ArticleScientific reports2018
Acoustic Complexity of vocal fish communities: a field and controlled validation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Acoustic indices as proxies for biodiversity: a meta-analysis.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2022Pooled it
- Listening forward: emerging roles of bioacoustics in ecology, evolution, and conservation.Biologia futura · 2026Review
- Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) to assess benthic communities associated with offshore wind farms: insights and future directions.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2026Article
- Characterizing dual-pulse calls in five Sciaenid species.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Visualization and quantification of coral reef soundscapes using CoralSoundExplorer software.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Soundscape analysis can be an effective tool in assessing seagrass restoration early success.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Variable Structure Controller for Energy Savings in an Underwater Sensor Platform.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Listening forward: approaching marine biodiversity assessments using acoustic methods.Royal Society open science · 2020Review
- Vocal repertoire and consistency of call features in the meagre Argyrosomous regius (Asso, 1801).PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Acoustic Complexity Index (ACI) is increasingly applied to the study of biodiversity in aquatic habitats. However, it remains unknown which types of acoustic information are highlighted by this index in underwater environments. This study explored the robustness of the ACI to fine variations in fish sound abundance (i.e. number of sounds) and sound diversity (i.e. number of sound types) in field recordings and controlled experiments. The ACI was found to be sensitive to variations in both sound abundance and sound diversity, making it difficult to discern between these variables. Furthermore, the ACI was strongly dependent on the settings used for its calculation (i.e. frequency and temporal resolution of the ACI algorithm, amplitude filter). Care should thus be taken when comparing ACI absolute values between studies, or between sites with site-specific characteristics (e.g. species diversity, fish vocal community composition). As the use of ecoacoustic indices presents a promising tool for the monitoring of vulnerable environments, methodological validations like those presented in this paper are of paramount importance in understanding which biologically important information can be gathered by applying acoustic indices to Passive Acoustic Monitoring data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.