Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35165349›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Using citizen science to test for acoustic niche partitioning in frogs.

Slade Allen-Ankins, Lin Schwarzkopf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Slade Allen-AnkinsCollege of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, 4811, Australia. slade.allenankins@jcu.edu.au.
Lin SchwarzkopfCollege of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, 4811, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The acoustic niche hypothesis proposes that to avoid interference with breeding signals, vocal species should evolve to partition acoustic space, minimising similarity with co-occurring signals. Tests of the acoustic niche hypothesis are typically conducted using a single assemblage, with mixed outcomes, but if the process is evolutionarily important, a pattern of reduced acoustic competition should emerge, on average, over many communities. Using a continental-scale dataset derived from audio recordings collected by citizen scientists, we show that frogs do partition acoustic space. Differences in calls were predominately caused by differences in spectral, rather than temporal, features. Specifically, the 90% frequency bandwidths of observed frog assemblages overlapped less than expected, and there was greater distance between dominant frequencies than expected. To our knowledge, this study is the first to use null models to test for acoustic niche partitioning over a large geographic scale.

Indexed as

AcousticsEcosystemAnimalsAnuraAustraliaBiological EvolutionCitizen SciencePhylogenySpecies SpecificityVocalization, Animal

Identifiers

PMID35165349
PMCPMC8844063

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.