acoustic indices have been proposed reflecting different aspects of the soundscape (Buxton et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Buxton et al., 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    Much of the early ecoacoustic literature investigated the potential for acoustic indices to act as direct proxies for some facet of biodiversity, particularly species richness.

    “Much of the early ecoacoustic literature investigated the potential for acoustic indices to act as direct proxies for some facet of biodiversity, particularly species richness (Sueur et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sueur et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. 21
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 15

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Acoustic indices characterise the soundscape or facets of the acoustic community and have successfully provided ecological insights without requiring species-specific identifications.

    “Acoustic indices characterise the soundscape or facets of the acoustic community and have successfully provided ecological insights without requiring species-specific identifications.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bradfer-Lawrence et al., 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Burivalova et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Borker et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Acoustic indices can be excellent soundscape descriptors.

    “Acoustic indices can be excellent soundscape descriptors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning

    Many indices were designed to characterise acoustic diversity on the assumption that acoustic diversity predicts biodiversity.

    “The latter posits that taxa evolve to fill available temporal and frequency niches to improve communication; many indices were designed to characterise acoustic diversity on the assumption that acoustic diversity predicts biodiversity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Some contradictory findings may arise from issues in research design, but other inconsistencies reflect soundscape differences among species, acoustic communities, biomes and ecosystems.

    “Some contradictory findings may arise from issues in research design (see considerations below), but other inconsistencies reflect soundscape differences among species, acoustic communities, biomes and ecosystems (Barbaro et al., 2022;Buxton et al., 2018;Eldridge et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Barbaro et al., 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Buxton et al., 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Eldridge et al., 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: There are contradictory patterns reported in the literature regarding linking acoustic indices to biodiversity metrics.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Using acoustic indices it is possible to assess the suitability of that habitat for particular species in the future.

    “assess the suitability of that habitat for particular species in the future (Znidersic & Watson, 2022).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Znidersic & Watson, 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    There do not appear to be any acoustic indices that hold a consistent relationship with species richness or density across regions or taxonomic communities, limiting their potential as biodiversity proxies.

    “There do not appear to be any acoustic indices that hold a consistent relationship with species richness or density across regions or taxonomic communities, limiting their potential as biodiversity proxies (Alcocer et al., 2022;Sethi et al., 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Alcocer et al., 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sethi et al., 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: There are contradictory patterns reported in the literature regarding linking acoustic indices to biodiversity metrics.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Dozens of acoustic indices have been proposed reflecting different aspects of the soundscape.

    “No single index can provide a comprehensive description of the original recording and dozens of acoustic indices have been proposed reflecting different aspects of the soundscape (Buxton et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Buxton et al., 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    There has been some success in linking acoustic indices to the presence of individual species or to broader taxon richness.

    “There has been some success in linking acoustic indices to the presence of individual species (Brodie et al., 2022;Papin et al., 2019;Towsey et al., 2018;Znidersic et al., 2020), or to broader taxon richness (Allen-Ankins et al., 2023;Bradfer-Lawrence et al., 2020;Dröge et al., 2021;Roca & Van Opzeeland, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Brodie et al., 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Allen-Ankins et al., 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bradfer-Lawrence et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Most acoustic indices were developed for audible frequencies in terrestrial systems and may not reflect patterns in aquatic soundscapes.

    “Most acoustic indices were developed for audible frequencies in terrestrial systems (Alcocer et al., 2022), and may not reflect patterns in aquatic soundscapes for example, as sound transmission is so different in water (Duarte, Chapuis, et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Alcocer et al., 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Duarte, Chapuis, et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Acoustic Complexity Index does not measure complexity in any formal sense; it was originally designed to distinguish bird song from anthropophony and is the sum of the changes in amplitude in discrete frequency bands through time.

    “For example, the Acoustic Complexity Index does not measure complexity in any formal sense (e.g.Parrott, 2010); it was originally designed to distinguish bird song from anthropophony and is the sum of the changes in amplitude in discrete frequency bands through time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Parrott, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This approach leans heavily on the Acoustic Adaptation Hypothesis and the Acoustic Niche Hypothesis.

    “This approach leans heavily on the Acoustic Adaptation Hypothesis and the Acoustic Niche Hypothesis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The Acoustic Niche Hypothesis posits that taxa evolve to fill available temporal and frequency niches to improve communication.

    “The latter posits that taxa evolve to fill available temporal and frequency niches to improve communication; many indices were designed to characterise acoustic diversity on the assumption that acoustic diversity predicts biodiversity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Krause, 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Indices can reflect biotic vocalisations, habitats and landscape features such as rivers and non-biological sounds like weather events.

    “Indices can reflect biotic vocalisations, habitats and landscape features such as rivers and non-biological sounds like weather events.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Biodiversity metrics are themselves already simplified indices of a complex ecological environment.

    “(i) Biodiversity metrics are themselves already simplified indices of a complex ecological environment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Acoustic Evenness Index is calculated using the Gini coefficient on that same distribution; higher values indicate that acoustic energy is less evenly distributed among frequency bands.

    “Conversely, the Acoustic Evenness Index is calculated using the Gini coefficient on that same distribution (Villanueva-Rivera et al., 2011).In this case, higher values indicate that acoustic energy is less evenly distributed among frequency bands.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Villanueva-Rivera et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Acoustic Diversity Index is derived by calculating the Shannon entropy of the distribution of acoustic energy among frequency bands; higher values indicate a more even energy distribution among bands.

    “The Acoustic Diversity Index is derived by calculating the Shannon entropy of the distribution of acoustic energy among frequency bands (Villanueva-Rivera et al., 2011).Higher values therefore indicate a more even energy distribution among bands.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Villanueva-Rivera et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Acoustic index values can change over short timescales, while species richness, for example, remains the same.

    “Therefore, acoustic index values can change over short timescales, while species richness, for example, remains the same.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    There is substantial rapid variation as individual animals move relative to the recorders, and this intersects with differences in microhabitat-driven sound attenuation.

    “There is substantial rapid variation as individual animals move relative to the recorders, and this intersects with differences in microhabitat-driven sound attenuation (Alcocer et al., 2022;Bradfer-Lawrence et al., 2020;Darras et al., 2016;Lellouch et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Alcocer et al., 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bradfer-Lawrence et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Darras et al., 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The breadth of research highlighted in the Introduction shows that acoustic indices can accurately reflect ecological patterns.

    “The breadth of research highlighted in the Introduction shows that acoustic indices can accurately reflect ecological patterns.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In some cases, a community largely reacts in unison to stimuli-dawn and dusk choruses being a prominent example; this strong univariate response is likely to be reflected by almost any acoustic index applied at human-audible frequency bandwidths.

    “In some cases, a community largely reacts in unison to stimulidawn and dusk choruses being a prominent example.This strong univariate response is likely to be reflected by almost any acoustic index applied at human-audible frequency bandwidths.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Acoustic indices have often been tested as proxies for biodiversity metrics using simple statistical comparisons such as correlation analysis and linear models, yet most acoustic indices values are skewed and bounded, violating the assumptions of such approaches.

    “For example, acoustic indices have often been tested as proxies for biodiversity metrics using simple statistical comparisons such as correlation analysis and linear models (e.g.Bobryk et al., 2016;Jorge et al., 2018) yet most acoustic indices values are skewed and bounded, violating the assumptions of such approaches (Bolker, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bobryk et al., 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Jorge et al., 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bolker, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    It is not clear how well representations learned from one soundscape generalise to novel contexts.

    “Firstly, existing methods are prone to over-fitting; it is not clear how well representations learned from one soundscape generalise to novel contexts (Sethi et al., 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sethi et al., 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Learned representations are high dimensional, data-driven descriptors and, unlike current acoustic indices, not based on human assumptions about links between soundscapes and ecology.

    “Learned representations are high dimensional, data-driven descriptors and, unlike current acoustic indices, not based on human assumptions about links between soundscapes and ecology.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Sethi et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rowe et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    These frequency ranges may not be appropriate in some contexts; biophony can often occur at low-frequencies, such as howler monkeys between 0.3-1 kHz, and anthropophony at high-frequencies, including engines and sirens reaching 12 kHz and above.

    “However, these frequency ranges may not be appropriate in some contexts; biophony can often occur at low-frequencies, such as howler monkeys between 0.3-1 kHz (Whitehead, 1995), and anthropophony at high-frequencies, including engines and sirens reaching 12 kHz and above (Fairbrass et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Whitehead, 1995

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Fairbrass et al., 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Ecological context will inform index choice and the temporal and frequency scales at which to apply it.

    “(iii) Ecological context will inform index choice and the temporal and frequency scales at which to apply it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Many marine fish choruses are concentrated between 0.5 and 2.5 kHz, so biophony patterns are very different to those in terrestrial recordings.

    “many marine fish choruses are concentrated between 0.5 and 2.5 kHz (Siddagangaiah et al., 2019), so biophony patterns are very different to those in terrestrial recordings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Siddagangaiah et al., 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Even simple analyses will be confounded if ecological change has a minimal impact on the soundscape, or if the index chosen is insensitive to the relevant soundscape changes.

    “However, even simple analyses will be confounded if ecological change has a minimal impact on the soundscape, or if the index chosen is insensitive to the relevant soundscape changes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Deep learning methods are notoriously opaque, making interpretation difficult.

    “Secondly, these methods are notoriously opaque, making interpretation difficult (Rudin, 2019)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rudin, 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    'Biodiversity' includes a broad range of different metrics, which themselves should be carefully selected for each ecological question.

    “Moreover, 'biodiversity' includes a broad range of different metrics, which themselves should be carefully selected for each ecological question.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    It is commonplace for acoustic data to suffer from temporal autocorrelation and pseudoreplication; audio samples taken from the same recorder deployment at the same location at regular time intervals are not truly independent.

    “It is also commonplace for acoustic data to suffer from temporal autocorrelation and pseudoreplication (Alcocer et al., 2022;Scarpelli et al., 2021); audio samples taken from the same recorder deployment at the same location at regular time intervals are not truly independent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Alcocer et al., 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Scarpelli et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In many situations we cannot expect common patterns, for instance responses to disturbance often diverge among taxa and even within taxa there can be idiosyncratic responses across regions.

    “However, in many situations we cannot expect common patterns, for instance responses to disturbance often diverge among taxa (Burivalova et al., 2021(Burivalova et al., , 2022;;Gottesman et al., 2021) and even within taxa there can be idiosyncratic responses across regions (Moura et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Burivalova et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gottesman et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Moura et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

31 of 31

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Acoustic indices are currently one of the most widely applied tools in ecoacoustics.

    “Acoustic indices are currently one of the most widely applied tools in ecoacoustics.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Misapplication and misinterpretation of acoustic indices have produced conflicting results and led some to question their value.

    “Misapplication and misinterpretation have produced conflicting results and led some to question their value.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There remain fundamental questions regarding the appropriate use of acoustic indices.

    “there remain fundamental questions regarding the appropriate use of acoustic indices.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The academic literature rarely draws a clear distinction between the two paradigms of acoustic index application.

    “These approaches require different analyses and interpretation, but the academic literature rarely draws a clear distinction between the two paradigms.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Large acoustic datasets necessitate automated processing and analysis.

    “Large acoustic datasets necessitate automated processing and analysis.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are circumstances where a target-signal approach is the best approach, and numerous situations when it may be necessary or preferable to consider broader soundscape patterns.

    “There are circumstances where a target-signal approach of detecting and identifying individual sounds is the best approach.However, there are numerous situations when it may be necessary or preferable to consider broader soundscape patterns rather than identifying individual target signals.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are contradictory patterns reported in the literature regarding linking acoustic indices to biodiversity metrics.

    “However, there are contradictory patterns reported in the literature.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Eurasian Skylark Alauda arvensis is an excellent mimic with varied song and could generate higher acoustic diversity than an entire species-rich woodland bird assemblage.

    “For example, Eurasian Skylark Alauda arvensis is an excellent mimic with varied song and could generate higher acoustic diversity than an entire species-rich woodland bird assemblage.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Current acoustic indices do not consistently predict simple biodiversity metrics.

    “Although current acoustic indices do not consistently predict simple biodiversity metrics, it does not undermine the approach in principle.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In most cases, the amount of manual effort required to tie indices values to soundscape patterns is likely to be far less than that needed when directly sampling ecological trends.

    “However, in most cases, the amount of manual effort required is likely to be far less than that needed when directly sampling ecological trends.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Acoustic indices are not as intuitive as some biodiversity metrics such as species richness.

    “Indices are not as intuitive as some biodiversity metrics such as species richness.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Failure to explain links between acoustic indices values and soundscape patterns to non-acousticians limits effective comparison with existing research and advancement of the field.

    “Failure to meet this challenge is limiting effective comparison with existing research and advancement of the field.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Ecoacoustics is a rapidly moving field.

    “Ecoacoustics is a rapidly moving field, and we present these guidelines in the context of ongoing developments in soundscape analysis.”
13 of 13

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Acoustic indices are increasingly used as quick, cost-effective barometers of ecosystem state, deployed from single-species surveys to continent-wide biodiversity monitoring.

    “Together, these indices are increasingly used as quick, cost-effective barometers of ecosystem state, now deployed everywhere from single-species surveys to continent-wide biodiversity monitoring”

    From Listening forward: emerging roles of bioacoustics in ecology, evolution, and conservation (2026) · cites this paper as Bradfer-Lawrence et al. 2023

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 101 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Krause B. L., 1993, The Niche Hypothesis: A virtual symphony of animal sounds, the origins of musical expression and the health of habitats, The Soundscape Newsletter, 6, 5
  2. Metcalf O. C., 2023, Good practice guidelines for long‐term ecoacoustic monitoring in the UK

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bradfer‐Lawrence, T., Desjonqueres, C., Eldridge, A., Johnston, A., & Metcalf, O.
Affiliations
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine Université Grenoble Alpes Gières France
  • University of Sussex (GB)
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
Corresponding author
Bradfer‐Lawrence, Tom
ORCID
Venue
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-08-10
Volume
14
Issue
9
Pages
2192-2204
ISSN
2041-210X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/2041-210x.14194
OpenAlex
W4385738039
Semantic Scholar
e3111fc960f801d4bf30b2dd5a1d4b1e8324c0ae
Cited by
106
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 4
FWCI
26.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Methods in Ecology and Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Leverhulme Trust (RPG‐2020‐160)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
Keywords
acoustic indices, ecoacoustics, passive acoustic monitoring, soundscape analysis, research design, biodiversity monitoring, conservation, bioacoustics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review