Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37304366›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2023

What the F-POD? Comparing the F-POD and C-POD for monitoring of harbor porpoise (

Nicole Rose Eileen Todd, Ailbhe Sarah Kavanagh, Emer Rogan, Mark John Jessopp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2023. 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. Article
  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

4 authors.

Nicole Rose Eileen ToddMaREI Centre Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork Cork Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5244-3549
Ailbhe Sarah KavanaghFisheries Ecosystems Advisory Services (FEAS) Marine Institute Oranmore Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4671-3076
Emer RoganSchool of Biological, Earth & Environmental Sciences (BEES) University College Cork Cork Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1310-6846
Mark John JessoppMaREI Centre Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork Cork Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2692-3730

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is a cost-effective method for monitoring cetacean populations compared with techniques such as aerial and ship-based surveys. The Cetacean POrpoise Detector (C-POD) has become an integral tool in monitoring programs globally for over a decade, providing standardized metrics of occurrence that can be compared across time and space. However, the phasing out of C-PODs following the development of the new Full waveform capture POD (F-POD) with increased sensitivity, improved train detection, and reduced false-positive rates represents an important methodological change in data collection, particularly when being introduced into existing monitoring programs. Here, we compare the performance of the C-POD with that of its successor, the F-POD, co-deployed in a field setting for 15 months, to monitor harbor porpoise (

Indexed as

cetaceansclick detectorecholocationforaging ratelong‐term monitoring programs

Identifiers

PMID37304366
PMCPMC10256617

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.