Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34434662›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

Optimizing the power of human performed audio surveys for monitoring the endangered Houston toad using automated recording devices.

Andrew R MacLaren, Paul S Crump, Michael R J Forstner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Andrew R MacLarenDepartment of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, United States of America.
Paul S CrumpDepartment of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, United States of America.
Michael R J ForstnerDepartment of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Knowledge regarding the locations of populations of endangered species is a critical part of recovery and facilitates land use planning that avoids unnecessary impacts. Regulatory agencies often support the development of survey guidelines designed to standardize the methods and maximize the probability of detection, thereby avoiding incorrectly concluding a species is absent from a site. Here, using simulations with data collected using automated recording devices (ARDs) we evaluated the efficacy of the existing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's survey requirements for the endangered Houston Toad (

Indexed as

AcousticAmphibian ecologyAutomated recordingBufoDetection probabilityHoustonensisHouston ToadPower analysisPresence absenceSurvey

Identifiers

PMID34434662
PMCPMC8351579

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.