MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012122914 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221842

Temperate freshwater soundscapes: A cacophony of undescribed biological sounds now threatened by anthropogenic noise

2020· article· en· W3012122914 on OpenAlexaff
Rodney A. Rountree, Francis Juanes, Marta Bolgan

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersEppley Foundation for Research
KeywordsSoundscapeHabitatThreatened speciesFreshwater fishSound (geography)EcologyTemperate climateEnvironmental scienceGeographyFreshwater ecosystemFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyOceanographyEcosystemGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The soundscape composition of temperate freshwater habitats is poorly understood. Our goal was to document the occurrence of biological and anthropogenic sounds in freshwater habitats over a large (46,000 km2) area along the geographic corridors of five major river systems in North America (Connecticut, Kennebec, Merrimack, Presumpscot, and Saco). The underwater soundscape was sampled in 19 lakes, 17 ponds, 20 rivers and 20 streams, brooks and creeks that were grouped into broad categories (brook/creek, pond/lake, and river). Over 7,000 sounds were measured from 2,750 minutes of recording in 173 locations over a five-week period in the spring of 2008. Sounds were classified into major anthropophony (airplane, boat, traffic, train and other noise) and biophony (fish air movement, also known as air passage, other fish, insect-like, bird, and other biological) categories. The three most significant findings in this study are: 1) freshwater habitats in the New England region of North America contain a diverse array of unidentified biological sounds; 2) fish air movement sounds constitute a previously unrecognized important component of the freshwater soundscape, occurring at more locations (39%) and in equal abundance than other fish sounds; and 3) anthropogenic noises dominate the soundscape accounting for 92% of the soundscape by relative percent time. The high potential for negative impacts of the anthropophony on freshwater soundscapes is suggested by the spectral and temporal overlap of the anthropophony with the biophony, the higher received sound levels of the anthropophony relative to the biophony, and observations of a significant decline in the occurrence, number, percent time, and diversity of the biophony among locations with higher ambient received levels. Our poor understanding of the biophony of freshwater ecosystems, together with an apparent high temporal exposure to anthropogenic noise across all habitats, suggest a critical need for studies aimed at identification of biophonic sound sources and assessment of potential threats from anthropogenic noises.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations74
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207