Back

Overcoming software bottlenecks for scalable passive acoustic monitoring: insights from a global expert assessment

Malerba, M. E.; Perez-Granados, C.; Bell, K.; Palacios, M. M.; Bellisario, K. M.; Desjonqueres, C.; Marquez-Rodriguez, A.; Mendoza, I.; Meyer, C. F. J.; Ramesh, V.; Raick, X.; Rhinehart, T. A.; Wood, C. M.; Ziegenhorn, M. A.; Buscaino, G.; Campos-Cerqueira, M.; Duarte, M. H. L.; Gasc, A.; Hanf-Dressler, T.; Juanes, F.; do Nascimento, L. A.; Rountree, R. A.; Thomisch, K.; Toledo, L. F.; Toka, M.; Vieira, M.

2026-04-01 ecology
10.64898/2026.03.30.715176 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) enables non-invasive sampling of wildlife across broad spatial, temporal and taxonomic scales. Its ongoing and widespread use has generated unprecedented volumes of acoustic data, shifting the primary bottleneck from data collection to the storage, processing, integration, and interpretation of PAM outputs. Although many software tools exist to address these challenges, differences in their design, scope, and usability often create fragmented and complex analytical workflows. To identify the key barriers and opportunities shaping the implementation of PAM surveys, we conducted a structured expert solicitation involving 30 international practitioners working across terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Experts identified and ranked their most critical pain points in current PAM workflows, spanning data storage, processing, and interpretation. The top challenge identified related to accurate species identification using deep learning and artificial intelligence (AI) models, especially in noisy soundscapes or for underrepresented taxa. Eight additional priority challenges included workflow fragmentation, limited availability of user-friendly analytical and visualisation tools, uneven access to software, manual validation bottlenecks, computational constraints, and difficulties in data handling, standardisation, and sharing. Participants also proposed practical mitigation strategies for these priority challenges, supported by step-by-step guidance to help overcome key barriers. Together, these insights provide a roadmap toward more scalable, open-access, and collaborative software systems, which are increasingly essential to realise the full potential of PAM in global biodiversity monitoring.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
39.8%
2
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.8%
50% of probability mass above
3
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.4%
5
Ecological Indicators
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
6
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 31%
2.8%
7
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 13%
2.1%
8
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
9
Limnology and Oceanography: Methods
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
10
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 66%
1.2%
12
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
13
Environmental Science & Technology
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
14
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
15
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
16
Global Ecology and Biogeography
41 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
17
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
18
Oikos
74 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
19
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
20
Bioinformatics Advances
184 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
21
Ecological Applications
28 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%
22
Frontiers in Marine Science
55 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
23
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
24
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 25%
0.5%
25
Environmental DNA
49 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%