A Collection of Best Practices for the Collection and Analysis of Bioacoustic Data
Open accessAbstract
The field of bioacoustics is rapidly developing and characterized by diverse methodologies, approaches and aims. For instance, bioacoustics encompasses studies on the perception of pure tones in meticulously controlled laboratory settings, documentation of species’ presence and activities using recordings from the field, and analyses of circadian calling patterns in animal choruses. Newcomers to the field are confronted with a vast and fragmented literature, and a lack of accessible reference papers or textbooks. In this paper we contribute towards filling this gap. Instead of a classical list of “dos” and “don’ts”, we review some key papers which, we believe, embody best practices in several bioacoustic subfields. In the first three case studies, we discuss how bioacoustics can help identify the ‘who’, ‘where’ and ‘how many’ of animals within a given ecosystem. Specifically, we review cases in which bioacoustic methods have been applied with success to draw inferences regarding species identification, population structure, and biodiversity. In fourth and fifth case studies, we highlight how structural properties in signal evolution can emerge via ecological constraints or cultural transmission. Finally, in a sixth example, we discuss acoustic methods that have been used to infer predator–prey dynamics in cases where direct observation was not feasible. Across all these examples, we emphasize the importance of appropriate recording parameters and experimental design. We conclude by highlighting common best practices across studies as well as caveats about our own overview. We hope our efforts spur a more general effort in standardizing best practices across the subareas we’ve highlighted in order to increase compatibility among bioacoustic studies and inspire cross-pollination across the discipline.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Adoption of FAIR and TRUST principles along with detailed protocol reporting and open workflows is increasingly viewed as the path forward.
“Adoption of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and TRUST (Transparency, Responsibility, User focus, Sustainability, Technology) principles along with detailed protocol reporting and open workflows is increasingly viewed as the path forward (Oswald et al. 2022; Sequeira et al. 2021).”
From Listening forward: emerging roles of bioacoustics in ecology, evolution, and conservation (2026) · cites this paper as Oswald et al. 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 168 · Cited by 25
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Bradbury, J.W.; Vehrencamp, S.L. Principles of Animal Communication, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2011.
- Searcy, W.N.S. The Evolution of Animal Communication and Deception in Signaling Systems; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2005.
- Crance, J.L.; Bowles, A.E.; Garver, A. Evidence for Vocal Learning in Juvenile Male Killer Whales, Orcinus Orca, from an Adventitious Cross-Socializing Experiment. J. Exp. Biol. 2014, 217, 1229-1237. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Pollack, G.S., Mason, A.C., Popper, A.N., Fay, R.R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 17-47. 116.
- Suthers, R.A., Fitch, W.T., Fay, R.R., Popper, A.N., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 1-18. 165.
- Authors
- Oswald, J. N., Van Cise, A. M., Dassow, A., Elliott, T., Johnson, M. T., Ravignani, A., & Podos, J.
- Affiliations
- University of St Andrews (GB)
- School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA
- Carthage College (US)
- New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (US)
- University of Kentucky (US)
- Aarhus University (DK)
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- Corresponding author
- Oswald, Julie N.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Applied Sciences
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2022-11-25
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 12046
- ISSN
- 2076-3417 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4310043888
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 168
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 4.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Applied Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
- St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Keywords
- bioacoustics, best practices, species identification, population structure (demography), biodiversity, signal evolution, cultural transmission, predator-prey dynamics, recording parameters, experimental design, animal vocalizations
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