A global review of the spatial, taxonomic, and temporal scope of freshwater fisheries hydroacoustics research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review assessed the status and scope of freshwater hydroacoustic fisheries research in global aquatic ecosystems with emphasis on (i) geographical and spatial scope, (ii) taxonomic range at the species and family levels (restricted to bony fishes of the Actinopterygii and Sarcopterygii), and (iii) temporal scope. Hydroacoustic measures have been used by ecologists and managers of freshwater systems for several decades, with major progress in technology and methods in recent years. A literature review indicated 296 research contributions that employed hydroacoustics to study freshwater fisheries in 294 different aquatic ecosystems. Spatially, hydroacoustics research in freshwater systems have thus far been concentrated in developed countries, particularly in North America and Northern and Central Europe (83% of the studies reviewed here). Most studies were small in spatial scale and short-term, with 80% including only a single body of water and 63% conducted over a single year or season (75% spanning less than two years). In addition, effects of fish morphology and behavior on acoustic target strength (TS) and taxonomic identification are not well parameterized, with only 21 species receiving empirical study of TS. Despite progress, the present study reveals gaps in the knowledge needed for wider applications to management. These include larger biogeographical and temporal scales of study and further empirical research on TS and taxonomic identification. Recent advances in size rather than species-based methods and theory offer potential solutions to this issue but require further investigation. We conclude with recommendations for systematic hydroacoustic research to enable more effective monitoring, management, and conservation of fisheries and freshwater ecosystems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".