ReviewEcology and evolution2025
Lost in Translation-How Transparency Can Improve Comparability and Reusability in Acoustic Bat Research.
Review in Ecology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Lost in Translation-How Transparency Can Improve Comparability and Reusability in Acoustic Bat Research.Ecology and evolution · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Imagine solving a puzzle where half the pieces are missing: Acoustic bat monitoring, a key method for studying species distribution and population shifts, depends on purpose-specific parameters and clear documentation. Without detailed information on these specific parameters, mainly the employed hard- and software, reproducibility and cross-study comparability are not given. This comparability is imperative to address the gaps in bat population data, which have been described as one of the major threats to global bat biodiversity. We aimed to identify the parameters critical for the accurate interpretation and reproducibility of acoustic bat monitoring and assess how these parameters are communicated in existing studies. Using the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed studies that employed acoustic bat surveys or monitoring in European forests since 2008. Our review focused on three primary components: (1) recording devices and their settings, (2) call identification protocols, and (3) bat activity interpretation methods. Over 90% of the reviewed studies lacked basic methodological parameters. In all areas, we observed incomplete reporting of settings, unreproducible call identification protocols, and data interpretation methods that did not provide access to underlying data. We found a wide range of acoustic bat monitoring methods applied to diverse research questions. This variability underscores the fact that recommending a single approach is neither practical nor desirable. However, consistent reporting of equipment and methods is essential for improving transparency across studies. A standardized framework specifying key parameters for reporting would enhance comparability, support data reuse, and promote more robust bat monitoring and acoustic research. The lack of standardization does not reflect poorly on the researchers' competence or intent but emphasizes the need for a unified approach to bioacoustics methodology. We propose a standardized framework for reporting methodological parameters in acoustic bat monitoring to improve comparability, reproducibility, and transparency across studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.