ArticleScientific reports2024
Detection ranges of forest bird vocalisations: guidelines for passive acoustic monitoring.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Listening forward: emerging roles of bioacoustics in ecology, evolution, and conservation.Biologia futura · 2026Review
- Detection Range of Acoustic Monitoring Devices in an Open Grassland Ecosystem.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Glomerular Injury Induced by Daily Exposure to the Low-Frequency Component of Environmental Noise via Endothelin Signaling in Mice.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
- Gaps in trait data and conservation impediments from the Raunkiæran shortfall in a megadiverse nation.iScience · 2025Article
- Examining the Effectiveness of Automated Acoustic Recording Units for Recording Predator-Related Disturbances in Colony Nesting Birds: A Case Study.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- NDVI and vegetation volume as predictors of urban bird diversity.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Passive acoustic monitoring has proven to have many advantages for monitoring efforts and research activities. However, there are considerations to be taken into account regarding the placement of autonomous sound recorders. Detection ranges differ among species and in response to variable conditions such as weather or the location of vocalising animals. It is thus important to the success of a research project to understand, with a certain degree of confidence, the distances at which birds might be detected. In two types of forests in Poland, we played back the vocalisations of 31 species of European forest birds exemplifying different singing characteristics. Based on recordings obtained along a 500-m transect, we estimated the probability of detection and maximum detection distance of each vocalisation. We broadcasted the recording at three heights of singing and repeated playbacks three times during the breeding season to evaluate the effect of vegetation growth. Our results revealed that environmental and meteorological factors had a significant influence on both detection probability and maximum detection distances. This work provides comprehensive measurements of detection distance for 31 bird species and can be used to plan passive acoustic monitoring research in Europe, taking into account species traits and individual characteristics of the study area.
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.