ArticlePloS one2026
High-resolution mapping of artificial reefs in southern California: Linking sonar-derived habitat metrics to reef construction material and design.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial reefs can be designed to support ecosystem functioning by optimizing habitat variables. Unfortunately, fine-scale quantitative descriptions of their habitat structure remain limited, especially in California. We collected high-resolution sonar bathymetry and backscatter (0.3 m cells) across 13 artificial reef complexes and shipwrecks along the southern California coast. There were 154 delineated reef modules using an unsupervised habitat-classification workflow that integrated bathymetry-derived slope and vector ruggedness with backscatter. Most modules were primarily composed of quarry rock (n = 84) or concrete pilings/light poles (n = 45), with additional concrete rubble modules (n = 14), barges (n = 4), shipwrecks (n = 3), and a missile tower (n = 1). This approach generally resolved boundaries, but irregular and discontinuous modules built from primarily scattered concrete materials (e.g., pier pilings, light poles, dock floats) lacked clear edges and often included interspersed soft bottom, rendering their mapped footprints more subjective as opposed to contiguous materials (e.g., quarry-rock piles, barges, shipwrecks). For each module we calculated footprint area, volume, mean and maximum vertical relief, mean slope, mean rugosity, and standard deviation heterogeneity metrics for relief, slope, and rugosity. In multivariate analyses modules generally grouped by construction material and design (artificial reef complex), indicating that these metrics capture ecologically relevant structural differences. Quarry rock modules generally exhibited higher mean relief, slope, and rugosity over more compact footprints, whereas scattered concrete modules typically had lower mean complexity but greater rugosity heterogeneity, driven in part by extreme low and high values created by interspersed patches of flat soft bottom amongst concrete materials. The resulting maps improve positional accuracy relative to historical maps and our approach provides a workflow for quantifying reef habitat structure, enabling analyses informing the design of artificial reef projects.
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.