Relationship between acoustic indices, length of recordings and processing time: a methodological test

Ecoacoustic approaches have the potential to provide rapid biodiversity assessments and avoid costly fieldwork. Their use in biodiversity studies for improving management and conservation of natural landscapes has grown considerably in recent years. Standardised methods for sampling acoustic information that deliver reliable and consistent results within and between ecosystems are still lacking. Sampling frequency and duration are particularly important considerations because shorter, intermittent recordings mean recorder batteries last longer and data processing is less computationally intensive, but a smaller proportion of the available soundscape is sampled. Here, we compare acoustic indices and processing time for subsamples of increasing duration clipped from 94 one-hour recordings, to test how different acoustic indices behave, in order to identify the minimum sample length required. Our results suggest that short recordings distributed across the survey period accurately represent acoustic patterns, while optimizing data collection and processing. ACI and H are the most stable indices, showing an ideal sampling schedule of ten 1-minute samples in an hour. Although ADI, AEI and NDSI well represent acoustic patterns under the same sampling schedule, these are more robust under continuous recording formats. Such targeted subsampling could greatly reduce data storage and computational power requirements in large-scale and long-term projects.