Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30864159›Full record

ReviewJournal of fish biology2019

An overview of fish bioacoustics and the impacts of anthropogenic sounds on fishes.

Arthur N Popper, Anthony D Hawkins

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of fish biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
26.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 393 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Neurobehavioral Alterations from Noise Exposure in Animals: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Avoidance behaviours of farmed Atlantic salmon (Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The effects of environmental changes on the endocrine regulation of feeding in fishes.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Arthur N PopperDepartment of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA.
Anthony D HawkinsLoughine Ltd., Aberdeen, UK.
Loughborough University · GBUniversity of Maryland, College Park · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fishes use a variety of sensory systems to learn about their environments and to communicate. Of the various senses, hearing plays a particularly important role for fishes in providing information, often from great distances, from all around these animals. This information is in all three spatial dimensions, often overcoming the limitations of other senses such as vision, touch, taste and smell. Sound is used for communication between fishes, mating behaviour, the detection of prey and predators, orientation and migration and habitat selection. Thus, anything that interferes with the ability of a fish to detect and respond to biologically relevant sounds can decrease survival and fitness of individuals and populations. Since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, there has been a growing increase in the noise that humans put into the water. These anthropogenic sounds are from a wide range of sources that include shipping, sonars, construction activities (e.g., wind farms, harbours), trawling, dredging and exploration for oil and gas. Anthropogenic sounds may be sufficiently intense to result in death or mortal injury. However, anthropogenic sounds at lower levels may result in temporary hearing impairment, physiological changes including stress effects, changes in behaviour or the masking of biologically important sounds. The intent of this paper is to review the potential effects of anthropogenic sounds upon fishes, the potential consequences for populations and ecosystems and the need to develop sound exposure criteria and relevant regulations. However, assuming that many readers may not have a background in fish bioacoustics, the paper first provides information on underwater acoustics, with a focus on introducing the very important concept of particle motion, the primary acoustic stimulus for all fishes, including elasmobranchs. The paper then provides background material on fish hearing, sound production and acoustic behaviour. This is followed by an overview of what is known about effects of anthropogenic sounds on fishes and considers the current guidelines and criteria being used world-wide to assess potential effects on fishes. Most importantly, the paper provides the most complete summary of the effects of anthropogenic noise on fishes to date. It is also made clear that there are currently so many information gaps that it is almost impossible to reach clear conclusions on the nature and levels of anthropogenic sounds that have potential to cause changes in animal behaviour, or even result in physical harm. Further research is required on the responses of a range of fish species to different sound sources, under different conditions. There is a need both to examine the immediate effects of sound exposure and the longer-term effects, in terms of fitness and likely impacts upon populations.

Indexed as

AcousticsNoiseAnimal CommunicationAnimalsAuditory PerceptionBehavior, AnimalEcosystemFishesHearingHumansOtolithic Membranebehaviourcriteriaeffectsguidelineshearingsound

Identifiers

PMID30864159
PMCPMC6849755
OpenAlexW2921870625

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.