ArticleScientific reports2026
Seismic survey noise reduces fin whale vocalisations offshore northwestern Spain.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The ever-increasing level of anthropogenic noise in the ocean is a global concern, yet its impacts on marine life remain poorly understood. Offshore seismic surveys generate intense and repetitive sound pulses during the firing of airguns, which potentially affect the behaviour of marine taxa including marine mammals, but fine-scale behavioural impacts are rarely quantified. We assessed the impact of a 2013 seismic survey offshore northwestern Spain on fin whale vocalisations. Using a convolutional neural network trained on 50 h of manually labelled acoustic data (accuracy 85.6%, AUC 0.93), 63 days of continuous ocean-bottom recordings were analysed across four alternating periods with and without airgun shooting. Across three instruments, vocalisation detections decreased by 70% on average during shooting, with reductions of 52% after correcting for worst-case scenario masking. A negative binomial mixed-effects model indicated statistically significant (p = < 0.0001) reductions in calling during shooting compared to quiet periods. Calling declined rapidly within 1–2 days after shooting began, suggesting reduced vocalisation or temporary displacement. While the broader ecological implications cannot be determined from this dataset, these findings indicate short-term behavioural responses to seismic activity and underscore the need for further research into potential consequences for communication, foraging, and habitat use.
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.