Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31598284›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2019

The effect of a multi-target protocol on cetacean detection and abundance estimation in aerial surveys.

C Lambert, M Authier, G Dorémus, A Gilles, P Hammond, S Laran, A Ricart, V Ridoux, M Scheidat, J Spitz and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

C LambertObservatoire PELAGIS, UMS 3462 CNRS - La Rochelle Université, 5 Allées de l'Océan, 17000 La Rochelle, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1128-5262
M AuthierObservatoire PELAGIS, UMS 3462 CNRS - La Rochelle Université, 5 Allées de l'Océan, 17000 La Rochelle, France.
G DorémusObservatoire PELAGIS, UMS 3462 CNRS - La Rochelle Université, 5 Allées de l'Océan, 17000 La Rochelle, France.
A GillesInstitute for Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Research, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover Foundation, Werftstr. 6, 25761 Büsum, Germany.
P HammondSea Mammal Research Unit, Scottish Oceans Institute, University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 8LB, UK.
S LaranObservatoire PELAGIS, UMS 3462 CNRS - La Rochelle Université, 5 Allées de l'Océan, 17000 La Rochelle, France.
A RicartObservatoire PELAGIS, UMS 3462 CNRS - La Rochelle Université, 5 Allées de l'Océan, 17000 La Rochelle, France.
V RidouxObservatoire PELAGIS, UMS 3462 CNRS - La Rochelle Université, 5 Allées de l'Océan, 17000 La Rochelle, France.
M ScheidatWageningen Marine Research, Haringkade 1, 1976CP Ijmuiden, The Netherlands.
J SpitzObservatoire PELAGIS, UMS 3462 CNRS - La Rochelle Université, 5 Allées de l'Océan, 17000 La Rochelle, France.
O Van CanneytObservatoire PELAGIS, UMS 3462 CNRS - La Rochelle Université, 5 Allées de l'Océan, 17000 La Rochelle, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A double-platform protocol was implemented in the Bay of Biscay and English Channel during the SCANS-III survey (2016). Two observation platforms using different protocols were operating on board a single aircraft: the reference platform (Scans), targeting cetaceans, and the 'Megafauna' platform, recording all the marine fauna visible at the sea surface (jellyfish to seabirds). We tested for a potential bias in small cetacean detection and density estimation when recording all marine fauna. At a small temporal scale (30 s, roughly 1.5 km), our results provided overall similar perception probabilities for both platforms. Small cetacean perception was higher following the detection of another cetacean within the previous 30 s in both platforms. The only prior target that decreased small cetacean perception during the subsequent 30 s was seabirds, in the Megafauna platform. However, at a larger scale (study area), this small-scale perception bias had no effect on the density estimates, which were similar for the two protocols. As a result, there was no evidence of lower performance regarding small cetacean population monitoring for the multi-target protocol in our study area. Because our study area was characterized by moderate cetacean densities and small spatial overlap of cetaceans and seabirds, any extrapolation to other areas or time requires caution. Nonetheless, by permitting the collection of cost-effective quantitative data for marine fauna, anthropogenic activities and marine litter at the sea surface, the multi-target protocol is valuable for optimizing logistical and financial resources to efficiently monitor biodiversity and study community ecology.

Indexed as

abundance estimationaerial surveysdistance samplingdouble-platform protocolperception biasSCANS-III survey

Identifiers

PMID31598284
PMCPMC6774977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.