Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38705188›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2024

The potential of acoustic monitoring of aquatic insects for freshwater assessment.

Camille Desjonquères, Simon Linke, Jack Greenhalgh, Fanny Rybak, Jérôme Sueur

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The potential of acoustic monitoring of aquatic insects for freshwater assessment.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  3. Towards a toolkit for global insect biodiversity monitoring.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    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

5 authors.

Camille DesjonquèresUniversité Grenoble Alpes, Université Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS, LECA, 38000 Grenoble, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6150-3264
Simon LinkeCSIRO Environment, Dutton Park, Queensland 4102, Australia.
Jack GreenhalghInstituto Pirenaico de Ecología, Av. Ntra. Sra. de la Victoria, 22700, Jaca, Huesca, España.
Fanny RybakUniversité Paris-Saclay, CNRS, Institut des neuroscience Paris-Saclay, 91400 Saclay, France.
Jérôme SueurInstitut Systématique Evolution Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles, 57 Rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aquatic insects are a major indicator used to assess ecological condition in freshwater environments. However, current methods to collect and identify aquatic insects require advanced taxonomic expertise and rely on invasive techniques that lack spatio-temporal replication. Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is emerging as a non-invasive complementary sampling method allowing broad spatio-temporal and taxonomic coverage. The application of PAM in freshwater ecosystems has already proved useful, revealing unexpected acoustic diversity produced by fishes, amphibians, submerged aquatic plants, and aquatic insects. However, the identity of species producing sounds remains largely unknown. Among them, aquatic insects appear to be the major contributor to freshwater soundscapes. Here, we estimate the potential number of soniferous aquatic insects worldwide using data from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. We found that four aquatic insect orders produce sounds totalling over 7000 species. This number is probably underestimated owing to poor knowledge of aquatic insects bioacoustics. We then assess the value of sound producing aquatic insects to evaluate ecological condition and find that they might be useful despite having similar responses in pristine and degraded environments in some cases. Both expert and automated identifications will be necessary to build international reference libraries and to conduct acoustic bioassessment in freshwaters. This article is part of the theme issue 'Towards a toolkit for global insect biodiversity monitoring'.

Indexed as

AcousticsBiodiversityFresh WaterInsectaAnimalsAquatic OrganismsEnvironmental Monitoringaquatic insectsbioassessmentecoacousticspassive acoustic monitoringsound production

Identifiers

PMID38705188
PMCPMC11070258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.