Worldwide Soundscapes: A Synthesis of Passive Acoustic Monitoring Across Realms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim The urgency for remote, reliable and scalable biodiversity monitoring amidst mounting human pressures on ecosystems has sparked worldwide interest in Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM), which can track life underwater and on land. However, we lack a unified methodology to report this sampling effort and a comprehensive overview of PAM coverage to gauge its potential as a global research and monitoring tool. To address this gap, we created the Worldwide Soundscapes project, a collaborative network and growing database comprising metadata from 416 datasets across all realms (terrestrial, marine, freshwater and subterranean). Location Worldwide, 12,343 sites, all ecosystem types. Time Period 1991 to present. Major Taxa Studied All soniferous taxa. Methods We synthesise sampling coverage across spatial, temporal and ecological scales using metadata describing sampling locations, deployment schedules, focal taxa and audio recording parameters. We explore global trends in biological, anthropogenic and geophysical sounds based on 168 selected recordings from 12 ecosystems across all realms. Results Terrestrial sampling is spatially denser (46 sites per million square kilometre—Mkm 2 ) than aquatic sampling (0.3 and 1.8 sites/Mkm 2 in oceans and fresh water) with only two subterranean datasets. Although diel and lunar cycles are well sampled across realms, only marine datasets (55%) comprehensively sample all seasons. Across the 12 ecosystems selected for exploring global acoustic trends, biological sounds showed contrasting diel patterns across ecosystems, declined with distance from the Equator, and were negatively correlated with anthropogenic sounds. Main Conclusions PAM can inform macroecological studies as well as global conservation and phenology syntheses, but representation can be improved by expanding terrestrial taxonomic scope, sampling coverage in the high seas and subterranean ecosystems, and spatio‐temporal replication in freshwater habitats. Overall, this worldwide PAM network holds promise to support cross‐realm biodiversity research and monitoring efforts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".