ArticleRoyal Society open science2019
The effect of a multi-target protocol on cetacean detection and abundance estimation in aerial surveys.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Delayed response to environmental conditions and infra-seasonal dynamics of the short-beaked common dolphin distribution.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Article
- The effect of a multi-target protocol on cetacean detection and abundance estimation in aerial surveys.Royal Society open science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.