The Experts below are selected from a list of 1632 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Braye Crystal - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Pike, E. July 3, 2018. Crystal Braye interviewing Eli Pike, St. Lawrence.
2018Co-Authors: Braye CrystalAbstract:Eli Pike talks to Crystal Braye about his experiences with swampbottom Boats and fishing from St. Lawrence. His wife, Ella, is also present during the interview."0:00:00 Recording starts with Eli referring to a photo of a partly built swamp boat he bought from Brian Hodder in Marystown. Hodder got sick and could not complete the boat, so Eli purchased it as-is and completed it himself. It was the only boat he built. 0:00:55 When Eli got rid of the swamp bottom he replaced it with a thirty-five foot Motor boat. He replaced that boat with a thirty-five foot fiberglass longliner. 0:01:20 Swampbottom Boats were twenty-five in length. Occasionally built to twenty-eight feet. 0:01:29 “There was a man in Epworth used to build them. Ren Roberts was his name. He built Boats for the whole Burin Peninsula I think, as far as I know.” 0:01:47 Owned two swamp Boats. Lost one when engine broke. Eli and company were picked up by an oar boat and brought to St. John’s. The swamp was sunk to prevent being a hazard lost as sea. 0:02:30 “First time I went fishing in a swampbottom I was about eighteen years old. I fished with Hebert Paul in Burin. I fished with he for five or six years and then I went on my own. I’d say I was twenty-five when I got my own boat - a swampbottom. And I had her for ten years and then I sold her and bought this one here. I had this one twenty years.” 0:03:03 Swampbottom Boats were about twenty-five and clinker built. “As far as I’m concerned, it's the best boat you could go in fishing. They were really seaworthy for the size. They’re not like those bigger Boats, but for the size you couldn’t get in anything better.” They about six or seven feet wide. Maximum load is about 5500 pounds. He had a five Acadia in the first one, replaced with thirteen horsepower Lester diesel. 0:04:15 Had a sail. “What we call a ‘driver’. Just to keep her head up when you’re taking up trawl and hauling nets… just a small sail on the back.” 0:04:34 Crystal asks about photos of swamp. Two different Boats. One owned by uncle and one was bought from Mr. Hodder and completed by Eli. 0:04:45 Eli completed thwarts and install engine, engine bed and shaft. Used it to fish for cod, lobster, and salmon. There was no crab until later. 0:05:56 Fished for fifty-two years. Started when he was fifteen and stopped when he was sixty-seven. Started fishing for cod - mostly all cod then. Sold fresh for one cent per pound. 0:06:52 Eli mentions Billy Paul. Says they fished side by side in Wandsworth for about five or six years. Billy fished with his father Billy Sr. Eli fished with Billy’s uncle Hebert Paul. Billy has a painting of a swamp boat he painted himself. 0:07:35 “They were good little Boats… They were only used on the Burin Peninsula as far as I know.” Used mostly in St. Lawrence and Burin area. Would go out about 10 miles out to fish. 0:09:00 The bottom was about one and a half to two feet wide. They had a keel through the middle, from the stem past the stern to fit the rudder. Built with cut timbers. Harvested wood in the fall. Cut locally near Epworth. 0:09:35 Not many Boats were built in St. Lawrence. No swampbottoms built in St. Lawrence. “As far as I know most of the swampbottoms that were built, were built in Epwoth. There were a couple of fellows down there: Ren Roberts was one man and Uncle Macky Manning, he used to build them too, but he was a fisherman and probably in the wintertime he might build one for somebody. But Ren Roberts, he made a living out of that.” 0:11:10 Crystal asks what Boats were common when Eli was growing up in St. Lawrence. He said the swampbottom and punt [Motor Boats]. Swampbottom were clinker and punt were planked [carvel], but they were similar. 0:12:00 Eli fished for crab, salmon, lobster, cod. “I’ve caught it all.” Used mostly trawl and gillnets - both would have been used from swampbottom. 0:12:30 Changes to fisheries. Says fishing isn’t competitive like it used to be. No longer that first man on the ground is the one to get the fish. Now there are quotas assigned. 0:13:00 Eli never used cod traps. All hook and line and gillnets. Eli fished a place called “the Old Bank” located 6 ¾ miles south of Cape Chapeau Rouge. Fishing berths were claimed on a first come first serve basis. Also names some other places to fish: “Southwest Bank, Soccer Bank, Lawn Point, Manuel’s Rock… lots of rocks out there.” 0:14:20 Crystal asks if he liked fishing. “Yup. When I retired I thought I was going to go foolish the first year... nothing to do...” Fished in summers and worked in the mine in the winter for five or six winters. 0:15:10 Eli’s wife, Ella, also grew up in St. Lawrence. 0:15:30 Crystal asks if Eli had any stories about being in his swamp. Eli answers, “One day we were out on the Old Bank there. It takes you fifty minutes to come in, hey? We left out there one day twelve o'clock in the day, and five o’clock in the evening I got home. The wind was fifty-five miles an hour. Poor day, that day. But the old swampbottom brought us through it. We bailed lots of water, but we managed to get in.” 0:16:15 Crystal asks why swampbottom Boats were so seaworthy. Eli answers, “They were like they were on top of everything, the sea you had. They just rubbed the sea like they were made for it.” 0:16:30 There were lots of dories in the area as well. “Years ago, everybody had a dory.” 0:16:45 Crystal gives Eli material from the Wooden Boat Museum. 0:17:05 Eli shows Crystal a photo of his fiberglass boat when it was new. 0:17:15 Eli shows Crystal a book that family made about his fishing experience. 0:17:45 Story from book about saving the lives of a few boys who capsized a dory. “Water isn’t very warm in February if you’re swimming.” Ella and Eli said there were a lot of people standing and watching that could not help because they didn’t know how to swim. Eli and his brother Eric jumped in and swam to save them. Boys were around the ages of 8 or 10. 0:19:08 Eli refers to photo in the book of the wooden Motor boat that replaced his swamp. “We always carried a dory on that one for a lifeboat.” 0:19:30 Fiberglass boat was built in Glovertown. Eli purchased in 1992. 0:20:40 Continue to look at book. Refer to old boat found at Blue Beach. 0:21:27 Photo in book of uncle’s swamp boat. 0:22:15 Eli asks Crystal how she knows his grandson Garrett who put them in touch for this interview. Eli says Garrett fished with him for a few years but the swampbottom was gone before he was old enough. Garrett fished the fiberglass one with Eli. 0:22:50 Photo and discussion of Eli’s stage. 0:24:19 End of audio recording.
-
Churchill, S. June 29, 2018. Crystal Braye interviewing Sylvester Churchill, Little St. Lawrence.
2018Co-Authors: Braye CrystalAbstract:Interview focused on swamp Boats (or swamp bottom Boats) common on the west side of Placentia Bay. Sylvester Churchill fished from a swamp boat from 1979-1986."0:00:00 Sylvester describes what a swamp boat looks like. “The stern of her is like a dory. A punt is more wider.” Flat bottom with keel. The bottom is about two feet wide on a twenty-five foot boat. It’s built like a dory but a keel bolts on to the bottom of it. The keel is probably about six inches deep and runs about sixteen to eighteen feet - started about forehook and went back. Clinker planks, like a dory. 0:01:45 Sylvester goes to get a dory model. Describes similarity in planking to swamp boat. 0:03:00 Syvester never built Boats but did repairs. The swamp boat he once owned was built by Albert Rennie. It had four horsepower Atlantic but was replaced with a diesel. Sylvester used the boat for fishing from 1979-1986. 0:03:40 Crystal asked when swamp Boats started to fade out. Sylvester said it was about the same time he got rid of his swamp boat. There was a move towards fiberglass at that time, which required less maintenance than wooden boat. Wooden boat would last about ten to twelve years and required repairs. 0:04:34 In the early days, there was a hole in the forward thwart for the driver to be used for sailing. Also a hole for a sculling oar at stern which would be used as a rudder to steer. Eventually they had a rudder that was steered with rope and pulleys (called tiller reins), which allowed the boat to be steered from midship. 0:06:30 Used his swamp boat to fish for salmon, herring, cod, flounder. He used nets and trawl. The boat had a roller forward for hailing trawl. Usually fished with two people, sometimes three. 0:07:25 Boats were usually about twenty-five feet and seven feet wide and about three and a half deep at midship. The bottom was about two feet wide on a twenty-five foot boat. A dory would have a wider bottom, but a swamp was smaller. 0:08:50 Boards were shipped in from Burin. Sylvester talks about harvesting curved wood and making timbers. 0:09:35 Swamp Boats would have been used inshore, probably about three or four miles from shore. The Boats were wide on the front. “They were really good seaBoats.” 0:10:20 Reference is made to a photo. The sail on the back is called a spanker. Sylvester points to rudder shaft and location where fish were stored. Discussion of spanker continues while looking at diagrams drawn by Sylvester for someone who is building a model of a swamp boat [Rick Rennie]. 0:12:15 Discusses diagram of tiller and rudder. 0:13:30 Usually painted grey with a copper bottom. Gunnels were mostly green, sometimes red. 0:14:15 Sylvester fisher for cod, herring and salmon. He used nets and trawl. 0:14:55 Refers to photo [P_Little St-Lawrence_Sylvester Churchill]. Trap Skiff hauling cod trap. Photo taken outside of Blue Beach near St. Lawrence in 1977. Photo shows Sylvester, A swamp boat owned by Norm Reeves (grey) and a dory (yellow) are seen on the right. Dories were normally used as tenders for cod traps. 0:16:00 Swamp Boats were not in Fortune Bay. They were on the west side of Placentia Bay. Says there were seven to eight of them in the harbour, owned by: Becks, Reeves, Hebert Paul, Perce Stacey, Gary Robere. “They are pretty famous around here.” 0:17:30 Discussion of Motor Boats. Motor Boats in area were known as punts. Sylvester describes differences between swamp Boats and punts, and similarities between swamp Boats and dories. 0:19:15 Sylvester goes to get a model dory. 0:20:30 Timbers were cut. “Mostly you’d have to go in on the side of the hill somewhere to get the crooked stick to make the timber.” Swamp Boats would have about fourteen beds of timbers.” Plank boards were shipped from elsewhere, not available in that length nearby to harvest. Describes planking process. 0:23:35 Only person he is aware of that built Boats in St. Lawrence area was Norm Reeves who built a trap skiff and a longliner. Boats often bought secondhand. 0:24:45 Says trap skiff were common. They were thirty to thirty-five feet. 0:25:10 Crystal asks about fish plant in St. Lawrence. Sylvester says in opened in the late ‘60s. He says that they were first bringing in fish from the Grand Banks to split and salt before moving to fresh fish when Fisheries Products took it over. Has changed hands since. 0:26:05 Impact of cod moratorium. 0:27:15 “There was a lot of times we’d go out when it wasn’t fit to be out there, but... But they were good Boats. Lots of water come aboard you had to just scoop it out as fast as you can. It was difficult sometimes… dangerous.. But that’s it.” 0:28:10 End of audio recording.
-
Chubbs, Cyril. August 10, 2018. C. Braye and J. Harnum interviewiing Cyril Chubbs, Saint Lewis
2018Co-Authors: Braye CrystalAbstract:"Cyril Chubbs talks about building Boats in Saint Lewis (formerly Fox Harbour); seasickness; fishing; boat building tools; harvesting timer; dog teams; boat designs, including speed boat and Motor Boats; engines; change from dog teams to snowmobiles; boat building methods and materials; the Moratorium; building a road in the mid-1950s for an American RADAR station; building longliners; selling his twenty-six year old speed boat; and building models.
-
Hillyard, Benjamin. August 8, 2018. C.Braye and J. Harnum interviewing Ben Hillyard, Red Bay
2018Co-Authors: Braye CrystalAbstract:Ben discussed building Boats; different types of Boats including dories, Motor Boats and speed Boats; and fishing
-
Pye, L.K. Malcolm. August 8, 2018. C.Braye and J. Harnum interviewing Malcolm Pye, Lodge Bay
2018Co-Authors: Braye CrystalAbstract:"Malcolm Pye discusses growing up in Lodge Bay and Cape Charles; building Boats, including Motor Boats, speed Boats, row Boats and dories; fishing with cod traps and trawls; and harvesting timber.
Sylvie Vanpeene - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity a systematic map protocol
Environmental Evidence, 2019Co-Authors: Romain Sordello, Frederique Flamerie De Lachapelle, Barbara Livoreil, Sylvie VanpeeneAbstract:For decades, biodiversity has suffered massive losses worldwide. Urbanization is one of the major drivers of extinction because it leads to the physical fragmentation and loss of natural habitats and it is associated with related effects, e.g. pollution and in particular noise pollution given that many man-made sounds are generated in cities (e.g. industrial and traffic noise, etc.). However, all human activities generate sounds, even far from any human habitation (e.g. Motor Boats on lakes, aircraft in the air, etc.). Ecological research now deals increasingly with the effects of noise pollution on biodiversity. Many studies have shown the impacts of anthropogenic noise and concluded that it is potentially a threat to life on Earth. The present work describes a protocol to systematically map evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity. The resulting map will inform on the species most studied and on the demonstrated impacts. This will be useful for further primary research by identifying knowledge gaps and in view of further analysis, such as systematic reviews. Searches will include peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English and French. Two online databases will be searched using English terms and search consistency will be assessed with a test list. No geographical restrictions will be applied. The subject population will include all species. Exposures will include all types of man-made sounds (industrial, traffic, etc.) in all types of environments (or media) (terrestrial, aerial, aquatic), including all contexts and sound origins (spontaneous or recorded sounds, in situ or laboratory studies, etc.). All relevant outcomes will be considered (space use, reproduction, communication, abundance, etc.). An open-access database will be produced with all relevant studies selected during the three screening stages. For each study, the database will contain metadata on key variables of interest (species, types of sound, outcomes, etc.). This database will be available in conjunction with a map report describing the mapping process and the evidence base with summary figures and tables of the study characteristics.
-
Evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map protocol
Environmental Evidence, 2019Co-Authors: Romain Sordello, Barbara Livoreil, Frédérique Flamerie De Lachapelle, Sylvie VanpeeneAbstract:Background : For decades, biodiversity has suffered massive losses worldwide. Urbanization is one of the major drivers of extinction because it leads to the physical fragmentation and loss of natural habitats and it is associated with related effects, e.g. pollution and in particular noise pollution given that many man-made sounds are generated in cities (e.g. industrial and traffic noise, etc.). However, all human activities generate sounds, even far from any human habitation (e.g. Motor Boats on lakes, aircraft in the air, etc.). Ecological research now deals increasingly with the effects of noise pollution on biodiversity. Many studies have shown the impacts of anthropogenic noise and concluded that it is potentially a threat to life on Earth. The present work describes a protocol to systematically map evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity. The resulting map will inform on the species most studied and on the demonstrated impacts. This will be useful for further primary research by identifying knowledge gaps and in view of further analysis, such as systematic reviews. Methods : Searches will include peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English and French. Two online databases will be searched using English terms and search consistency will be assessed with a test list. No geographical restrictions will be applied. The subject population will include all species. Exposures will include all types of man-made sounds (industrial, traffic, etc.) in all types of environments (or media) (terrestrial, aerial, aquatic), including all contexts and sound origins (spontaneous or recorded sounds, in situ or laboratory studies, etc.). All relevant outcomes will be considered (space use, reproduction, communication, abundance, etc.). An open-access database will be produced with all relevant studies selected during the three screening stages. For each study, the database will contain metadata on key variables of interest (species, types of sound, outcomes, etc.). This database will be available in conjunction with a map report describing the mapping process and the evidence base with summary figures and tables of the study characteristics.
Romain Sordello - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity a systematic map protocol
Environmental Evidence, 2019Co-Authors: Romain Sordello, Frederique Flamerie De Lachapelle, Barbara Livoreil, Sylvie VanpeeneAbstract:For decades, biodiversity has suffered massive losses worldwide. Urbanization is one of the major drivers of extinction because it leads to the physical fragmentation and loss of natural habitats and it is associated with related effects, e.g. pollution and in particular noise pollution given that many man-made sounds are generated in cities (e.g. industrial and traffic noise, etc.). However, all human activities generate sounds, even far from any human habitation (e.g. Motor Boats on lakes, aircraft in the air, etc.). Ecological research now deals increasingly with the effects of noise pollution on biodiversity. Many studies have shown the impacts of anthropogenic noise and concluded that it is potentially a threat to life on Earth. The present work describes a protocol to systematically map evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity. The resulting map will inform on the species most studied and on the demonstrated impacts. This will be useful for further primary research by identifying knowledge gaps and in view of further analysis, such as systematic reviews. Searches will include peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English and French. Two online databases will be searched using English terms and search consistency will be assessed with a test list. No geographical restrictions will be applied. The subject population will include all species. Exposures will include all types of man-made sounds (industrial, traffic, etc.) in all types of environments (or media) (terrestrial, aerial, aquatic), including all contexts and sound origins (spontaneous or recorded sounds, in situ or laboratory studies, etc.). All relevant outcomes will be considered (space use, reproduction, communication, abundance, etc.). An open-access database will be produced with all relevant studies selected during the three screening stages. For each study, the database will contain metadata on key variables of interest (species, types of sound, outcomes, etc.). This database will be available in conjunction with a map report describing the mapping process and the evidence base with summary figures and tables of the study characteristics.
-
Evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map protocol
Environmental Evidence, 2019Co-Authors: Romain Sordello, Barbara Livoreil, Frédérique Flamerie De Lachapelle, Sylvie VanpeeneAbstract:Background : For decades, biodiversity has suffered massive losses worldwide. Urbanization is one of the major drivers of extinction because it leads to the physical fragmentation and loss of natural habitats and it is associated with related effects, e.g. pollution and in particular noise pollution given that many man-made sounds are generated in cities (e.g. industrial and traffic noise, etc.). However, all human activities generate sounds, even far from any human habitation (e.g. Motor Boats on lakes, aircraft in the air, etc.). Ecological research now deals increasingly with the effects of noise pollution on biodiversity. Many studies have shown the impacts of anthropogenic noise and concluded that it is potentially a threat to life on Earth. The present work describes a protocol to systematically map evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity. The resulting map will inform on the species most studied and on the demonstrated impacts. This will be useful for further primary research by identifying knowledge gaps and in view of further analysis, such as systematic reviews. Methods : Searches will include peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English and French. Two online databases will be searched using English terms and search consistency will be assessed with a test list. No geographical restrictions will be applied. The subject population will include all species. Exposures will include all types of man-made sounds (industrial, traffic, etc.) in all types of environments (or media) (terrestrial, aerial, aquatic), including all contexts and sound origins (spontaneous or recorded sounds, in situ or laboratory studies, etc.). All relevant outcomes will be considered (space use, reproduction, communication, abundance, etc.). An open-access database will be produced with all relevant studies selected during the three screening stages. For each study, the database will contain metadata on key variables of interest (species, types of sound, outcomes, etc.). This database will be available in conjunction with a map report describing the mapping process and the evidence base with summary figures and tables of the study characteristics.
Barbara Livoreil - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity a systematic map protocol
Environmental Evidence, 2019Co-Authors: Romain Sordello, Frederique Flamerie De Lachapelle, Barbara Livoreil, Sylvie VanpeeneAbstract:For decades, biodiversity has suffered massive losses worldwide. Urbanization is one of the major drivers of extinction because it leads to the physical fragmentation and loss of natural habitats and it is associated with related effects, e.g. pollution and in particular noise pollution given that many man-made sounds are generated in cities (e.g. industrial and traffic noise, etc.). However, all human activities generate sounds, even far from any human habitation (e.g. Motor Boats on lakes, aircraft in the air, etc.). Ecological research now deals increasingly with the effects of noise pollution on biodiversity. Many studies have shown the impacts of anthropogenic noise and concluded that it is potentially a threat to life on Earth. The present work describes a protocol to systematically map evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity. The resulting map will inform on the species most studied and on the demonstrated impacts. This will be useful for further primary research by identifying knowledge gaps and in view of further analysis, such as systematic reviews. Searches will include peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English and French. Two online databases will be searched using English terms and search consistency will be assessed with a test list. No geographical restrictions will be applied. The subject population will include all species. Exposures will include all types of man-made sounds (industrial, traffic, etc.) in all types of environments (or media) (terrestrial, aerial, aquatic), including all contexts and sound origins (spontaneous or recorded sounds, in situ or laboratory studies, etc.). All relevant outcomes will be considered (space use, reproduction, communication, abundance, etc.). An open-access database will be produced with all relevant studies selected during the three screening stages. For each study, the database will contain metadata on key variables of interest (species, types of sound, outcomes, etc.). This database will be available in conjunction with a map report describing the mapping process and the evidence base with summary figures and tables of the study characteristics.
-
Evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map protocol
Environmental Evidence, 2019Co-Authors: Romain Sordello, Barbara Livoreil, Frédérique Flamerie De Lachapelle, Sylvie VanpeeneAbstract:Background : For decades, biodiversity has suffered massive losses worldwide. Urbanization is one of the major drivers of extinction because it leads to the physical fragmentation and loss of natural habitats and it is associated with related effects, e.g. pollution and in particular noise pollution given that many man-made sounds are generated in cities (e.g. industrial and traffic noise, etc.). However, all human activities generate sounds, even far from any human habitation (e.g. Motor Boats on lakes, aircraft in the air, etc.). Ecological research now deals increasingly with the effects of noise pollution on biodiversity. Many studies have shown the impacts of anthropogenic noise and concluded that it is potentially a threat to life on Earth. The present work describes a protocol to systematically map evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity. The resulting map will inform on the species most studied and on the demonstrated impacts. This will be useful for further primary research by identifying knowledge gaps and in view of further analysis, such as systematic reviews. Methods : Searches will include peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English and French. Two online databases will be searched using English terms and search consistency will be assessed with a test list. No geographical restrictions will be applied. The subject population will include all species. Exposures will include all types of man-made sounds (industrial, traffic, etc.) in all types of environments (or media) (terrestrial, aerial, aquatic), including all contexts and sound origins (spontaneous or recorded sounds, in situ or laboratory studies, etc.). All relevant outcomes will be considered (space use, reproduction, communication, abundance, etc.). An open-access database will be produced with all relevant studies selected during the three screening stages. For each study, the database will contain metadata on key variables of interest (species, types of sound, outcomes, etc.). This database will be available in conjunction with a map report describing the mapping process and the evidence base with summary figures and tables of the study characteristics.
Frederique Flamerie De Lachapelle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity a systematic map protocol
Environmental Evidence, 2019Co-Authors: Romain Sordello, Frederique Flamerie De Lachapelle, Barbara Livoreil, Sylvie VanpeeneAbstract:For decades, biodiversity has suffered massive losses worldwide. Urbanization is one of the major drivers of extinction because it leads to the physical fragmentation and loss of natural habitats and it is associated with related effects, e.g. pollution and in particular noise pollution given that many man-made sounds are generated in cities (e.g. industrial and traffic noise, etc.). However, all human activities generate sounds, even far from any human habitation (e.g. Motor Boats on lakes, aircraft in the air, etc.). Ecological research now deals increasingly with the effects of noise pollution on biodiversity. Many studies have shown the impacts of anthropogenic noise and concluded that it is potentially a threat to life on Earth. The present work describes a protocol to systematically map evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity. The resulting map will inform on the species most studied and on the demonstrated impacts. This will be useful for further primary research by identifying knowledge gaps and in view of further analysis, such as systematic reviews. Searches will include peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English and French. Two online databases will be searched using English terms and search consistency will be assessed with a test list. No geographical restrictions will be applied. The subject population will include all species. Exposures will include all types of man-made sounds (industrial, traffic, etc.) in all types of environments (or media) (terrestrial, aerial, aquatic), including all contexts and sound origins (spontaneous or recorded sounds, in situ or laboratory studies, etc.). All relevant outcomes will be considered (space use, reproduction, communication, abundance, etc.). An open-access database will be produced with all relevant studies selected during the three screening stages. For each study, the database will contain metadata on key variables of interest (species, types of sound, outcomes, etc.). This database will be available in conjunction with a map report describing the mapping process and the evidence base with summary figures and tables of the study characteristics.