Standardisation in bat acoustic research: a review of reporting practices in Australia
Kelly Sheldrick
A B * , David A. Hill C , Patricia A. Fleming A D and Rochelle Steven A E
A
B
C
D
E
Abstract
Acoustic monitoring is a common survey method for echolocating bats. However, differences in equipment, methods of field deployment, and variability in bat calls complicate acoustic analysis. The Australasian Bat Society (ABS), the peak body for bat conservation in the region, published reporting standards (hereafter ‘standards’) as a guide towards consistent and transparent methods in acoustic bat surveys. Here we review how the current standards are integrated into Australian bat acoustic research. Our analysis showed that only 8 of the 107 studies reviewed adhered fully to the standards. While 89% of studies included citation to reference libraries, and 79% of studies described call characteristics of similar species, only 17% of studies adhered to guidelines requiring the inclusion of time versus frequency spectrographs for species identification. Furthermore, only 19% reported on survey effort as a function of detector hours. This review underscores the need for easily accessible and updated standards as well as the sharing of bat call reference libraries to improve the accuracy and comparability of bat acoustic surveys in Australia. Enhancing consistency and transparency in bat acoustic reporting will facilitate more robust studies and enhance the effectiveness of conservation efforts.
Keywords: acoustic detectors, Australian bats, bat acoustic surveys, bat call identification, bat call libraries, bat conservation, bat ecology, bat research, bioacoustics, echolocation, ecoacoustics, reporting standards, research transparency, survey methodology, wildlife monitoring.
Introduction
Bat acoustic surveys are increasingly applied globally as a non-invasive survey method to research and monitor elusive echolocating bats (Zamora-Gutierrez et al. 2021). In Australia, 71 of the 79 known bat species use echolocation for navigation and foraging (Armstrong et al. 2020; Archer 2023; Burbidge et al. 2023). Echolocating bats are acoustically detected using specialised equipment with microphones capable of recording ultrasonic frequencies. The calls are then analysed to determine species presence and bat activity at a given site (Runkel et al. 2021; Zamora-Gutierrez et al. 2021). While acoustic methods offer some significant advantages over traditional approaches such as trapping or visual surveys, including reduced disturbance and the ability to collect data over longer time periods, they also present challenges (Table 1). These challenges include inconsistent or inadequate call identification, limited access to high-quality reference call libraries, and the need to manage and analyse large volumes of data. Deciding whether acoustic methods can be appropriately used for a specific study should therefore be guided by the research questions or survey objective, expected results and implications.
| Explanation | Supporting literature | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) Advantages | |||
| Increased geographic coverage | Bioacoustic surveys allow for monitoring larger or more remote areas that may be difficult or time-consuming to access using other methods, such as trapping, visual observation or camera monitoring. This expands the range of data that can be collected without the need for physical presence in every location. | Collins (2023), Waudby et al. (2022) and Zamora-Gutierrez et al. (2021) | |
| Reduced mortality risk and therefore improved animal welfare | Unlike trapping, which can physically harm or disturb the bats, bioacoustic surveys pose minimal risk to bat populations, making them a less invasive method of study. | Collins (2023), Waudby et al. (2022) and Zamora-Gutierrez et al. (2021) | |
| Reduced field-associated labour costs | Compared with traditional methods such as live trapping, bioacoustic surveys require fewer personnel and can often be conducted with minimal fieldwork, reducing the costs associated with setting up and carrying out fieldwork. | Collins (2023), Waudby et al. (2022) and Zamora-Gutierrez et al. (2021) | |
| Increased survey duration | Bioacoustic surveys enable long-term monitoring, in contrast to trapping surveys, which are typically conducted over short timeframes and may only capture a limited snapshot of species presence and activity. | Collins (2023), Waudby et al. (2022) and Zamora-Gutierrez et al. (2021) | |
| (b) Limitations | |||
| Detector make and model | The make and model of the detectors used in surveys can influence the quality and type of data captured. Differences in detector sensitivity and frequency range may affect the ability to accurately record bat calls. It is important to document the specific make and model of detectors used in studies to account for these potential influences on results. | Mac Aodha et al. (2018), Middleton (2020) and Runkel et al. (2021) | |
| Detector placement | The positioning of acoustic detectors is critical for capturing accurate data, as poor placement can result in missed calls or misrepresentations of bat activity. | D’Acunto et al. (2018), Waudby et al. (2022) and Zamora-Gutierrez et al. (2021) | |
| Number of detector nights | The total time the detectors are deployed (number of nights) can significantly influence the amount of data collected. Too few detector nights can lead to insufficient data, while an excessive number may not provide significantly better insights. | Waudby et al. (2022) | |
| Bat call analysis process | The method used to analyse recorded bat calls can introduce errors, particularly if manual analysis or flawed algorithms are used. Inconsistent or inadequate analysis can lead to misidentification of species. Additionally, analysing bat calls requires substantial expertise, regardless of whether manual or automated analyses are used. This complexity is often underestimated, and inconsistent or inadequate analysis can lead to misidentification of species. | Russo et al. (2018) and Walters et al. (2013) | |
| Reference calls used | The quality and scope of the reference library for bat calls is crucial for accurate species identification. Without comprehensive and region-specific reference calls, it becomes challenging to identify bat species accurately, especially for species with similar or overlapping call characteristics. | Law et al. (2002), Russo et al. (2018) and Walters et al. (2013) | |
| Recording method | It is crucial to note whether the recordings were full-spectrum or zero-crossing. Zero crossing extracts the basic time-frequency content of a signal and does not have amplitude information from the original signal. Full spectrum extracts amplitude changes within the bat call enabling it to retain simultaneous multiple frequency content of a signal at any time. The method used therefore impacts the frequency range captured and can influence species identification. Many earlier bat surveys in Australia, particularly those using Anabat detectors, employed zero-crossing technology, which has limitations in recording higher frequencies compared with full-spectrum recordings. | Runkel et al. (2021), Russo et al. (2018), Walters et al. (2013) and Zamora-Gutierrez et al. (2021) | |
Despite the many benefits of acoustic methods, bat call analysis is complex. Variability in detection hardware, field deployment protocols, and call analysis techniques can affect the accuracy and comparability of results (Table 1). Additionally, whereas some bat species have distinctive echolocation calls, the calls of many species show overlap in the acoustic parameters used to characterise them, making identification challenging or, in some cases, impossible (Law et al. 2002; Pennay et al. 2004; Russo et al. 2018; Middleton 2020). Most regions across Australia also support a high diversity of echolocating bat species, further complicating identification efforts (Fig. 1). Additional challenges arise from intraspecific variation in calls; bats modify the structure of their echolocation calls according to the environment they are flying in and their activity (Russo et al. 2018; Middleton 2020; Law et al. 2021). Inconsistent detector placement and environmental conditions also influence findings, further compounding the problem (Walters et al. 2013; Mac Aodha et al. 2018; Russo et al. 2018; Middleton 2020; Runkel et al. 2021; Zamora-Gutierrez et al. 2021).
Microbat species richness across Australia. Data are calculated from the IUCN terrestrial mammal species database, Spatial Data Download https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/spatial-data-download, updated 27 March 2025.
The method of call analysis, including manual analysis using filters or employing automated bat call classifiers, can also influence survey results. Both of these methods rely on different call parameters (e.g. peak frequency, pulse duration, inter-pulse interval) that can vary depending on the analysis process (Walters et al. 2013; Russo et al. 2018) as well as on species’ calls (or species group) being distinct (Russo et al. 2018). Call analysis is influenced by biases (e.g. equipment and algorithmic biases), as well as by having insufficient reference calls, human error (e.g. in collecting calls, annotating recordings, or misidentifying species), and expertise (Walters et al. 2013). A robust verification process is therefore key to ensuring that high-quality data are available for subsequent analysis (Zamora-Gutierrez et al. 2021).
When surveys are not standardised, or when studies fail to report their methods transparently, repeatability is compromised (Asmus et al. 2025). This reduces confidence in results and makes comparison across studies difficult (Walters et al. 2013). The Australasian Bat Society (ABS) is a volunteer-led organisation dedicated to bat conservation and research across the region and brings together experts in ecology, taxonomy, conservation, and wildlife management. There has been growing concern among ABS researchers over inadequate survey effort and the lack of transparency in regard to bat call identification in acoustic survey reports (Australasian Bat Society 2006). As a result, the ABS conducted a workshop with the aim of developing a set of standards (Standards for Reporting Bat Detector Surveys, Australasian Bat Society 2006; see Supplementary material S1) that, if followed, would improve the quality of bat surveys and allow independent assessment of reports. We analysed adoption of these standards to evaluate how widely they have been implemented in practice, and to assess their impact on the quality and transparency of acoustic bat survey reporting.
Materials and methods
A quantitative systematic review method was used to identify and select bat acoustic studies undertaken in Australia (Pickering et al. 2015; Foo et al. 2021). This method was chosen in preference to a narrative style literature review because a quantitative review allows the standards to be evaluated in a systematic way (Pickering et al. 2015). Australian bat acoustic publications (peer-reviewed and grey literature) were retrieved from academic databases (‘Web of Life Core Collection’, ‘Google Scholar’ and ‘Scopus’). Retrieval occurred between 16 and 18 September 2024. Search words used in each database search were ‘microbat’, ‘Microchiroptera’, ‘Chiroptera’, ‘bat call’, ‘social call’, ‘insectivorous bat’, ‘echolocation’, ‘bioacoustics’, and ‘acoustics’. Filters selected included the location being set to ‘Australia’. Each article was reviewed and articles where research was not conducted in Australia, where primary data were not used, or where bats were not a focal species, were removed from the literature review.
Although both peer-reviewed and grey literature were included through structured searches of academic databases, the search did not extend to unindexed materials, such as the ABS Newsletter or unpublished consultancy reports. These sources may contain additional relevant information, including practical insights and methodological detail. However, their exclusion was necessary to maintain a systematic and replicable review scope. Although this represents a limitation, it is unlikely to have significantly affected the overall findings of the review, because the included literature spans a 35-year period (1989–2024), covers all Australian states and territories, and represents a diverse range of contributors, including academic researchers, government scientists, and environmental consultants. This breadth provides confidence that the review captures a representative sample of acoustic monitoring practices in Australia.
Theses were included in the review, regardless of whether they resulted in subsequent journal papers. In total, nine theses were included, which collectively contributed to 11 of the publications reviewed. This approach ensured a more comprehensive analysis of the available research, as theses often provide more details than are present in subsequent peer-reviewed papers.
In total, 107 publications were included in the literature review (‘Supplementary material S2’). The following data were extracted from each article and compiled in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet: author, year of publication, publication type, author affiliation, author location, journal name, study objective, study habitat, species focus, species identification methods, detector used, acoustic software used, acoustic analysis methods and verification process, number of species or species groups considered, call measurements, and site location.
The standards for reporting acoustic bat surveys (Australasian Bat Society 2006) include four ‘essential reporting standards’, two ‘highly desirable reporting standards’ and six ‘additional suggestions’ on survey effort and methods (see ‘Supplementary material S1’). To address the objectives of the present study, each publication was reviewed against the the following four ‘essential reporting standards’, because these are considered most relevant for determining the extent to which verification processes are used in Australian bat acoustic studies:
Standard 1. A description of the reference library used in the identification process. Although the standards do not explicitly define the term ‘reference library,’ the wording in the example provided suggests that it refers to a digital library of calls from verified species.
Standard 2. Details of the number of detector hours recorded during the survey. If articles reported the number of detector nights rather than detector hours, this was also analysed.
Standard 3. A sample ‘time versus frequency’ graph (spectrograph) of each species identified during the survey. These graphs must be of bats recorded and identified during the survey.
Standard 4. For species with similar call characteristics, a written description of the characteristics used to distinguish these species must be included in the methods.
Each study was scored on how many of these four essential standards they reported on, creating a ‘compliance score’ (0–4). This score was used to assess whether the introduction of the standards in November 2006 led to greater standardisation in acoustic reporting. To do this, we compared the ‘compliance scores’ of research published before (pre-2007) and after (2007–2024) the standards were published. The ‘compliance score’ data were not normally distributed and, therefore, a non-parametric two-sample Wilcoxon rank test was used (analysis conducted in R, ver. 4.4.3; R Core Team 2025). The correlation between ‘compliance score’ and year of publication was calculated using a Spearman rank order correlation in R.
The standards also included the following two ‘highly desirable criteria’: (1) the inclusion of the proportion of calls identified, and (2) the deposition of all call files from a survey with the client or agency. Although these criteria hold value for transparency in studies, we found little evidence of their reporting, and therefore these ‘highly desirable criteria’ were not included in our review.
There are also six additional suggestions in the standards (see ‘Supplementary material S1’). The following two of these were more commonly reported in publications, and therefore we have captured these:
Suggestion 2. Whether bat trapping surveys were employed in conjunction with the acoustic surveys.
Suggestion 6. Whether reference calls were collected from bats released after trapping to aid in verifying the bat calls recorded during the acoustic surveys.
We acknowledge that there is no mandatory reporting requirement for these suggested criteria. Therefore, our analysis of the uptake of these suggestions may not fully reflect the actions taken by each study. Nevertheless, it should provide a good indication of the practices employed.
Results
The 107 studies on echolocating bats by using acoustic survey methods were published between 1989 and 2024. Studies were conducted at sites across New South Wales (52 studies), Queensland (20), Western Australia (18), Victoria (17), Northern Territory (9), South Australia (6) and Tasmania (2). The reviewed studies included 92 peer-reviewed journal articles, nine theses, four technical reports and two book chapters (see ‘Supplementary material S2’). Of these, 27 studies were published prior to 2007 (i.e. prior to publication of the standards) and 80 studies were published between 2007 and 2024.
The essential standard most adhered to was Standard 1 (n = 95, 89%), followed by Standard 4, which was reported in 84 studies (79%). Twenty studies (19%) met Standard 2 (with 44 studies choosing to report the number of detector nights, and eight studies reported both Standard 2 and the number of detector nights). Eighteen studies (17%) met Standard 3. Only eight studies (7%) met all four standards.
There was no statistical difference in the ‘compliance score’ for studies published before (average 2.22 ± 1.09 s.d., n = 27) and after (1.98 ± 0.90 s.d., n = 80) the standards were published in 2006 (W = 1257, P = 0.169). There was a trend towards less reporting against the essential standards over time, although the result did not reach statistical significance (Spearman’s S = 243, P = 0.052, rho = -0.189, Fig. 2).
Calculated ‘compliance scores’ (number of four standards reported by each study) against the year that the study was published. Publication of the Australasian Bat Society (ABS) Standards for Reporting Bat Detector Surveys in November 2006 is indicated by the vertical dotted line.
For the suggested criteria, 44 of the 107 studies (41%) followed Suggestion 2, and 32 (35%) followed Suggestion 6.
Discussion
The ABS Standards for Reporting Bat Detector Surveys should serve as a guide towards consistent and transparent methods in acoustic bat surveys. We found that implementation of the standards was inconsistent among 107 Australian bat research studies reviewed, with only eight studies meeting all four essential standards. Additionally, there was no improvement in compliance against the essential criteria following publication of the standards in November 2006. This raises concerns regarding the conduct and/or reporting of bat acoustic studies in Australia. Non-standardised reporting renders it difficult to objectively assess the quality of the data, and undermines repeatability of the surveys conducted. To address these issues, it is crucial to examine both gaps in reporting and barriers to effective implementation of the standards.
Gaps in reporting
Many of the assessed studies referenced regional bat call identification keys or filters, instead of including a spectrograph for each species identified (e.g. Bhardwaj et al. 2020). This may help explain the low adoption of Standard 3. Most regions across Australia have many echolocating bat species (Fig. 1) and there is known to be geographical variation in the calls of some species (Reinhold et al. 2001a; Law et al. 2002; Armstrong and Coles 2007; Russo et al. 2018). Publicly available regional bat call identification keys (e.g. Reinhold et al. 2001b; Milne 2002; Pennay et al. 2004) and/or a repository for local reference calls can be useful support for ecologists conducting studies and surveys in these areas (e.g. Zamora-Gutierrez et al. 2020; Görföl et al. 2022). Reporting on the use of these resources also supports transparency and helps ensure survey repeatability (Russo et al. 2018; Runkel et al. 2021; Asmus et al. 2025).
There was also a low adoption of Standard 2 and a preference to report the coarser measure of survey effort, namely that of the number of detector nights. While detector nights are easier to report and provide a general indication of effort, they are less precise than is reporting detector hours, which offers a more accurate reflection of the time spent actively recording bat activity. Additionally, an important but often overlooked factor is the ‘window of operation’; that is, whether detectors were deployed throughout the night or during specific periods (e.g. post-dusk or pre-dawn). This detail is critical, because bat activity patterns can vary considerably throughout the night (e.g. D’Acunto et al. 2018; Schimpp et al. 2018) and knowing when detectors were active helps contextualise the data and supports more meaningful cross-study comparisons (Zamora-Gutierrez et al. 2021). Clear reporting of both detector hours and operational windows, alongside information on detector type, placement, and weather conditions, could substantially enhance transparency and support greater standardisation of acoustic survey methods (Walters et al. 2013; Runkel et al. 2021; Waudby et al. 2022).
The current standards do not require the reporting of the make and model of acoustic detectors, despite this information being critical for interpreting survey results. Although not formally quantified in this review, many studies did report the detector model (e.g. Burgar et al. 2017; Williams and Thomson 2019; Bhardwaj et al. 2020; Law et al. 2021); however, level of detail varied across the reviewed literature. Detector model differences, such as sensitivity and microphone quality, can influence the bat calls recorded and should be considered when interpreting survey outcomes (Adams et al. 2012; Russo et al. 2018; Runkel et al. 2021). This issue is particularly pertinent given the rapid growth in the availability and diversity of detectors since the standards were published in 2006. Newer models now vary widely in cost and functionality, and are accessible to a broader range of users, increasing variability in the equipment used (e.g. Adams et al. 2012). Many studies reviewed relied on detectors, which used zero-crossing technology (eg. Callas et al. 2024) that compresses calls by recording only one frequency value for each point in time, which greatly reduces data size, but loses information on harmonics, amplitude, and much of the call structure. This can limit species identification, particularly where multiple species are present (Runkel et al. 2021). In contrast, full-spectrum detectors capture the complete acoustic signal, preserving harmonics and call shape for more reliable analyses. Whether a detector is zero-crossing or full-spectrum, therefore, has important implications for the interpretation of survey data, and reporting this information enables repeatability (Walters et al. 2013; Runkel et al. 2021; Waudby et al. 2022).
Barriers to effective implementation of the standards
A number of barriers to the effective implementation of the standards were identified through the current review. We found that Standards 1 and 4 are more frequently integrated into Australian bat acoustic studies, although barriers to consistent reporting still remain. For example, Standard 1 currently does not account for areas where no reference library is available. In these cases, it is essential for studies to clearly report how calls were analysed (Waudby et al. 2022). It is possible that studies not meeting Standard 4 were undertaken in regions where each bat species has a distinctive call and authors therefore assumed that no explanation was needed for how ambiguous calls were managed. Nevertheless, evidence of this should still have been provided in the publication (Walters et al. 2013; Runkel et al. 2021; Waudby et al. 2022). A lack of clear guidance for such scenarios may contribute to inconsistent reporting, as reflected by variability in reporting practices observed across studies. For example, Williams and Thomson (2019) reported ‘three consecutive nights’ of survey but omitted details on operation window, weather conditions, recording type (i.e. zero crossing of full spectrum), or software used. Ambiguous calls were also not addressed. Burgar et al. (2017) provided total survey effort and operation window, reported weather and software, but omitted site-specific effort. Bhardwaj et al. (2020) clearly documented automation processes, call verification, and the key used, but omitted weather.
Accessibility of the standards may also be a barrier, because they were initially published in a members-only newsletter and were not publicly available on the website until several years later. Although the standards were later added as appendix A in the Australian Government (2010) Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Bats, they have not been released as a standalone, easily accessible document. This is likely to have contributed to the low uptake identified in this review and has contributed to variable reporting in Australian bat acoustic studies. Making any revised standards available as a dedicated, searchable guidance document would be likely to support greater uptake.
The absence of training against the standards is also likely to be a barrier to clear communication. The rapid evolution and increasing affordability of acoustic monitoring hardware has meant that a broad range of users, including those without formal training, are now using this hardware. For example, increased affordability has facilitated the use by citizen scientists (e.g. Barlow et al. 2015; Blackburn and Unger 2019; Armstrong et al. 2021). The lack of clear guidelines and training means that this broader user base can inadvertently contribute to variability in survey design, analysis, and reporting (Gibb et al. 2019). These concerns have been echoed in recent reviews, highlighting that, even though artificial intelligence and acoustic tools offer significant potential for ecological research, they also pose risks if protocols and training do not keep pace with technological development (e.g. Sharma et al. 2023).
Finally, although this review evaluated whether reporting standards were met, it did not assess the quality or completeness of reporting. There was variation in the level of detail evident, even when standards were nominally addressed. For example, although many studies referenced the use of a bat call reference library or identification key, they did not always specify whether it included locally relevant reference calls or how it was applied in the analysis. Similarly, the level of explanation used to distinguish species with similar call traits varied widely. This inconsistency in reporting depth reduces transparency and hinders data comparability. Developing guidance on the expected level of detail for each reporting standard would improve consistency, and support better implementation across future studies.
International context: standardised practices in the UK
Concerns regarding transparency of bat acoustic reporting have been noted internationally, and there are standards in other countries to address challenges related to transparency, repeatability, and data quality in bat acoustic surveys (Duffy et al. 2000; Walters et al. 2013; Russo et al. 2018; Zamora-Gutierrez et al. 2021; Collins 2023). For example, in the United Kingdom, national bat survey guidelines are routinely followed and regularly revised (currently in their fourth edition) (Collins 2023). Developed by the Bat Conservation Trust, these guidelines cover all aspects of bat surveys, including acoustic methods, and are widely and freely accessible (Collins 2023). Uptake of these guidelines is supported by legislative protection, because all bats in the UK are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69) (as amended; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Uptake of the guidelines is further supported by an established environmental consultancy sector, as confirmed through the large number of licences issued specifically for bats (Natural England 2025) and regular training opportunities such as workshops, acoustic courses and webinars (e.g. https://batability.co.uk).
In contrast, the Australasian Bat Society standards were developed by volunteers without dedicated funding. This has constrained the frequency of updates and arguably limited broader dissemination. Although expert-led, the volunteer nature of this work and the absence of centralised support or formal requirements, are likely to have contributed to the low adoption observed in Australian bat survey reporting. The comparison with uptake of the UK guidelines highlighted how legislation, institutional backing, accessibility, and ongoing support are important factors for the successful implementation of reporting standards, highlighting key areas for improvement in Australia.
Recommendations
To address the gaps identified in this review and improve the uptake and effectiveness of standards of bat acoustic reporting, we make the following recommendations:
Public accessibility: an easily accessible, standalone version of the standards would allow for greater dissemination and integration of these guidelines across Australia.
Timely revision: the ABS has confirmed that the 2006 standards are being revised. Future revisions should be made in a timely manner to match the speed at which bat acoustics work is evolving.
Guidance on details: developing clearer guidance on the expected level of detail for each reporting standard is necessary. For example, guidance on survey effort (emphasising the value of reporting detection hours and ‘windows of operation’) and detector type (including whether zero-crossing or full-spectrum) is required. Providing guidance on factors, such as detector placement and capturing weather records, would also increase study repeatability and usability of the ensuing data.
Funding: dedicated funding should be secured for the update of reporting standards, to reduce reliance on volunteers. This would enable the ongoing development and dissemination of guidelines, training, and support.
Integration into legislation and review procedures: making regulators and advisory groups (e.g. animal ethics committees, state and federal government agencies) aware of the standards would ensure implementation of survey methods and improve the transparency and repeatability of findings.
Training as well as development and provision of practical resources: these are needed to support researchers who are applying the standards. This will assist with challenges like geographic variation in calls or the development of regional identification keys (e.g. Milne 2002).
A digital repository for openly available reference calls: high-quality, locally sourced bat reference calls would greatly support automated identification systems, improve species identification, and standardise acoustic survey data across studies.
We believe that these recommendations would strengthen the field of bat research in Australia, helping address several of the challenges highlighted in this study.
Data availability
The data that support this study are available in the article and accompanying online supplementary material.
Conflicts of interest
Kelly Sheldrick is currently serving as the First Vice President of the Australasian Bat Society (ABS). This review was conducted independently of her role on the ABS committee, and she was not involved in the development of the initial reporting standards referenced in this work, or with the current revision. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Australasian Bat Society (ABS) and its dedicated volunteers for their invaluable contributions in developing (and revising) the ABS standards. Their commitment to addressing the challenges faced by bat conservation and research, and their ongoing efforts to create a robust framework for bat acoustic research in Australia, are deeply appreciated.
References
Adams AM, Jantzen MK, Hamilton RM, Fenton MB (2012) Do you hear what I hear? Implications of detector selection for acoustic monitoring of bats. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3, 992-998.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Armstrong KN, Coles RB (2007) Echolocation call frequency differences between geographic isolates of Rhinonicteris aurantia (Chiroptera: Hipposideridae): implications of nasal chamber size. Journal of Mammalogy 88(1), 94-104.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Armstrong KN, Reardon TB, Jackson SM (2020) A current taxonomic list of Australian Chiroptera. Australasian Bat Society. (Version 2020-06-09). Available at https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ausbats.org.au%2Fuploads%2F4%2F4%2F9%2F0%2F44908845%2Fabs_taxonomic_list_version20200609.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK [accessed 9 September 2024]
Armstrong KN, Clarke S, Linke A, Scanlon A, Roetman P, Wilson J, Hitch AT, Donnellan SC (2021) Citizen science implements the first intensive acoustics-based survey of insectivorous bat species across the Murray–Darling Basin of South Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology 68(6), 364-381.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Asmus J, Frommolt K-H, Knörnschild M (2025) Lost in translation—How transparency can improve comparability and reusability in acoustic bat research. Ecology and Evolution 15(14), e71883.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Australasian Bat Society (2006) Recommendations of the Australasian Bat Society Inc for reporting standards for insectivorous bat surveys using bat detectors. The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter 27, 6-9 Available at https://www.ausbats.org.au/uploads/4/4/9/0/44908845/absn27.pdf.
| Google Scholar |
Australian Government (2010) Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened bats. Available at www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/survey-guidelines-bats.pdf [accessed 10 September 2024]
Barlow KE, Briggs PA, Haysom KA, Hutson AM, Lechiara NL, Racey PA, Walsh AL, Langton SD (2015) Citizen science reveals trends in bat populations: the National Bat Monitoring Programme in Great Britain. Biological Conservation 182, 14-26.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bhardwaj M, Soanes K, Lahoz-Monfort JJ, Lumsden LF, van der Ree R (2020) Artificial lighting reduces the effectiveness of wildlife-crossing structures for insectivorous bats. Journal of Environmental Management 262, 110313.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Blackburn A-J, Unger S (2019) Smartphones as a non-invasive surveying tool to monitor bats. Journal of Young Investigators 37(3), 24-30.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Burgar JM, Stokes VL, Craig MD (2017) Habitat features act as unidirectional and dynamic filters to bat use of production landscapes. Biological Conservation 209, 280-288.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Callas M, Lumsden LF, Rendall AR, Yokochi K (2024) More trees and fewer roads: the importance of local and landscape features for insectivorous bats in open urban green spaces. Wildlife Research 51(4), WR23079.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Duffy AM, Lumsden LF, Caddle CR, Chick RR, Newell GR (2000) The efficacy of Anabat ultrasonic detectors and harp traps for surveying microchiropterans in south-eastern Australia. Acta Chiropterologica 2(2), 127-144.
| Google Scholar |
D’Acunto LE, Pauli BP, Moy M, Johnson K, Abu-Omar J, Zollner PA (2018) Timing and technique impact the effectiveness of road-based, mobile acoustic surveys of bats. Ecology and Evolution 8, 3152-3160.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Foo YZ, O’Dea RE, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, Lagisz M (2021) A practical guide to question formation, systematic searching and study screening for literature reviews in ecology and evolution. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 12(9), 1705-1720.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Gibb R, Browning E, Glover-Kapfer P, Jones KE (2019) Emerging opportunities and challenges for passive acoustics in ecological assessment and monitoring. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10(2), 169-185.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Görföl T, Huang JC-C, Csorba G, Győrössy D, Estók P, Kingston T, Szabadi KL, McArthur E, Senawi J, Furey NM, Tu VT, Thong VD, Khan FAA, Jinggong ER, Donnelly M, Kumaran JV, Liu J-N, Chen S-F, Tuanmu M-N, Ho Y-Y, Chang H-C, Elias N-A, Abdullah N-I, Lim L-S, Squire CD, Zsebők S (2022) ChiroVox: a public library of bat calls. PeerJ 10, e12445.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Law BS, Reinhold L, Pennay M (2002) Geographic variation in the echolocation calls of Vespadelus spp. (Vespertilionidae) from New South Wales and Queensland, Australia. Acta Chiropterologica 4(2), 201-215.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Law B, Gonsalves L, McConville A, Tap P (2021) Landscape monitoring reveals initial trends in occupancy and activity of bats in multiple-use forests. Austral Ecology 46(2), 261-276.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Mac Aodha O, Gibb R, Barlow KE, Browning E, Firman M, Freeman R, Harder B, Kinsey L, Mead GR, Newson SE, Pandourski I, Parsons S, Russ J, Szodoray-Paradi A, Szodoray-Paradi F, Tilova E, Girolami M, Brostow G, Jones KE (2018) Bat detective – deep learning tools for bat acoustic signal detection. PLoS Computational Biology 14(3), e1005995.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Natural England (2025) Summary of wildlife licences issued by Natural England in 2024. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/summary-of-wildlife-licences-issued-by-natural-england-in-2024
Pickering C, Grignon J, Steven R, Guitart D, Byrne J (2015) Publishing not perishing: how research students transition from novice to knowledgeable using systematic quantitative literature reviews. Studies in Higher Education 40(10), 1756-1769.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
R Core Team (2025) R: a language and environment for statistical computing (version 4.4.3) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at https://www.R-project.org/
Reinhold L, Herr A, Lumsden L, Reardon T, Corben C, Law B, Prevett P, Ford G, Conole L, Kutt A, Milne D, Hoye G (2001a) Geographic variation in the echolocation calls of Gould’s Wattled Bat Chalinolobus gouldii. Australian Zoologist 31(4), 618-624.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Russo D, Ancillotto L, Jones G (2018) Bats are still not birds in the digital era: echolocation call variation and why it matters for bat species identification. Canadian Journal of Zoology 96(2), 63-78.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Schimpp SA, Li H, Kalcounis-Rueppell MC (2018) Determining species specific nightly bat activity in sites with varying urban intensity. Urban Ecosystems 21, 541-550.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Sharma S, Sato K, Gautam BP (2023) A methodological literature review of acoustic wildlife monitoring using artificial intelligence tools and techniques. Sustainability 15(9), 7128.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Walters CL, Collen A, Lucas T, Mroz K, Sayer CA, Jones KE (2013) Challenges of using bioacoustics to globally monitor bats. In ‘Bat evolution, ecology, and conservation’. (Eds RA Adams, SC Pedersen) pp. 479–499. (Springer: New York, NY, USA) doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7397-8_23
Williams ER, Thomson B (2019) Aspects of the foraging and roosting ecology of the large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) in the western Blue Mountains, with implications for conservation. Australian Mammalogy 41(2), 212-219.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Zamora-Gutierrez V, Ortega J, Avila-Flores R, Aguilar-Rodríguez PA, Alarcón-Montano M, Avila-Torresagatón LG, Ayala-Berdón J, Bolívar-Cimé B, Briones-Salas M, Chan-Noh M, Chávez-Cauich M, Chávez C, Cortés-Calva P, Cruzado J, Cuevas JC, Del Real-Monroy M, Elizalde-Arellano C, García-Luis M, García-Morales R, Guerrero JA, Guevara-Carrizales AA, Gutiérrez EG, Hernández-Mijangos LA, Ibarra-López MP, Iñiguez Dávalos LI, León-Madrazo R, López-González C, López-Téllez MC, López-Vidal JC, Martínez-Balvanera S, Montiel-Reyes F, Murrieta-Galindo R, Orozco-Lugo CL, Pech-Canché JM, Pérez-Pérez L, Ramírez-Martínez MM, Rizo-Aguilar A, Robredo-Esquivelzeta E, Rodas-Martínez AZ, Rojo-Cruz MA, Selem-Salas CI, Uribe-Bencomo E, Vargas-Contreras JA, MacSwiney G. MC (2020) The Sonozotz project: assembling an echolocation call library for bats in a megadiverse country. Ecology and Evolution 10, 4928-4943.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Zamora-Gutierrez V, MacSwiney G. MC, Martínez Balvanera S, Robredo Esquivelzeta E (2021) The evolution of acoustic methods for the study of bats. In ‘50 years of bat research: Foundations and new frontiers’. (Eds BK Lim, MB Fenton, RM Brigham, S Mistry, A Kurta, EH Gillam, A Russell, J Ortega) pp. 43–59. (Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland) doi:10.1007/978-3-030-54727-1_3
