Automated acoustic monitoring of wildlife has been used to characterize populations of sound‐producing species across large spatial scales. However, false negatives and false positives produced by automated detection systems can compromise the utility of these data for researchers and land managers, particularly for research programs endeavoring to describe colonization and extinction dynamics that inform land use decision‐making. To investigate the suitability of automated acoustic monitoring for dynamic occurrence models, we simulated underlying occurrence dynamics, calling patterns, and the automated acoustic detection process for a hypothetical species under a range of scenarios. We investigated an automated species detection aggregation method that considered a suite of options for creating encounter histories. From these encounter histories, we generated parameter estimates and computed bias for occurrence, colonization, and extinction rates using a dynamic occupancy modeling framework that accounts for false positives via small amounts of manual confirmation. We were able to achieve relatively unbiased estimates for all three state parameters under all scenarios, even when the automated detection system was simulated to be poor, given particular encounter history aggregation choices. However, some encounter history aggregation choices resulted in unreliable estimates; we provide caveats for avoiding these scenarios. Given specific choices during the detection aggregation process, automated acoustic monitoring data may provide an effective means for tracking species occurrence, colonization, and extinction patterns through time, with the potential to inform adaptive management at multiple spatial scales.

Audio sampling of the environment can provide long-term, landscape-scale presence-absence data to model populations of soundproducing wildlife. Automated detection systems allow researchers to avoid manually searching through large volumes of recordings, but often produce unacceptable false positive rates. We developed methods that allow researchers to improve template-based automated detection using a suite of statistical learning algorithms when false positive rates are problematic. To test our method, we acquired 668 hours of recordings in the Sonoran Desert, California USA between March 2016 and May 2017, and created spectrogram cross-correlation templates for three target avian species. We trained and tested five classification algorithms and four performance-weighted ensemble classifier methods on target signals and false alarms from March 2016, and then selected highperforming ensemble classifiers from the train/test phase to predict the class of new detections thereafter. For three target species, our ensemble classifiers were able to identify 98%, 81%, and 100% of false alarms compared with the baseline template detection system, and comparative positive predictive values improved from 6% to 69%, 87% to 95%, and 2% to 77%. We show that statistical learning approaches can be implemented to mitigate false detections acquired via template-based automated detection in automated acoustic wildlife monitoring.

Acoustic recordings of the environment can produce species presence–absence data for characterizing populations of sound‐producing wildlife over multiple spatial scales. If a species is present at a site but does not vocalize during a scheduled audio recording survey, researchers may incorrectly conclude that the species is absent (“false negative”). The risk of false negatives is compounded when audio devices have sampling constraints, do not record continuously, and must be manually scheduled to operate at pre‐selected times of day, particularly when research programs target multiple species with acoustic availability that varies across temporal conditions. We developed a temporally adaptive acoustic sampling algorithm to maximize detection probabilities for a suite of focal species amid sampling constraints. The algorithm combines user‐supplied species vocalization models with site‐specific weather forecasts to set an optimized sampling schedule for the following day. To test our algorithm, we simulated hourly vocalization probabilities for a suite of focal species in a hypothetical monitoring area for the year 2016. We conducted a factorial experiment that sampled from the 2016 acoustic environment to compare the probability of acoustic detection by a fixed (stationary) schedule versus a temporally adaptive optimized schedule under several sampling efforts and monitoring durations. We found that over the course of a study season, the probability of acoustically capturing a focal species (given presence) at least once via automated acoustic monitoring was greater (and acoustic capture occurred earlier in the season) when using the temporally adaptive optimized schedule as compared to a fixed schedule. The advantages of a temporally adaptive optimized acoustic sampling schedule are magnified when a study duration is short, sampling effort is low, and/or species acoustic availability is minimal. This methodology presents the opportunity to maximize acoustic monitoring sampling efforts amid constraints.