ArticlePloS one2025
Can you hear me? Playback experiment highlights detection range differences between commonly used PAM devices: C-POD, F-POD and SoundTrap.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is a valuable tool for monitoring acoustically active small cetaceans such as the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), with a range of devices commonly used across studies. However, to ensure comparability of findings, there is a need to compare the ability of devices to detect acoustic signals. Using a playback approach, we determined the detection probability and effective detection radius/area (EDR/EDA) for co-deployed C-POD (Cetacean POrpoise Detectors), F-POD (Full waveform capture POD) and SoundTrap acoustic monitoring devices. We conducted playbacks of harbour porpoise recordings across two transects at a range of distances from moored devices, while accounting for a range of variables likely to influence the detection probability of playbacks. Distance from the devices influenced the detection probability across all devices, and a significant difference between transects was also found for the C-POD, possibly due to different ambient noise conditions. The maximum detection distance of the playbacks for the SoundTrap and the F-POD was between 400 - 500m, and EDR was estimated at 297m (EDA 0.276 km2) and 241m (EDA 0.181 km2), respectively. The maximum detection distance for the C-POD was lower, at 300 - 400m, and an EDR of 220m (EDA 0.153 km2). A lower EDR was calculated for harbour porpoise buzzes compared to clicks across devices, due to lower source level of buzzes, suggesting that time spent foraging may be underestimated in PAM studies. The results highlight how detection ranges may differ across commonly used PAM devices, affecting comparability of detection rates across studies. EDR/EDA is an important prerequisite for PAM-derived density and abundance estimates. As such, understanding how devices differ is essential for comparing studies and appropriate planning of long-term acoustic monitoring projects, particularly where estimates of abundance are a key goal.
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.