⚙
AI-generated deep summary
by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-04
· read from full text
ⓘ
This preprint conducted a preregistered systematic mapping study of 50 published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on how anthropogenic noise affects wildlife, using searches in Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. It found that 47 syntheses were included in bibliometric analyses, 23 were included in a policy-attention analysis, and 44 in a critical appraisal, with most syntheses published in the last six years and focusing on behavioural, physiological, and communication outcomes, especially for transportation and energy industry noise. The study reports major coverage gaps, including underrepresentation of invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles, and notes that most syntheses were first-authored in the UK, Canada, and the US, with low representation from non-English-speaking countries. It also finds that many syntheses are rated low due to methodological and reporting shortcomings, with no quality-score differences between policy-cited and non-cited syntheses; this paper is not peer reviewed, and it does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis, though it was included in the corpus via keyword match in the upstream search index.
Abstract
As systematic reviews on the effects of anthropogenic noise on wildlife increasingly inform policy, a critical evaluation of this secondary evidence is essential. We assessed the coverage, methodological quality, and policy relevance of existing syntheses in this field. Following a preregistered protocol, we conducted a systematic search using Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, that identified 50 syntheses (systematic reviews, maps, and meta-analyses). Of these 50 syntheses, we included 47 in the bibliometric analysis, 23 in the policy attention analysis, and 44 in the critical appraisal. The included syntheses were published between 2008 and 2025, but mainly in the last six years, and focused on behavioural, physiological, and communication outcomes in animals. Most syntheses looked at the effects of transportation and energy industry activities. Syntheses were most likely to review evidence from marine, followed by terrestrial ecosystems. We found critical gaps in the coverage in terms of their taxonomic scope, with notable underrepresentation of invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles. Most syntheses were first-authored by researchers based in the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. Although many syntheses had authors from more than one country, authors from non-English-speaking countries were largely absent. Almost half of syntheses were cited in policy documents, mainly government policies and regulatory submissions. Syntheses of evidence on marine environments received the most policy citations and urban noise the least. There was no significant difference in quality scores between policy-cited and non-cited syntheses, and most of them are rated low due to methodological and reporting shortcomings. Given these findings, it is critical to fill the synthesis gaps and improve methodology and reporting of future evidence syntheses in this area.
Full text
2,823 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.
You must log in to post a comment.
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.
Add a Comment
You must log in to post a comment.
Comments
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.
As systematic reviews on the effects of anthropogenic noise on wildlife increasingly inform policy, a critical evaluation of this secondary evidence is essential. We assessed the coverage, methodological quality, and policy relevance of existing syntheses in this field. Following a preregistered protocol, we conducted a systematic search using Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, that identified 50 syntheses (systematic reviews, maps, and meta-analyses). Of these 50 syntheses, we included 47 in the bibliometric analysis, 23 in the policy attention analysis, and 44 in the critical appraisal. The included syntheses were published between 2008 and 2025, but mainly in the last six years, and focused on behavioural, physiological, and communication outcomes in animals. Most syntheses looked at the effects of transportation and energy industry activities. Syntheses were most likely to review evidence from marine, followed by terrestrial ecosystems. We found critical gaps in the coverage in terms of their taxonomic scope, with notable underrepresentation of invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles. Most syntheses were first-authored by researchers based in the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. Although many syntheses had authors from more than one country, authors from non-English-speaking countries were largely absent. Almost half of syntheses were cited in policy documents, mainly government policies and regulatory submissions. Syntheses of evidence on marine environments received the most policy citations and urban noise the least. There was no significant difference in quality scores between policy-cited and non-cited syntheses, and most of them are rated low due to methodological and reporting shortcomings. Given these findings, it is critical to fill the synthesis gaps and improve methodology and reporting of future evidence syntheses in this area.
https://doi.org/10.32942/X2435S
Life Sciences
Bibliometric Analysis, Umbrella review, Soundscape ecology, environmental stressors, conservation policy, Biodiversity Management, CEESAT appraisal
Published: 2025-10-08 01:52
Last Updated: 2025-10-08 01:52
CC BY Attribution 4.0 International
Conflict of interest statement:
None
Data and Code Availability Statement:
All data and code are in the GitHub repository: https://github.com/AnnaLenzR/Umbrella_review_noise_impact_on_wildlife.git
Language:
English
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.