The DOI matches its Crossref record; 100 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 59 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
33 Not checked yet · 14 Own interpretation · 3 No basis given · 1 Own result
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sounds from very different ecological sources can produce similar spectral signatures and hence similar acoustic index values.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > FU N D I N G I N FO R M ATI O N
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“track habitat recovery following restoration (Borker et al., 2020;Lamont et al., 2022;Müller et al., 2022)”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > Soundscape
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Borker et al., 2020
- Not checked yetcites Lamont et al., 2022
- Not checked yetcites Müller et al., 2022
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Alcocer et al., 2022
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 1 | INTRODUC TI ON TO SOUNDSC APE S & ACOUS TIC INDICE S
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buxton et al., 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sueur et al., 2008
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The names of acoustic indices can be misleading (Table S1).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 7 | UNDER S TANDING WHAT ACOUS TIC IND I CE S REFLEC T
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Table S1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(ii) Acoustic index values derived from a shifting soundscape will not consistently reflect a static biodiversity metric.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Wider testing has demonstrated that associating acoustic indices with biodiversity metrics, such as species richness, diversity or abundance, is not straightforward.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(iii) Relationships between biodiversity metrics and acoustic indices are not linear.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, using acoustic indices it is possible to discriminate among habitat types (Bradfer-Lawrence et al., 2019;Do Nascimento et al., 2020;Eldridge et al., 2018;Metcalf et al., 2021)”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 1 | INTRODUC TI ON TO SOUNDSC APE S & ACOUS TIC INDICE S
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bradfer-Lawrence et al., 2019
- Not checked yetcites Do Nascimento et al., 2020
- Not checked yetcites Eldridge et al., 2018
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Doubling the number of vocalising species or individuals in a recording will not double the value of an acoustic index.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While audio recordings can be readily collected, the analysis methods needed to garner robust ecological insights from acoustic data are still in development (Deichmann et al., 2018;Scarpelli et al., 2021;Vella et al., 2022;Wimmer et al., 2013).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 1 | INTRODUC TI ON TO SOUNDSC APE S & ACOUS TIC INDICE S
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Deichmann et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Scarpelli et al., 2021
- Not checked yetcites Vella et al., 2022
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similar assumptions about the origins of sounds at different frequencies are made for the default settings for a range of other indices, including the commonly used Bioacoustic Index (Boelman et al., 2007; Table S1).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 7 | UNDER S TANDING WHAT ACOUS TIC IND I CE S REFLEC T
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boelman et al., 2007
- Not checked yetcites Table S1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the signal is not present, or is masked in some way, then the target will not be reflected in acoustic indices values.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 8 | LINKING ACOUS TI C IND I CE S TO ECOLOG I C AL PAT TERN S
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Failing to account for this can result in poorly-fitting or over-fitted models, potentially leading to spurious conclusions.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 9 | CONDUC TING APPROPRIATE ANALYS E S
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 11 | EMERG ING TRENDS IN ECOACOUS TIC ANALYS E S
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sethi et al., 2023
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Likewise, if two entirely different ecological processes result in a similar spectrogram, there may be no way to differentiate between them with acoustic indices despite the very different ecological causes (Figure 2).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 8 | LINKING ACOUS TI C IND I CE S TO ECOLOG I C AL PAT TERN S
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Figure 2
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, the Normalised Difference Soundscape Index (NDSI) is designed to represent the ratio of anthropophony to biophony, assuming these occur in the 1-2 kHz and 2-8 kHz range respectively (Kasten et al., 2012).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 7 | UNDER S TANDING WHAT ACOUS TIC IND I CE S REFLEC T
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kasten et al., 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“our current understanding is that there is no widely generalisable relationship between acoustic diversity and biodiversity (Alcocer et al., 2022;Sethi et al., 2023).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 10 | INTERPRE TING ACOUS TIC INDICE S
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Alcocer et al., 2022
- Not checked yetcites Sethi et al., 2023
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Rather than designing acoustic indices heuristically, deep learning algorithms learn a numerical soundscape description from a given audio set.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 11 | EMERG ING TRENDS IN ECOACOUS TIC ANALYS E S
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sethi et al., 2020
- Not checked yetcites Rowe et al., 2021
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 21
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Acoustic indices characterise the soundscape or facets of the acoustic community and have successfully provided ecological insights without requiring species-specific identifications.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 1 | INTRODUC TI ON TO SOUNDSC APE S & ACOUS TIC INDICE S
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bradfer-Lawrence et al., 2019
- Not checked yetcites Burivalova et al., 2021
- Not checked yetcites Borker et al., 2020
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Acoustic indices can be excellent soundscape descriptors.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Barbaro et al., 2022
- Not checked yetcites Buxton et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Eldridge et al., 2018
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: There are contradictory patterns reported in the literature regarding linking acoustic indices to biodiversity metrics.
In the paper
“assess the suitability of that habitat for particular species in the future (Znidersic & Watson, 2022).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > Soundscape
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Znidersic & Watson, 2022
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Alcocer et al., 2022
- Not checked yetcites Sethi et al., 2023
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: There are contradictory patterns reported in the literature regarding linking acoustic indices to biodiversity metrics.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 1 | INTRODUC TI ON TO SOUNDSC APE S & ACOUS TIC INDICE S
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buxton et al., 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brodie et al., 2022
- Not checked yetcites Allen-Ankins et al., 2023
- Not checked yetcites Bradfer-Lawrence et al., 2020
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 3.2 | Recommendation: Consider how sound travels in the study environment
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Alcocer et al., 2022
- Not checked yetcites Duarte, Chapuis, et al., 2021
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 7 | UNDER S TANDING WHAT ACOUS TIC IND I CE S REFLEC T
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Parrott, 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach leans heavily on the Acoustic Adaptation Hypothesis and the Acoustic Niche Hypothesis.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Krause, 1993
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indices can reflect biotic vocalisations, habitats and landscape features such as rivers and non-biological sounds like weather events.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(i) Biodiversity metrics are themselves already simplified indices of a complex ecological environment.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 7 | UNDER S TANDING WHAT ACOUS TIC IND I CE S REFLEC T
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Villanueva-Rivera et al., 2011
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 7 | UNDER S TANDING WHAT ACOUS TIC IND I CE S REFLEC T
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Villanueva-Rivera et al., 2011
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, acoustic index values can change over short timescales, while species richness, for example, remains the same.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 2 | IDENTIF YING YOUR PAR ADIG M
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Alcocer et al., 2022
- Not checked yetcites Bradfer-Lawrence et al., 2020
- Not checked yetcites Darras et al., 2016
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The breadth of research highlighted in the Introduction shows that acoustic indices can accurately reflect ecological patterns.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 8 | LINKING ACOUS TI C IND I CE S TO ECOLOG I C AL PAT TERN S
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 8 | LINKING ACOUS TI C IND I CE S TO ECOLOG I C AL PAT TERN S
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 9 | CONDUC TING APPROPRIATE ANALYS E S
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bobryk et al., 2016
- Not checked yetcites Jorge et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Bolker, 2008
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 11 | EMERG ING TRENDS IN ECOACOUS TIC ANALYS E S
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sethi et al., 2023
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Learned representations are high dimensional, data-driven descriptors and, unlike current acoustic indices, not based on human assumptions about links between soundscapes and ecology.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 11 | EMERG ING TRENDS IN ECOACOUS TIC ANALYS E S
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sethi et al., 2020
- Not checked yetcites Rowe et al., 2021
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 7 | UNDER S TANDING WHAT ACOUS TIC IND I CE S REFLEC T
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Whitehead, 1995
- Not checked yetcites Fairbrass et al., 2017
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(iii) Ecological context will inform index choice and the temporal and frequency scales at which to apply it.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 8 | LINKING ACOUS TI C IND I CE S TO ECOLOG I C AL PAT TERN S
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 7 | UNDER S TANDING WHAT ACOUS TIC IND I CE S REFLEC T
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Siddagangaiah et al., 2019
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 8 | LINKING ACOUS TI C IND I CE S TO ECOLOG I C AL PAT TERN S
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Secondly, these methods are notoriously opaque, making interpretation difficult (Rudin, 2019)”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 11 | EMERG ING TRENDS IN ECOACOUS TIC ANALYS E S
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rudin, 2019
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, 'biodiversity' includes a broad range of different metrics, which themselves should be carefully selected for each ecological question.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 10 | INTERPRE TING ACOUS TIC INDICE S
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 9 | CONDUC TING APPROPRIATE ANALYS E S
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Alcocer et al., 2022
- Not checked yetcites Scarpelli et al., 2021
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Using acoustic indices in ecology: Guidance on study design, analyses and interpretation > 8 | LINKING ACOUS TI C IND I CE S TO ECOLOG I C AL PAT TERN S
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Burivalova et al., 2021
- Not checked yetcites Gottesman et al., 2021
- Not checked yetcites Moura et al., 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
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?
In the citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-Based Localization
Selvaraju, R. R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., & Batra, D. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.2017.74 · Cited by 24,513
Rudin, C. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x · Cited by 10,561
Ecological Sources of Selection on Avian Sounds
Morton, E. S. (1975) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282971 · Cited by 1,665
Soundscape Ecology: The Science of Sound in the Landscape
Pijanowski, B. C., Villanueva-Rivera, L. J., Dumyahn, S. L., Farina, A., Krause, B. L., Napoletano, B. M., Gage, S. H., & Pieretti, N. (2011) · BioScience · doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.6 · Cited by 1,334
Ecological models and data in R
Bolker, B. M. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4g37 · Cited by 1,297
Model uncertainty, data mining and statistical inference
Chatfield, C. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.2307/2983440 · Cited by 1,103
The soundscape of the Anthropocene ocean
Duarte, C. M., Chapuis, L., Collin, S. P., da Costa, D. P., Devassy, R. P., Eguı́luz, V. M., Erbe, C., Lamont, T. A. C., Halpern, B. S., Harding, H. R., et al. (2021) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aba4658 · Cited by 1,045
Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalization
Marten, K., & Marler, P. (1977) · Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1007/bf00299740 · Cited by 764
Rapid Acoustic Survey for Biodiversity Appraisal
Sueur, J., Pavoine, S., Hamerlynck, O., & Duvail, S. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004065 · Cited by 689
Acoustic Indices for Biodiversity Assessment and Landscape Investigation
Sueur, J., Farina, A., Gasc, A., Pieretti, N., & Pavoine, S. (2014) · Acta Acustica united with Acustica · doi:10.3813/aaa.918757 · Cited by 519
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 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
- Metcalf O. C., 2023, Good practice guidelines for long‐term ecoacoustic monitoring in the UK
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Funosas, D., Barbaro, L., Schillé, L., Elger, A., Castagneyrol, B., & Cauchoix, M. (2024) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112146 · Cited by 74
Bradfer‐Lawrence, T., Duthie, A. B., Abrahams, C., Adam, M., Barnett, R. J., Beeston, A. V., Darby, J., Dell, B. L., Gardner, N., Gasc, A., et al. (2024) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.14357 · Cited by 50
“Similar soundscape patterns can arise from very different sound sources, potentially confounding inference (Bradfer-Lawrence et al., 2023).”
Self-citationExploring the relationship between the soundscape and the environment: A systematic review
Turlington, K., Suárez‐Castro, A. F., Teixeira, D., Linke, S., & Sheldon, F. (2024) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112388 · Cited by 43
Recent advances in acoustoelectric conversion of piezoelectric electrospun nanofibers
Lang, C., Wang, H., Fang, J. H., Jin, J., Peng, L., & Lin, T. (2024) · Nano Energy · doi:10.1016/j.nanoen.2024.110117 · Cited by 32
Acoustic indices fail to represent different facets of biodiversity
Giuliani, M., Mirante, D., Abbondanza, E., & Santini, L. (2024) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112451 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- 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
- Venue
- Methods in Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-08-10
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2192-2204
- ISSN
- 2041-210X (ISSN-L)
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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 › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
