ArticleScientific reports2024
The effect of a startle-eliciting device on the foraging success of individual harbor seals (Phoca vitulina).
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acoustic deterrence as a mitigation tool for seal-human conflicts in the Helgoland Dune swimming zone.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Pinniped predation on commercially and ecologically important prey has been a source of conflict for centuries. In the Salish Sea, harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are suspected of impeding the recovery of culturally and ecologically critical Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.). In Fall 2020, a novel deterrent called Targeted Acoustic Startle Technology (TAST) was deployed at Whatcom Creek to deter harbor seals from preying on fall runs of hatchery chum (O. keta) and Chinook (O. tshawytscha) salmon in Bellingham, Washington, USA. Field observations were conducted in 2020 to compare the presence and foraging success of individual harbor seals across sound exposure (TAST-on) and control (TAST-off) conditions. Observations conducted the previous (2019) and following (2021) years were used to compare the effects observed in 2020 to two control years. Using photo-identification, individual seals were associated with foraging successes across all 3 years of the study. Generalized linear mixed models showed a significant 45.6% reduction in the duration (min) individuals remained at the creek with TAST on, and a significant 43.8% reduction in the overall foraging success of individuals. However, the observed effect of TAST varied across individual seals. Seals that were observed regularly within one season were more likely to return the year after, regardless of TAST treatment. Generalized linear models showed interannual variation in the number of seals present and salmon consumed. However, the effect of TAST in 2020 was greater than the observed variation across years. Our analyses suggest TAST can be an effective tool for managing pinniped predation, although alternate strategies such as deploying TAST longer-term and using multi-unit setups to increase coverage could help strengthen its effects. Future studies should further examine the individual variability found in this study.
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.