ArticleScientific reports2025
Rapid in situ range testing for acoustic telemetry in Leizhou Bay, South China Sea.
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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Acoustic telemetry is widely used to study the movement and habitat use of marine animals, but its effectiveness depends greatly on the appropriate receiver spacing and the local environmental context. In practice, when time or logistical resources are limited, short-term range tests, if carefully planned and interpreted, can provide rapid and valuable deployment guidance. Here, we conducted a 24-h in situ range test in a subtropical bay as a practical case study and reference workflow for planning receiver deployment before animal tracking studies. Two transmitters with different power outputs were deployed, and a generalized additive mixed model was applied to assess how environmental factors influenced detection proportion. The results showed that the effective detection range (50% detection proportion) was 170.4 m for the high-power transmitter and 114.3 m for the low-power transmitter. Mean detection proportion at nighttime was significantly higher than at daytime for both transmitter types. Distance to transmitter and water temperature significantly affected both transmitter types, while other factors, such as hour of day, wind, water depth, dissolved oxygen, background noise, and tilt angle, showed transmitter-specific effects. This study was not intended to develop universal predictive models from the 24-h dataset, but rather to determine appropriate receiver spacing and demonstrate how environmental variables can be incorporated to interpret rapid range test results under local conditions. The workflow provides a replicable and efficient approach for short-term range testing and data interpretation, offering practical guidance for optimizing acoustic telemetry deployment in similar environments.
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.