ArticleScientific reports2017
Insight into shark magnetic field perception from empirical observations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shark preferences: Only subtle effects of electromagnetic field exposure and substrate type on small-spotted catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula) behaviour.Journal of fish biology · 2026Article
- The lateral line and electrosensory systems of two holocephalans.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Passive electroreception in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus): implication for micro- and large-scale orientation.The Journal of experimental biology · 2023Article
- Head anatomy of a lantern shark wet-collection specimen (Chondrichthyes: Etmopteridae).Journal of anatomy · 2023Article
- Collective evolution learning model for vision-based collective motion with collision avoidance.PloS one · 2023Article
- Smart sharks: a review of chondrichthyan cognition.Animal cognition · 2023Review
- Magnetoreception and magnetic navigation in fishes: a half century of discovery.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2022Review
- Anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (EMF) influence the behaviour of bottom-dwelling marine species.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Bridging disciplines to advance elasmobranch conservation: applications of physiological ecology.Conservation physiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Elasmobranch fishes are among a broad range of taxa believed to gain positional information and navigate using the earth's magnetic field, yet in sharks, much remains uncertain regarding the sensory receptors and pathways involved, or the exact nature of perceived stimuli. Captive sandbar sharks, Carcharhinus plumbeus were conditioned to respond to presentation of a magnetic stimulus by seeking out a target in anticipation of reward (food). Sharks in the study demonstrated strong responses to magnetic stimuli, making significantly more approaches to the target (p = < 0.01) during stimulus activation (S+) than before or after activation (S-). Sharks exposed to reversible magnetosensory impairment were less capable of discriminating changes to the local magnetic field, with no difference seen in approaches to the target under the S+ and S- conditions (p = 0.375). We provide quantified detection and discrimination thresholds of magnetic stimuli presented, and quantify associated transient electrical artefacts. We show that the likelihood of such artefacts serving as the stimulus for observed behavioural responses was low. These impairment experiments support hypotheses that magnetic field perception in sharks is not solely performed via the electrosensory system, and that putative magnetoreceptor structures may be located in the naso-olfactory capsules of sharks.
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.