Sound advice: A calibration framework for defining detection space in passive acoustic monitoring
- 1Centre for Biodiversity Conservation, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
Abstract
Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) has emerged as a transformative tool for biodiversity assessment in recent years. Despite widespread acceptance and application for conservation-related outcomes, the interactive effects of hardware limitations, signal propagation, and environmental conditions on how far a signal can be reliably detected remain critically understudied. Such studies in regions of high biodiversity such as the Western Ghats of India, can bolster ongoing monitoring of conservation efforts. We quantified changes in signal detectability using Autonomous Recording Units (ARUs) in a tropical agroecosystem in the Western Ghats. We played back standardized pure tone (1–8 kHz) signals in fallow rice paddy fields over 50–300 m distance gradient. We measured detection using a four-ARU array and modeled operative detectability of signals. We found the ‘detection space’ of an ARU to be highly frequency-dependent and environmentally modulated. Detection probability for low-frequency signals (1 kHz) decreased rapidly (50% threshold at ~100 m), whereas mid-range frequencies (4–6 kHz) occupied an acoustic window that remained reliably detectable up to 250 m. Higher relative humidity significantly enhanced overall detection, while increasing temperatures disproportionately reduced low-frequency detectability. The orientation of the ARU to the signal source was critical, as the detection probability declined from 81% for recorders facing the source (0°) to 14% for rear-facing units (180°). We propose a ‘Decision Support Framework’ that provides a pathway for researchers to integrate focal taxa traits with technical constraints to determine detection space and optimize study designs when using PAM for monitoring biodiversity and assessing conservation action.
Related
- Discovery and promotion of unknown sounds into operational detection targets for underwater passive acoustic monitoring under false alarm constraints
- Automated identification of individual birds by song enables multi-year recapture from passive acoustic monitoring data
- National-scale acoustic monitoring of avian biodiversity and migration
- Phenological shifts of low-latitude frogs over 15 years revealed by passive acoustic monitoring
- A Self‐Supervised Approach for Hainan Gibbon Call Separation in Passive Acoustic Monitoring
BibTeX
@article{sharma2026sound,
title = {{Sound advice: A calibration framework for defining detection space in passive acoustic monitoring}},
author = {Prabhat Sharma and Kunapareddy Kezia and Kadaba Shamanna Seshadri},
journal = {PLOS One},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0350789},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350789},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Sound advice: A calibration framework for defining detection space in passive acoustic monitoring
AU - Prabhat Sharma
AU - Kunapareddy Kezia
AU - Kadaba Shamanna Seshadri
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/27
JO - PLOS One
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0350789
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350789
AB - Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) has emerged as a transformative tool for biodiversity assessment in recent years. Despite widespread acceptance and application for conservation-related outcomes, the interactive effects of hardware limitations, signal propagation, and environmental conditions on how far a signal can be reliably detected remain critically understudied. Such studies in regions of high biodiversity such as the Western Ghats of India, can bolster ongoing monitoring of conservation efforts. We quantified changes in signal detectability using Autonomous Recording Units (ARUs) in a tropical agroecosystem in the Western Ghats. We played back standardized pure tone (1–8 kHz) signals in fallow rice paddy fields over 50–300 m distance gradient. We measured detection using a four-ARU array and modeled operative detectability of signals. We found the ‘detection space’ of an ARU to be highly frequency-dependent and environmentally modulated. Detection probability for low-frequency signals (1 kHz) decreased rapidly (50% threshold at ~100 m), whereas mid-range frequencies (4–6 kHz) occupied an acoustic window that remained reliably detectable up to 250 m. Higher relative humidity significantly enhanced overall detection, while increasing temperatures disproportionately reduced low-frequency detectability. The orientation of the ARU to the signal source was critical, as the detection probability declined from 81% for recorders facing the source (0°) to 14% for rear-facing units (180°). We propose a ‘Decision Support Framework’ that provides a pathway for researchers to integrate focal taxa traits with technical constraints to determine detection space and optimize study designs when using PAM for monitoring biodiversity and assessing conservation action.
SN - 1932-6203
ER -