ArticleJournal of fish biology2026
Listening to tuna: Acoustic characterization of captive juvenile yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares).
Article in Journal of fish biology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The effectiveness of passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) for studying marine biodiversity highly relies on comprehensive libraries of species-specific sounds. While sound production is well-documented in reef and freshwater fishes, the acoustic behaviour of ecologically and economically vital pelagic species like tunas still remains largely unexplored. This study provides a detailed characterization of sounds produced by the yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), a widely distributed species sustaining a global fishery. Acoustic recordings were conducted in a large concrete tank to minimize acoustic artefacts and ensure species-specific attribution, where 19 juveniles were maintained in captivity during 16 days. Over 6400 sounds were detected and categorized into two distinct types: short sounds (average duration 47 ms) and long sounds (534.4 ms) consisting of trains of pulses, both with a peak frequency of 263.1 ± 31.3 Hz. There was a clear diel difference in yellowfin tuna sound production: long sounds were more abundant during the day than at night, whereas short sounds varied more modestly, peaking in the evening and declining overnight, with intermediate levels during the day. This characterization is a critical first step towards using PAM for monitoring this tropical tuna species, thereby providing a novel, fisheries-independent method to study its distribution, behaviour and abundance.
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.