Cited by 81Animal Vocal Communication and BehaviorAnimal Behavior and ReproductionMarine animal studies overview

Comparative bioacoustics: a roadmap for quantifying and comparing animal sounds across diverse taxa

Open access
Odom, Karan J., Araya‐Salas, Marcelo, Morano, Janelle L., Ligon, Russell A., Leighton, Gavin M., Taff, Conor C., Dalziell, Anastasia H., Billings, Alexis C. +9 more·2021·Biological Reviews

Abstract

Animals produce a wide array of sounds with highly variable acoustic structures. It is possible to understand the causes and consequences of this variation across taxa with phylogenetic comparative analyses. Acoustic and evolutionary analyses are rapidly increasing in sophistication such that choosing appropriate acoustic and evolutionary approaches is increasingly difficult. However, the correct choice of analysis can have profound effects on output and evolutionary inferences. Here, we identify and address some of the challenges for this growing field by providing a roadmap for quantifying and comparing sound in a phylogenetic context for researchers with a broad range of scientific backgrounds. Sound, as a continuous, multidimensional trait can be particularly challenging to measure because it can be hard to identify variables that can be compared across taxa and it is also no small feat to process and analyse the resulting high‐dimensional acoustic data using approaches that are appropriate for subsequent evolutionary analysis. Additionally, terminological inconsistencies and the role of learning in the development of acoustic traits need to be considered. Phylogenetic comparative analyses also have their own sets of caveats to consider. We provide a set of recommendations for delimiting acoustic signals into discrete, comparable acoustic units. We also present a three‐stage workflow for extracting relevant acoustic data, including options for multivariate analyses and dimensionality reduction that is compatible with phylogenetic comparative analysis. We then summarize available phylogenetic comparative approaches and how they have been used in comparative bioacoustics, and address the limitations of comparative analyses with behavioural data. Lastly, we recommend how to apply these methods to acoustic data across a range of study systems. In this way, we provide an integrated framework to aid in quantitative analysis of cross‐taxa variation in animal sounds for comparative phylogenetic analysis. In addition, we advocate the standardization of acoustic terminology across disciplines and taxa, adoption of automated methods for acoustic feature extraction, and establishment of strong data archival practices for acoustic recordings and data analyses. Combining such practices with our proposed workflow will greatly advance the reproducibility, biological interpretation, and longevity of comparative bioacoustic studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/brv.12695

Cites

284 of 284 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Multiple terms may be used for the same metric, and single terms have multiple definitions in bioacoustics in other taxa such as amphibians and birds.

    “Such issues have been longstanding in the field of bioacoustics in other taxa such as amphibians and birds, whereby multiple terms may be used for the same metric, and single terms have multiple definitions (Köhler et al. 2017; Odom et al. 2021).”

    From Roars, Rumbles, and Resonance: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Crocodylian Acoustic Signals (2026) · cites this paper as Odom et al. 2021

    The Abstract (page unavailable) advocates standardizing acoustic terminology across disciplines and taxa, supporting the general point that terminology is an issue. The retrieved copy does not specify that multiple terms name the same metric or that a single term has multiple definitions, or identify amphibians and birds in this connection. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Such inconsistencies are even found within studies of the same species.

    “Such inconsistencies are even found within studies of the same species (Odom et al. 2021).”

    From Roars, Rumbles, and Resonance: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Crocodylian Acoustic Signals (2026) · cites this paper as Odom et al. 2021

    The available passages labeled Abstract contain bibliographic details and keywords, but do not discuss inconsistencies between studies of the same species. Searches for “same species” and for inconsistent acoustic measurements or methods found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 290 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Odom, K. J., Araya‐Salas, M., Morano, J. L., Ligon, R. A., Leighton, G. M., Taff, C. C., Dalziell, A. H., Billings, A. C., Germain, R. R., Pardo, M., de Andrade, L. G., Hedwig, D., Keen, S. C., Shiu, Y., Charif, R. A., Webster, M. S., & Rice, A. N.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Buffalo State University (US)
  • University of Wollongong (AU)
  • University of Montana (US)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 U.S.A.
Corresponding author
Odom, Karan J.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-03-02
Volume
96
Issue
4
Pages
1135-1159
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
OpenAlex
W3135174712
Cited by
81
References
290
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1523748, 1523895, 1612861, 1755132)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
Keywords
animal sounds, acoustic signals, phylogenetic comparative analysis, acoustic signal evolution, audio feature extraction, dimensionality reduction, behavioral data, reproducibility
MeSH terms
Acoustics, Animals, Biological Evolution, Phenotype, Phylogeny, Reproducibility of Results

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.

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