The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An overview of fish bioacoustics and the impacts of anthropogenic sounds on fishes
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Principles of underwater sound
(2011) · Passive Acoustic Monitoring of Cetaceans · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511977107.003 · Cited by 2,257
Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean
Hildebrand, J. (2009) · Marine Ecology Progress Series · doi:10.3354/meps08353 · Cited by 1,157
Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound
Kramer, G., & Bregman, A. (1992) · Leonardo Music Journal · doi:10.2307/1513223 · Cited by 657
Kight, C. R., & Swaddle, J. P. (2011) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01664.x · Cited by 622
Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing
Hobday, A. J., Smith, A. D. M., Stobutzki, I. C., Bulman, C., Daley, R., Dambacher, J. M., Deng, R. A., Dowdney, J., Fuller, M., Furlani, D., et al. (2011) · Fisheries Research · doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2011.01.013 · Cited by 563
Pye, J. D. (1964) · Ultrasonics · doi:10.1016/0041-624x(64)90126-x · Cited by 479
Communication masking in marine mammals: A review and research strategy
Erbe, C., Reichmuth, C., Cunningham, K., Lucke, K., & Dooling, R. (2016) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.12.007 · Cited by 452
The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes
Popper, A. N., & Hastings, M. C. (2009) · Journal of Fish Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02319.x · Cited by 405
Self-citationScientific tools to support the practical implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management
Smith, A. D. M., Fulton, E. J., Hobday, A. J., Smith, D. C., & Shoulder, P. (2007) · ICES Journal of Marine Science · doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsm041 · Cited by 386
Cited by
Sounding the Call for a Global Library of Underwater Biological Sounds
Parsons, M. J. G., Lin, T.-H., Mooney, T. A., Erbe, C., Juanes, F., Lammers, M., Li, S., Linke, S., Looby, A., Nedelec, S. L., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2022.810156 · Cited by 121
Metadata
- Authors
- Popper, A. N., & Hawkins, A. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Fish Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-04-05
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 692-713
- ISSN
- 0022-1112 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-8649
- OpenAlex
- W2921870625
- Cited by
- 445
- References
- 69
- FWCI
- 22.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An overview of fish bioacoustics and the impacts of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jfb.13948
- The paper
- Popper, A. N., & Hawkins, A. D. (2019). An overview of fish bioacoustics and the impacts of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. Journal of Fish Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.13948
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.