Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) has emerged as a transformative tool for applied ecology, conservation and biodiversity monitoring, but its potential contribution to fundamental ecology is less often discussed, and fundamental PAM studies tend to be descriptive, rather than mechanistic. Here, we chart the most promising directions for ecologists wishing to use the suite of currently available acoustic methods to address long‐standing fundamental questions in ecology and explore new avenues of research. In both terrestrial and aquatic habitats, PAM provides an opportunity to ask questions across multiple spatial scales and at fine temporal resolution, and to capture phenomena or species that are difficult to observe. In combination with traditional approaches to data collection, PAM could release ecologists from myriad limitations that have, at times, precluded mechanistic understanding. We discuss several case studies to demonstrate the potential contribution of PAM to biodiversity estimation, population trend analysis, assessing climate change impacts on phenology and distribution, and understanding disturbance and recovery dynamics. We also highlight what is on the horizon for PAM, in terms of near‐future technological and methodological developments that have the potential to provide advances in coming years. Overall, we illustrate how ecologists can harness the power of PAM to address fundamental ecological questions in an era of ecology no longer characterised by data limitation. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Natural resource extraction is increasing rapidly in tropical forests, but we lag behind in understanding the impacts of these disturbances on biodiversity. In high diversity tropical habitats, acoustic monitoring is an efficient tool for sampling a large proportion of the fauna across varied spatial and temporal scales. We used passive acoustic monitoring in a pre-montane forest in Peru to investigate how soundscape composition and richness of acoustic frequencies varied with distance from a natural gas exploratory well and with operational phase (construction and drilling). We also evaluated how anuran and avian species richness and vocal activity varied with distance and between phases. Soundscape analyses showed that acoustic frequency similarity was greatest among sites closer to (≤250m) and farther from (≥500m) the platform. Soundscapes revealed more frequencies were used during construction and showed a weak trend of increasing frequency richness with increasing distance from the disturbance. Avian species richness and detections increased with distance from the platform, but anuran richness and detections declined with distance. Operational phase did not play a significant role in overall richness or activity patterns of either group. Among birds, insectivore detections increased with distance from the platform, and nectarivores were detected more frequently during the drilling phase. Results demonstrate that acoustic monitoring and soundscape analyses are useful tools for evaluating the impact of development activity on the vocalizing community, and should be implemented as a best practice in monitoring biodiversity and for guiding specific mitigation strategies

Acoustic ecology, or ecoacoustics, is a growing field that uses sound as a tool to evaluate animal communities. In this manuscript, we evaluate recordings from eight tropical forest sites that vary in species richness, from a relatively low diversity Caribbean forest to a megadiverse Amazonian forest, with the goal of understanding the relationship between acoustic space use (ASU) and species diversity across different taxonomic groups. For each site, we determined the acoustic morphospecies richness and composition of the biophony, and we used a global biodiversity dataset to estimate the regional richness of birds. Here, we demonstrate how detailed information on activity patterns of the acoustic community (8000 Hz), which contributed to greater ASU. This novel approach for analyzing the presence and acoustic activity of multiple taxonomic groups contributes to our understanding of ecological community dynamics and provides a useful tool for monitoring species in the context of restoration ecology, climate change and conservation biology.

Aim: The urgency for remote, reliable and scalable biodiversity monitoring amidst mounting human pressures on ecosystems has sparked worldwide interest in Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM), which can track life underwater and on land. However, we lack a unified methodology to report this sampling effort and a comprehensive overview of PAM coverage to gauge its potential as a global research and monitoring tool. To address this gap, we created the Worldwide Soundscapes project, a collaborative network and growing database comprising metadata from 416 datasets across all realms (terrestrial, marine, freshwater and subterranean).Location: Worldwide, 12,343 sites, all ecosystem types.Time Period: 1991 to present.Major Taxa Studied: All soniferous taxa.Methods: We synthesise sampling coverage across spatial, temporal and ecological scales using metadata describing sampling locations, deployment schedules, focal taxa and audio recording parameters. We explore global trends in biological, anthropogenic and geophysical sounds based on 168 selected recordings from 12 ecosystems across all realms.Results: Terrestrial sampling is spatially denser (46 sites per million square kilometre—Mkm²) than aquatic sampling (0.3 and 1.8 sites/Mkm² in oceans and fresh water) with only two subterranean datasets. Although diel and lunar cycles are well sampled across realms, only marine datasets (55%) comprehensively sample all seasons. Across the 12 ecosystems selected for exploring global acoustic trends, biological sounds showed contrasting diel patterns across ecosystems, declined with distance from the Equator, and were negatively correlated with anthropogenic sounds.Main Conclusions: PAM can inform macroecological studies as well as global conservation and phenology syntheses, but representation can be improved by expanding terrestrial taxonomic scope, sampling coverage in the high seas and subterranean ecosystems, and spatio‐temporal replication in freshwater habitats. Overall, this worldwide PAM network holds promise to support cross‐realm biodiversity research and monitoring efforts.