SynthesisF1000Research2026
Software Tools for Passive Acoustic Monitoring in Aquatic and Terrestrial Bio- and Ecoacoustics: A Living Systematic Review.
Synthesis in F1000Research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biodiversity monitoring is crucial for understanding species trends and their responses to anthropogenic change. Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) offers a scalable, non-invasive approach to capture ecological information across large spatial and temporal scales. However, it generates vast amounts of audio recordings, whose management and analysis present technical challenges. To support diverse user needs in ecoacoustic research, a growing number of software tools have emerged, but the landscape remains fragmented and difficult to navigate. We provide a systematic overview of software tools used for soundscape assessment across terrestrial, freshwater, and marine environments. We screened peer-reviewed literature and complemented it with database cross-checking to identify and categorize tools according to four PAM data workflow components: data management, signal pre-processing, visualisation and navigation, and acoustic analysis. We found 221 available tools of which 174 were explicitly designed for PAM. Most tools were freely accessible (83%) with only a smaller fraction being commercial (12%) or limited access (5%). Terrestrial research accounted for most software mentions (476 studies), followed by aquatic (319) and cross-realm (64) studies. Nearly half (45%) were package-based frameworks within R, Python, or MATLAB. Acoustic analysis was the most represented workflow component, while only 40 tools covered all four of them. This diversity illustrates the field's rapid technical growth but also its redundancy and methodological fragmentation: to date, many tools target only a subset of workflow components and replicate similar functionalities. Despite this, the prevalence of PAM-dedicated software indicates increasing specialization and technical maturity within ecoacoustics. Our structured inventory underscores the need for greater collaboration and continuity in software development, promoting the improvement and accessibility of existing tools rather than further proliferation. This living systematic review, provides a practical, biannually updated reference for tool selection and fosters transparency, comparability, and cooperation across bioacoustic and ecoacoustic research communities.
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.