Comparing passive acoustic monitoring bat data from commercial and open‐source detectors: Evidence to support best practice

Perks, Samantha J. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1893-8059, O'Connell, Mark J. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3402-8880 and Goodenough, Anne E ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7662-6670 (2025) Comparing passive acoustic monitoring bat data from commercial and open‐source detectors: Evidence to support best practice. Ecological Solutions and Evidence, 6 (3). doi:10.1002/2688-8319.70103

Preview

Text 15289 Perks, S. et al. (2025) Comparing passive acoustic monitoring bat data from commercial and open‐source.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives 4.0. Download (3MB) | Preview

Abstract

Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is an important survey method used to collect data on bat distribution and activity that are needed to underpin conservation and management. The introduction of open‐source acoustic recorders at price points considerably lower than those for commercial detectors means PAM is becoming increasingly accessible to practitioners. However, uncertainty regarding recording quality, especially at higher frequencies, makes understanding the comparative performance of commercial and open‐source devices imperative. Here, two types of commercial bat detectors: full spectrum (Anabat Swift) and zero‐crossing (Anabat Express), and open‐source AudioMoth acoustic recorders (configured to use 250 kHz (hereafter low) or (384 kHz hereafter high) sampling rates) are compared in each of four different habitats: riparian, woodland, wood pasture and arable. In each habitat, comparisons are made using detectors that were spatially co‐located and recording on the same nights, such that they had identical opportunity to record the same data. Species accumulation curves were additionally created for each detector type to quantify the combined effects of using multiple detectors, multiple locations per site and multiple temporal replicates. When directly compared, full spectrum commercial detectors outperformed open‐source devices (regardless of sampling rate) for many metrics, including for species richness (i.e. the number of species recorded) in all habitats tested. However, the low frequency open‐source device performed similarly to the zero‐crossing commercial device in quantifying overall bat activity and activity of individual taxa in most habitats. The low frequency open‐source unit consistently outperformed the high frequency open‐source unit. Commercial detectors accumulated species more quickly, and one detector at one location per site was typically sufficient to record the full species inventory. However, use of multiple open‐source devices over a longer period recorded the same species inventory in three of the four habitats. Practical implication: Although commercial devices remain the gold standard for recording quality, this study shows that less expensive open‐source acoustic recorders sampling at low frequency are viable for PAM where the cost of commercial devices is prohibitive. However, it should be noted that longer survey periods or use of multiple units are often required to obtain comparable data.

Item Type:	Article
Article Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Anabat; AudioMoth; Automated detection; Bats; Bioacoustics; PAM; Survey protocol
Subjects:	G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > G Geography (General) Q Science > QA Mathematics > QA75 Electronic computers. Computer science
Divisions:	Schools and Research Institutes > School of Education, Health and Sciences
Depositing User:	Kamila Niekoraniec
Date Deposited:	10 Sep 2025 07:35
Last Modified:	11 Sep 2025 09:30
URI:	https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/id/eprint/15289

University Staff: Request a correction | Repository Editors: Update this record