Affiliation:
1. School of Biology and Environmental Science Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia
2. Bush Heritage Australia Melbourne Australia
3. School of Computer Science Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia
4. School of the Environment The University of Queensland Brisbane Australia
5. Department of Zoology University of Johannesburg Johannesburg South Africa
6. Department of Zoology and Entomology University of Pretoria Pretoria South Africa
7. CSIRO Land & Water Brisbane Australia
8. School of Environmental and Rural Science University of New England Armidale Australia
Abstract
AbstractPassive acoustic recorders have emerged as powerful tools for ecological monitoring. However, effective monitoring is not simply an act of recording sounds. To have meaning for conservation and management, acoustic monitoring needs to be properly planned and analyzed to yield high quality information. Here, we provide a set of considerations for the design of an effective acoustic monitoring program. We argue that such a program, has the following attributes: (1) has established appropriate partnerships with landowners, Traditional Owners, researchers, or other relevant stakeholders, (2) is based on clear objectives and questions, (3) is explicit in its target sound signals, (4) has considered in‐field sensor placement for a range of factors, including experimental design, statistical power, background noise, and potential impacts on human privacy and animal disturbance, (5) has a justified recording schedule and periodicity, (6) has methods to process sound data in line with objectives, and (7) has protocols for permanent data storage and access. Acoustic monitoring is increasingly used in large‐scale programs and will be important in addressing global biodiversity targets and new biodiversity markets. It is critical that new monitoring programs are designed to effectively and efficiently capture data that address pertinent and emerging issues in conservation.