Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40562811›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Performance of theodolites versus drones in land-based studies of marine mammals.

Thaya Mirinda Dinkel, Angélique Girard, Tom Bär, Michael Dähne, Ann-Kristin Craul, Mel Cosentino, Ole Meyer-Klaeden, Flemming Dahlke, Christian von Dorrien

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Thaya Mirinda DinkelThünen Institute of Baltic Sea Fisheries, Alter Hafen Süd 2, Rostock, Germany. thaya.dinkel@thuenen.de.
Angélique GirardInstitut Agro Rennes-Angers, 55 Rue de Saint-Brieuc, Rennes, France.
Tom BärDeutsches Meeresmuseum, Katharinenberg 14-20, Stralsund, Germany.
Michael DähneDeutsches Meeresmuseum, Katharinenberg 14-20, Stralsund, Germany.
Ann-Kristin CraulUniversität Rostock, Universitätsplatz 1, Rostock, Germany.
Mel CosentinoAarhus University, C.F. Møllers Allé 3, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Ole Meyer-KlaedenDeutsches Meeresmuseum, Katharinenberg 14-20, Stralsund, Germany.
Flemming DahlkeInstitute of Marine Ecosystem and Fisheries Science, University of Hamburg, Große Elbstraße 133, Hamburg, Germany.
Christian von DorrienThünen Institute of Baltic Sea Fisheries, Alter Hafen Süd 2, Rostock, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theodolites and drones are key instruments for observing small whales in coastal areas. This study compared their performance while observing the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the western Baltic Sea. The methods were used simultaneously providing information on location, behaviour and group size during a field campaign in 2022. Theodolite observers were able to detect surfacing positions during 80.5% of porpoise sightings while a drone collected data during 50.7% of total sightings detected by plain eye. The drone footage quality was poor during 47.3% of these sightings. An in-depth analysis of 75:36 h of good quality footage resulted in 16:55 h (22.4%) of cetacean appearance. The determination of group size was significantly more precise using drone footage while the theodolite was more accurate in determining the start/end of a sighting. The accuracy of locations was modelled using the distance (D

Indexed as

PhocoenaAnimalsAquatic OrganismsBehavior, AnimalBaltic SeaCetacean monitoringHarbour porpoiseLand-based observationMethod comparisonOdontocetes

Identifiers

PMID40562811
PMCPMC12198396

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.