ArticleScientific reports2023
Wild harbour porpoises startle and flee at low received levels from acoustic harassment device.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physiological effects of anthropogenic sound on aquatic animals: where are we and what is next?The Journal of experimental biology · 2026Review
- Transcriptomic insights into the immune responses of the lung and muscle of non-healthy harbor porpoises (Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Current species protection does not serve its porpoise-Knowledge gaps on the impact of pressures on the Critically Endangered Baltic Proper harbour porpoise population, and future recommendations for its protection.Ecology and evolution · 2024Review
- Response of Eurasian otters (Lutra lutra) to underwater acoustic harassment device sounds.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acoustic Harassment Devices (AHD) are widely used to deter marine mammals from aquaculture depredation, and from pile driving operations that may otherwise cause hearing damage. However, little is known about the behavioural and physiological effects of these devices. Here, we investigate the physiological and behavioural responses of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) to a commercial AHD in Danish waters. Six porpoises were tagged with suction-cup-attached DTAGs recording sound, 3D-movement, and GPS (n = 3) or electrocardiogram (n = 2). They were then exposed to AHDs for 15 min, with initial received levels (RL) ranging from 98 to 132 dB re 1 µPa (rms-fast, 125 ms) and initial exposure ranges of 0.9-7 km. All animals reacted by displaying a mixture of acoustic startle responses, fleeing, altered echolocation behaviour, and by demonstrating unusual tachycardia while diving. Moreover, during the 15-min exposures, half of the animals received cumulative sound doses close to published thresholds for temporary auditory threshold shifts. We conclude that AHD exposure at many km can evoke both startle, flight and cardiac responses which may impact blood-gas management, breath-hold capability, energy balance, stress level and risk of by-catch. We posit that current AHDs are too powerful for mitigation use to prevent hearing damage of porpoises from offshore construction.
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.