ArticleConservation physiology2022
Selecting auditory alerting stimuli for eagles on the basis of auditory evoked potentials.
Article in Conservation physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Development of wind energy facilities results in interactions between wildlife and wind turbines. Raptors, including bald and golden eagles, are among the species known to incur mortality from these interactions. Several alerting technologies have been proposed to mitigate this mortality by increasing eagle avoidance of wind energy facilities. However, there has been little attempt to match signals used as alerting stimuli with the sensory capabilities of target species like eagles. One potential approach to tuning signals is to use sensory physiology to determine what stimuli the target eagle species are sensitive to even in the presence of background noise, thereby allowing the development of a maximally stimulating signal. To this end, we measured auditory evoked potentials of bald and golden eagles to determine what types of sounds eagles can process well, especially in noisy conditions. We found that golden eagles are significantly worse than bald eagles at processing rapid frequency changes in sounds, but also that noise effects on hearing in both species are minimal in response to rapidly changing sounds. Our findings therefore suggest that sounds of intermediate complexity may be ideal both for targeting bald and golden eagle hearing and for ensuring high stimulation in noisy field conditions. These results suggest that the sensory physiology of target species is likely an important consideration when selecting auditory alerting sounds and may provide important insight into what sounds have a reasonable probability of success in field applications under variable conditions and background noise.
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.