ArticlePloS one2025
Comparing efficiency of literature-based estimation of general biomass using Length-Weight Relationships (LWRs) between freshwater and seawater fishes.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fish biomass estimation is crucial for understanding aquatic ecosystem dynamics and managing fisheries resources effectively. This study evaluated the applicability of estimating fish biomass in Korean aquatic ecosystems using literature-derived General Total Length (GTL) and length-weight relationships (LWRs). We compared the estimated biomasses with measured field biomasses from literatures for freshwater and seawater fish species. Data on individual biomass, habitat, and length-weight coefficients were collected from the literature and databases for 245 fish species. Biomass was estimated using the GTL and representative LWR coefficients and then they were compared to the measured field biomasses from literature. The results showed that this estimation method was applicable only to freshwater species (R² = 0.7133), whereas the estimates for seawater species showed a poor correlation (negative R² values). The removal of outliers (Q > 6) improved the estimation accuracy for the freshwater species. This study demonstrates that literature-based biomass estimation using GTL and LWRs is appropriate for freshwater fish in Korea, but not for seawater species. These findings contribute to the generation of fundamental biomass data for ecosystem modeling and highlight the need for habitat-specific approaches for biomass estimation. Since habitat specific biomass data is deficient, future research should explore biomass estimation through species extrapolation to address data gaps in aquatic ecological studies.
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.