Back

Assessing the impact of spatial and temporal filters on BirdNET performance for monitoring bird communities

Perez-Granados, C.; Morant, J.; Funosas, D.; Sebastian-Gonzales, E.

2026-06-08 ecology
10.64898/2026.06.02.729608 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Recent advances in automated technologies, such as passive acoustic monitoring, provide a powerful framework for surveying bird communities at broad spatial scales. Among the most widely used artificial intelligence tools for automated bird sound recognition is BirdNET, which can identify over 6,000 species worldwide. However, the effects of key user-defined settings, such as species filtering, remain poorly evaluated. Here, we assess how alternative species-filtering strategies influence BirdNET performance in describing bird communities worldwide. We analysed 5,047 minutes of sound recordings from 72 locations worldwide, comprising 1,192 bird species identified by expert ornithologists. We compared three common species-filtering approaches applied in BirdNET workflows to post-process its output: no filtering, spatial filtering (species present all-year at a given location), and spatio-temporal filtering (species present at a given location and week). The unfiltered approach maximised BirdNET species detection (recall) but suffered very low precision (had many misidentifications) and poor overall performance. In contrast, the other two filtering strategies greatly improved precision and overall performance, despite moderate reductions in recall. Among them, spatio-temporal filtering consistently achieved the best performance across most datasets and regions globally. Within this optimal filtering approach, we also evaluated the role of another parameter: occurrence probability thresholds. Intermediate values of this threshold (around 0.05) maximized BirdNET performance in community-level analyses. Our results demonstrate that species filtering is a key but often underappreciated component of BirdNET workflows. We hope our findings may guide future studies in selecting optimal species filters, while emphasising that filtering selection should be guided by study objectives and data context.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Ecological Informatics
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.3%
2
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
176 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.3%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 23%
7.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
5
Journal of Animal Ecology
75 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.0%
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.4%
7
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
8
Molecular Ecology Resources
171 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.4%
9
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 13%
2.1%
10
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
11
Journal of Applied Ecology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.9%
12
Ecological Indicators
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
13
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
14
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
15
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
16
Environmental DNA
56 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
17
Movement Ecology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
18
Epidemics
116 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
19
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
20
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.8%
21
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
22
Patterns
78 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
23
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
24
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 69%
0.6%