Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38635752›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Vocal signatures affected by population identity and environmental sound levels.

Amber D Fandel, Kirsten Silva, Helen Bailey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Amber D FandelChesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, MD, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6859-3138
Kirsten SilvaChesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, MD, United States of America.
Helen BaileyChesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, MD, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Passive acoustic monitoring has improved our understanding of vocalizing organisms in remote habitats and during all weather conditions. Many vocally active species are highly mobile, and their populations overlap. However, distinct vocalizations allow the tracking and discrimination of individuals or populations. Using signature whistles, the individually distinct calls of bottlenose dolphins, we calculated a minimum abundance of individuals, characterized and compared signature whistles from five locations, and determined reoccurrences of individuals throughout the Mid-Atlantic Bight and Chesapeake Bay, USA. We identified 1,888 signature whistles in which the duration, number of extrema, start, end, and minimum frequencies of signature whistles varied significantly by site. All characteristics of signature whistles were deemed important for determining from which site the whistle originated and due to the distinct signature whistle characteristics and lack of spatial mixing of the dolphins detected at the Offshore site, we suspect that these dolphins are of a different population than those at the Coastal and Bay sites. Signature whistles were also found to be shorter when sound levels were higher. Using only the passively recorded vocalizations of this marine top predator, we obtained information about its population and how it is affected by ambient sound levels, which will increase as offshore wind energy is developed. In this rapidly developing area, these calls offer critical management insights for this protected species.

Indexed as

Bottle-Nosed DolphinVocalization, AnimalAnimalsEcosystemSound Spectrography

Identifiers

PMID38635752
PMCPMC11025965

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.