Next Article in Journal
Acquisition Conditions for Lu-177 DOTATATE Imaging
Previous Article in Journal
Laminated Flow-Cell Detector with Granulated Scintillator for the Detection of Tritiated Water
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Radiation
Volume 4
Issue 1
10.3390/radiation4010001
radiation-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Potential Effects of Anthropogenic Radiofrequency Radiation on Cetaceans

by
Alfonso Balmori-de la Puente
and
Alfonso Balmori
*
C/Navarra N°1 5° B, 47007 Valladolid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Radiation 2024, 4(1), 1-16; https://doi.org/10.3390/radiation4010001
Submission received: 25 August 2023 / Revised: 27 November 2023 / Accepted: 25 December 2023 / Published: 30 December 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The number of mass stranding events is dramatically increasing in recent decades affecting cetacean diversity and conservation. They consist in the accumulation of cetacean carcasses or live animals along the coast following certain temporal and spatial patterns. Although some cases can be explained based on a combination of physical or biological natural factors, direct human intervention is contributing to many of them. However, there are still many cases with unknown causes that demand to increase the efforts to describe possible new threats to cetacean species. In this context, we evaluate the potential effect of anthropogenic radiofrequency radiation (i.e., from meteorological and military radars) that has had a great expansion in the last years and is known to alter the magnetic receptor organs in several groups of animals. The aim of this work, was to conduct a bibliographic review reporting mass stranding events together with a search of radars in the vicinity areas. The results obtained suggest that anthropogenic radiofrequency radiation may be considered as a novel factor to understand some stranding events with unknown causes and proposes some plausible mechanisms of action.

Abstract

Cetaceans are cast to shore for a large number of reasons, although sometimes it is not clear why. This paper reviews the types and causes of cetacean strandings, focusing on mass strandings that lack a direct scientific explanation. Failure of cetacean orientation due to radiofrequency radiation and alterations in the Earth’s magnetic field produced during solar storms stand out among the proposed causes. This paper proposes the possibility that anthropogenic radiofrequency radiation from military and meteorological radars may also cause these strandings in areas where powerful radars exist. A search of accessible databases of military and meteorological radars in the world was carried out. Research articles on mass live strandings of cetaceans were reviewed to find temporal or spatial patterns in the stranding concentrations along the coast. The data showed certain patterns of spatial and temporal evidence in the stranding concentrations along the coast after radar setup and provided a detailed description of how radars may interfere with cetacean echolocation from a physiological standpoint. Plausible mechanisms, such as interference with echolocation systems or pulse communication systems, are proposed. This work is theoretical, but it leads to a hypothesis that could be empirically tested. Further in-depth studies should be carried out to confirm or reject the proposed hypothesis.

1. Introduction

Cetacean (Cetacea) strandings, which have been occurring since ancient times, involve animals coming close to shores or stranding themselves on land [1]. However, the causes of some strandings, especially those involving numerous living specimens, and the reason for their increase in recent times have not yet been explained [2,3,4].

1.1. Stranding Types and Causes

Hundreds of strandings happen worldwide every year. Depending on the cetacean stranding event, a variety of types can be identified, which may be used to find out the cause [2]. The first differential criterion is the number of individuals involved, varying from a single animal to hundreds of animals (mass strandings) in some cases [5]. Additionally, we can take into account the condition of the animals when they are beached on the coast (alive and uninjured, injured, or dead). Another differential criterion is the classification of the stranded species into either mysticetes or odontocetes groups.
Strandings of solitary animals are more common than mass strandings [6]. Mass strandings are rare in the suborder Mysticeti, but certain Odontoceti are frequently involved in multiple live strandings of several to hundreds of individuals. Their degree of sociality may play an important role in these events [2,7,8,9,10].
Strandings of cetaceans are likely the result of a sequence of events rather than a simple cause-and-effect [6]. A range of anthropogenic and natural events can cause single and mass strandings [3,4]. There may also be interactions between physical (weather, tides, currents, coastline) and biological conditions (predators, feeding, disturbance of echolocation, disease) [6]. To systematize the causes of strandings, we will divide the general causes proposed thus far into strandings with direct or no direct human intervention [11].

1.1.1. Strandings with Direct Human Intervention

These strandings can be caused by fisheries activities, such as bycatch [2,3,11,12,13,14,15,16] and entanglement [17,18,19]. Larger species are often victims of ship strikes, whereas smaller cetacean species may become entangled in fishing gear [3,9].
Other causes include hunting, chemical spills, explosions, naval maneuvers, sonar operations [3,4,20,21,22,23,24,25], gas bubble lesions and sound disturbance [26,27], acoustic trauma from dynamite [22,28,29], seismic surveys conducted mainly in the oil and gas industries [22,30], increased pollution [27], and toxicity of pollutants in the environment [31].

1.1.2. Strandings with No Direct Human Intervention

These strandings can be caused by sick, injured, or disorientated animals being driven ashore due to different factors, such as diseases [3,4,6,32], morbillivirus infections, particularly in striped dolphins (Stenella coeruleoalba) and pilot whales (Globicephala melas) [32,33,34,35,36], auditory trauma [31], parasitism [3,31,32], harmful algal toxin blooms [3,9,29,32,37], predatory attacks [32], and rock and sand ingestion [32].
Other causes include the coastal configuration, oceanographic events, topographical factors or turbulent weather [31,38], geomagnetic topography and navigational errors [4,32], wind anomalies and climate change [1,3,12,39,40], and shifts in prey distribution and availability [1].

1.2. Spatial Distribution and Numerical Trends of Strandings

The high-fidelity location of the stranding record implies that the ecological structure of living cetacean communities is recorded in the death assemblage [9]. The spatial distribution patterns and the trends of cetacean incidents may be the result of natural distribution, population changes, and the composition of cetacean populations, along with human population density, the reporting effort of a greater number of observers in populated areas, and accessibility of the coast [9,38,41].

1.3. Mass Live Strandings without a Known Cause

Single dead strandings are scattered around the coast, as opposed to live strandings, which are highly correlated with their natural distribution. This is not merely a result of high cetacean numbers in stranding hotspots [42]. Single strandings can often be explained upon post-mortem or necropsy examinations (without these it is often difficult to ascertain the cause of death). Species that live in small groups or are solitary, mainly mysticetes, are rarely found in mass live strandings [2]. Species involved in mass strandings are organized in large social groups and mostly belong to odontocetes [7,8,38,42,43]. Mass strandings accounted for 20% of the stranding episodes in Tasmania from February 1978 to May 1983 [38] and were the leading type of strandings in three of the four small cetacean species in the USA from 2000 to 2006: Lagenorhynchus acutus (69%), Globicephala melas (71%), and Delphinus delphis (61%) [32].

1.4. Proposed Explanations for Mass Live Strandings

As explained previously, various human or natural factors can explain single strandings, whereas mass strandings are the result of a complex combination of causes, likely associated with behavioral factors [2,6,8]. Some suggested theories of mass strandings include entrapment due to unusually falling tides; sick, injured, or senile leaders who are followed by the group; following ancient migratory routes; response to over-population; phases of the moon; auditory trauma; presence of pollutants in the environment; parasitism; meteorological or oceanographic events; coastal topography conditions; or confused echolocation and disorientation caused by geomagnetic factors [2,8,31,36,44]. According to Brabyn [42], some of these theories can be rejected because they do not sufficiently explain the highly concentrated nature of live strandings.

1.5. Aims and Objectives

In this paper, we investigated the possible causes of mass live strandings, which are still unknown and are of great importance for the conservation of marine mammals [8]. This review examines a new hypothesis proposing that anthropogenic radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted from radars may interfere with cetacean orientation and communication, intervening in some way in their mass live strandings. In this context, we propose that anthropogenic RFR may be responsible for some mass live strandings for which no plausible explanations have been found so far.
Anthropogenic electromagnetic fields represent a poorly understood, potentially important emission that is increasing in marine environments, possibly disrupting or masking vital environmental cues for electromagnetic-sensitive species [45]. Some authors have warned that anthropogenic electromagnetic fields constitute the fastest-growing form of environmental pollution [46,47] and may be a threat to wildlife orientation [48]. Extended reviews of the effects of man-made electromagnetic fields on animals (including mammals) have recently been published [49,50].

2. Methods

A bibliographic review of the literature on mass live strandings of cetaceans was conducted. For the search, Google Scholar and Web of Knowledge applications were used, employing the keywords: “cetacean strandings” and “mass strandings”. Research articles on one or more cetacean species were considered.
In parallel, a search of accessible databases of military and meteorological radars throughout the world was carried out in the following sources: https://www.radars.org.uk/ (military radars, accessed on 1 December 2023) and https://wrd.mgm.gov.tr/Home/Wrd (meteorological radars, accessed on 1 December 2023). The installation sequence of military and meteorological radars throughout the world and the strandings over the years were considered for possible links with mass live strandings without a known cause to find temporal or spatial patterns in stranding concentrations along the coast or for spatial recurrent concentrations in certain locations.
Finally, to determine whether anthropogenic RFR from military and meteorological radars caused some of these strandings from a quantitative point of view, we performed a linear regression analysis between the cumulative number of radars and strandings with or without a known cause in the United Kingdom (UK), where the data were more systematically recorded, combining the military radar dataset covering the period 1913–2015 (https://www.radars.org.uk/, accessed on 1 December 2023) and the stranding data extracted from Coombs et al. [51].

3. Results

The bibliographic review revealed numerous studies showing an increase in the number of cetacean strandings over the last few decades [11,51,52,53,54,55], but it is not yet clear whether this increase is associated exclusively with the increased detection capacity due to human presence and greater surveillance of the coasts. For North America and the UK, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of stranding reports since 1970, particularly since 1990, most likely due to an increase in fishing activities and efforts by the public to report strandings [12,56]. The high increase in porpoise strandings, mostly observed since 2000 along the Dutch, Belgian, and northern French coasts, was consistent with local visual surveys [57].
There has been a continuous increase in strandings in the 20th century along the UK and Irish coasts, especially since the 1970s/1980s [51,52] and between 2002 and 2014 [54]. There has been an increase in reported strandings of the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) in Northwest Europe [28]. There has been a general trend of increasing stranding events without a known cause in the Philippines since 2004 [11]. On the Galician coast (Spain), there is a clear increase in the analysis of live or recently dead specimens, and the increased monitoring of the coasts does not fully explain this trend [58]. In Western Australia, the recorded mortality of stranded humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) is increasing, irrespective of the number of observers [53]. Reports of cetacean strandings in Chile have increased steadily over time, especially over the past 20 years, and the authors urge an immediate response to understand the unknown causes of this phenomenon [55].
Since World War II, numerous air and naval military radars have been installed along coasts worldwide [59]; more recently, many meteorological radars have been added (Figure 1). In recent decades, strandings have become more prominent in the literature [11,28,51,52,53,54,55,58].
Linear regression analysis of the cumulative number of military radars (https://www.radars.org.uk/) and stranding records (with animals involved in mass strandings counted individually) in the UK [51] shows a positive relationship (R2 = 0.67, p < 0.01; Figure 2). Based on the coefficients obtained from the model, the fitted regression is log10 (y) = 0.0013 (x) + 1.373.
We identified a total of 31 studies in the literature reporting concentrations of strandings in time and space with unknown causes (Table 1). These studies were carefully assessed to identify radars in their vicinities (~50 km) using public databases and visual inspections of the areas in Google Earth (Table 1). Radars were found in 65% (20 out of 31) of the cases where strandings occurred. The fact that many of the radars are set up in protected areas makes this task complicated and we cannot guarantee that other radars are not present in the surroundings. After discarding studies with missing radar running dates, scattered data, anecdotical events, or those conducted prior to the radar setup, we ended up with eight studies (seven with spatial visualizations and three with temporal comments; see considerations in Table 1), which we reviewed in depth.
Regarding the spatial concentrations of strandings, we found seven articles showing clear patterns of increased stranding concentrations along the coast following radar installation (Figure 3). Most strandings in these areas were from unknown causes and included dozens to hundreds of records.
In addition, we found some supplementary temporal evidence. In November 1962, a radar was installed in Genoa (Italy), dedicated to Marconi (Figure 3C). The first recorded mass stranding event in Genoa occurred in January and February of 1963 [61]. The Cornwall weather radar in Predannack (UK) was built in 1986, which is when strandings in the area started to increase [12]. In 2017, several strandings were reported in the Bio Bio region of Chile [55]; two weather radars were installed in the area in 2016.

4. Discussion

This manuscript proposes a possible hypothesis to explain the massive cetacean stranding problem, which has not been evaluated until now, and the results show certain patterns of spatial and temporal evidence for stranding concentrations following radar setup (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Although the obtained regression is not demonstrative of causality, the results of the analysis carried out are indicative; thus, the existence of a relationship between the implementation of radars and the occurrence of massive strandings is plausible.
Although it could be argued that radar waves do not affect cetaceans because they live underwater, it is well known that RFR can penetrate water up to a certain depth. For instance, other electromagnetic radiation with shorter wavelengths, such as visible light, penetrate dozens of meters into the water in the photic zone. On the other hand, many species of cetaceans, such as pilot whales or dolphins, spend a lot of time on the surface, with part of their body out of the water due to how they move, and their need to breathe.

4.1. Magnetoreception in Cetaceans and Its Involvement in Mass Live Strandings

There is accumulating evidence indicating that the magnetic sense plays an important role in cetacean orientation and migration. Whales follow features of the geomagnetic field for long-distance navigation to guide migration and live strandings are associated with anomalies in this geomagnetic field [2,44,73,74,75,76,77]. Thus, one plausible explanation for live strandings is the disorientation of migrating cetaceans, triggered by solar storms that cause disturbances in the geomagnetic field due to variable energy fluxes coming to the Earth from the sun [76,78,79].
Sunspots are strongly correlated with solar storms, and RFR from solar storms is closely associated with strandings in grey whales [4] (Figure 4). The relationship between historical stranding data for the grey whale (Eschrichtius robustus) and two aspects of Earth’s magnetosphere that are altered by solar storms, namely radiofrequency noise and displacements in the Earth’s magnetic field, have shown that an RFR broadband causes the strandings [4]. These results suggest that the increase in strandings under high solar activity is best explained by an effect on the sensor, not on the magnetic field itself [4], and this is consistent with the radical pair hypothesis of magnetoreception, which is predicted to be disrupted by the radio frequency [80].

4.2. Anthropogenic RFR May Have the Same Effects

Research conducted on migratory birds showed that RFR interferes directly with the primary processes of magnetoreception and disables the avian compass as long as they are present [80,82]. Other researchers have confirmed that migratory birds are unable to use their magnetic compasses in the presence of urban electromagnetic noise, and anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields disrupt the function of their sensory systems [81]. Radiofrequency electromagnetic noise also disorients mice and arthropods [83,84], and this effect is not restricted to a narrow frequency band [81]. Low intensities of RF fields alter the response of the mouse magnetic compass [85]. A study by Bartos et al. [86] provided evidence that weak broadband radiofrequency noise can impact the clock of the German cockroach (Blatella germanica); the low-frequency modulation of man-made RFR may be responsible.
Since RFR interferes specifically with radical-pair magnetoreception mechanisms [87,88], similar mechanisms may explain orientation alterations in cetaceans. With the currently available knowledge on the interference of RFR with the magnetoreception process [48], it is plausible that radars installed by humans (operating in the order of a few GHz) could disorient cetaceans and intervene in mass live strandings (Figure 4). A study of the effects of airport radars on birds provided evidence that birds can detect the radars’ presence, and slight differences in power density and pulse properties can potentially alter avian behavior [89].

4.3. Plausible Action Mechanisms

The radar typically consists of a repetitive string of short-duration pulses, while the carrier is a radiofrequency signal. There are several ways by which the radiofrequency pulses from the radars can cause strandings. On the other hand, it is well known that sonars are harmful to cetaceans [20,25]. Together with sonar, radars may be carried by ships, and radars on navy vessels may be especially powerful. In a recent review of cetacean strandings, 27 mass stranding events occurred near ships and naval bases without evidence of sonar use [24]. Therefore, these effects are independent but possibly complementary to those caused by sonars, which are already well-recognized by the scientific community [20,24,61,90,91].

4.3.1. The Thermoelastic Expansion Mechanism

Human auditory perception of pulsed RFR has been reported since the 1940s and could be a result of the thermoelastic expansion mechanism [92,93,94,95,96]. All subjects heard a buzzing sound at a pulse repetition rate (PRR) greater than 100 pulses/s, whereas individual pulses were heard at a PRR below 100 pulses/s [95]. Cetaceans may be highly sensitive to the thermoelastic effects of the radar pulses, even more so than humans, since they perceive pulses much closer in time even when the distance between pulses is milliseconds [97]. It would take RFR of lower frequencies to cause this effect in large animals, such as whales, than it would in humans, and maybe the different cetaceans require different resonance frequencies for auditory effects to occur, due to their size.

4.3.2. Delphinid Vocalizations

Delphinid vocalizations have two functional classes: echolocation clicks, used for navigation and orientation in the ocean, and burst-pulsed sounds and frequency-modulated whistles, used for communication purposes (social signals) [97]. Cetaceans may use high-frequency (50–200 kHz) pulses for detecting prey whereas pulses of lower frequencies (down to 20 Hz) are prefered for communication and navigation [36]. Thus, radar pulses could interfere with both echolocation and communication tasks.

4.3.3. Interference with Echolocation Systems

Odontocetes use echolocation both for the detection of prey and for navigation. For instance, dolphins possess a well-developed auditory system, conceivably the most developed one among animals; they can hear in a large frequency range and have a great ability to perceive extremely short signals of tens of microseconds [36,97]. Specific characteristics of the cochlea and the auditory nervous system suggest a greater need for details and rapid processing of acoustic information in the aquatic environment, which transports sound more rapidly than air does [97].

4.3.4. Interference with the Pulse Communication Systems of Odontocetes

All odontocetes produce specific burst-pulsed sounds with high repetition rate (> 300 pulses per second) or low inter-pulse intervals (<3 ms; [97]). Radar may simulate these communication pulses and confuse them. In this case, mass strandings would occur particularly in the more social species that usually form pods, such as pilot whales and dolphins.
The posterior throat of the melon appears effective as a partial waveguide, whereas the larger forward lobe of the melon operates as a lens in the acoustic emission process [97] and may be highly sensitive to the thermoelastic effect of radar pulses. Odontocetes are most frequently involved in mass live strandings [82], and this could also explain the stubbornness of returning again and again to the coast, a frequently seen scene when rescue teams try to return the animals to the open sea.

4.3.5. Other Possible Mechanisms

Further, there are other well-known mechanisms of action of low-frequency pulsed RFR. Some of the disruptive effects of RFR may be associated with interference with voltage-gated calcium channels in cells [98,99,100,101,102,103] and interference with brain waves [104,105,106]. However, some studies in foraging bats, another well-known echolocating mammal, have shown that the electromagnetic radiation associated with radar installations can elicit an aversive behavioral response that deters these animals from going near wind turbines [96]; this may be an argument against radar/RFR being a cause of mass strandings of cetaceans.

5. Conclusions

There are many mass strandings events with unknown causes that demand to increase the efforts to describe new threats to cetacean species. In this review we have found radars in close proximity (~50 km) in more than half of the studies analyzed, showing patterns of spatial and temporal accumulation across different coasts of the globe. The information provided in this manuscript may be useful to other researchers studying strandings, correlates of strandings, and radar/radio frequency interference, in order to make progress in cetacean conservation.
We also underline the importance of conducting exhaustive local studies to verify the proposed hypothesis. As there may be radars distributed with some frequency along each coast, we suggest confirming these patterns to determine the direct impact of radars in specific areas (e.g., assessing the number of stranding events in the area before and after radar setup). Since different types of radars (such as weather and military radars) emit different frequencies and pulse rates of radiation with different depths of penetration in water, they may have different stranding effectiveness. One measurement for directly experimentally analyzing the impact on behavior may consist of turning the radar off when a flock approaches or mass stranding occurs, as is done with wind turbines when a flock of birds is approaching, and checking if this action changes their behavior, e.g., they move towards the sea once again.
Along with other natural sources of radiofrequency radiation, the anthropogenic radar pulses must be included as a source of sound in the ocean soundscape that has not been considered yet [107]. The precise potential effects of an increase in electromagnetic radiation on wildlife (such as interference with echolocation systems or pulse communication systems studied in this work), which are not yet well recognized by the global conservation community, have been identified as an important emerging issue for global conservation and biological diversity [108].

Author Contributions

A.B.-d.l.P.: Conceptualization and design of the study, data curation, investigation, methodology, formal analysis, analysis and interpretation of data, software, visualization; writing—review and editing; A.B.: Conceptualization and design of the study, data curation, investigation, methodology, analysis and interpretation of data, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Acknowledgments

Henry Lai made valuable suggestions and editorial corrections.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bearzi, G.; Pierantonio, N.; Affronte, M.; Holcer, D.; Nicola MA, I.O.; Di Sciara, G.N. Overview of sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus mortality events in the Adriatic Sea, 1555–2009. Mammal Rev. 2011, 41, 276–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Simmonds, M.P. The meaning of cetacean strandings. Bull. Inst. R. Sci. Nat. Belg. Biol. 1997, 67, 29–34. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arbelo, M.; de los Monteros, A.E.; Herráez, P.; Andrada, M.; Sierra, E.; Rodríguez, F.; Fernández, A. Pathology and causes of death of stranded cetaceans in the Canary Islands (1999−2005). Dis. Aquat. Org. 2013, 103, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Granger, J.; Walkowicz, L.; Fitak, R.; Johnsen, S. Gray whales strand more often on days with increased levels of atmospheric radio-frequency noise. Curr. Biol. 2020, 30, R155–R156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Groom, C.J.; Coughran, D.K. Three decades of cetacean strandings in Western Australia: 1981 to 2010. J. R. Soc. West. Aust. 2012, 95, 63. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cordes, D.O. The causes of whale strandings. N. Z. Vet. J. 1982, 30, 21–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Sergeant, D.E. Mass strandings of toothed whales (Odontoceti) as a population phenomenon. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 1982, 34, 1–47. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mazzuca, L.; Atkinson, S.; Keating, B.; Nitta, E. Cetacean mass strandings in the Hawaiian Archipelago, 1957–1998. Aquat. Mamm. 1999, 25, 105–114. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pyenson, N.D. Carcasses on the coastline: Measuring the ecological fidelity of the cetacean stranding record in the eastern North Pacific Ocean. Paleobiology 2010, 36, 453–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Augé, A.A.; Oyley, H.; Rendell, N.; Frans, V.F. Spatial distribution of cetacean strandings in the Falkland Islands to define monitoring opportunities. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. 2018, 19, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Obusan MC, M.; Rivera, W.L.; Siringan MA, T.; Aragones, L.V. Stranding events in the Philippines provide evidence for impacts of human interactions on cetaceans. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2016, 134, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Leeney, R.H.; Amies, R.; Broderick, A.C.; Witt, M.J.; Loveridge, J.; Doyle, J.; Godley, B.J. Spatio-temporal analysis of cetacean strandings and bycatch in a UK fisheries hotspot. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17, 2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tonay, A.M.; Dede, A.; Öztürk, A.A.; Öztürk, B. Cetacean strandings in the Turkish Western Black Sea coast during 2007–2009. J. Black Sea/Mediterr. Environ. 2012, 18, 246–250. [Google Scholar]
  14. Karaa, S.; Bradai, M.N.; Jribi, I.; El Hili, H.A.; Bouain, A. Status of cetaceans in Tunisia through analysis of stranding data from 1937 to 2009. Mammalia 2012, 76, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Peltier, H.; Authier, M.; Deaville, R.; Dabin, W.; Jepson, P.D.; van Canneyt, O.; Pierre, D.; Ridoux, V. Small cetacean bycatch as estimated from stranding schemes: The common dolphin case in the northeast Atlantic. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 63, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Vianna TD, S.; Loch, C.; Castilho PV, D.; Gaidzinski, M.C.; Cremer, M.J.; Simões-Lopes, P.C. Review of thirty-two years of toothed whale strandings in Santa Catarina, southern Brazil (Cetacea: Odontoceti). Zoologia 2016, 33, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Alava, J.J.; Barragan, M.J.; Castro, C.; Carvajal, R. A note on strandings and entanglements of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Ecuador. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. 2005, 7, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Meynecke, J.O.; Meager, J.J. Understanding strandings: 25 years of humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) strandings in Queensland, Australia. J. Coast. Res. 2016, 75, 897–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Song, K.J. Cetacean Strandings in Korean Waters 1. Pac. Sci. 2016, 70, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fernández, A.; Edwards, J.F.; Rodriguez, F.; De Los Monteros, A.E.; Herraez, P.; Castro, P.; Arbelo, M. “Gas and fat embolic syndrome” involving a mass stranding of beaked whales (Family Ziphiidae) exposed to anthropogenic sonar signals. Vet. Pathol. 2005, 42, 446–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rommel, S.A.; Costidis, A.M.; Fernandez, A.; Jepson, P.D.; Pabst, D.A.; Houser, D.S.; Barros, N.B. Elements of beaked whale anatomy and diving physiology and some hypothetical causes of sonar-related stranding. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. 2006, 7, 189–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Weilgart, L.S. The impacts of anthropogenic ocean noise on cetaceans and implications for management. Can. J. Zool. 2007, 85, 1091–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Parsons EC, M.; Dolman, S.J.; Wright, A.J.; Rose, N.A.; Burns, W.C.G. Navy sonar and cetaceans: Just how much does the gun need to smoke before we act? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2008, 56, 1248–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. D’Amico, A.; Gisiner, R.C.; Ketten, D.R.; Hammock, J.A.; Johnson, C.; Tyack, P.L.; Mead, J. Beaked whale strandings and naval exercises. Aquat. Mamm. 2009, 35, 452–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Filadelfo, R.; Mintz, J.; Michlovich, E.; D’Amico, A.; Tyack, P.L.; Ketten, D.R. Correlating military sonar use with beaked whale mass strandings: What do the historical data show? Aquat. Mamm. 2009, 35, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jepson, P.D.; Arbelo, M.; Deaville, R.; Patterson IA, P.; Castro, P.; Baker, J.R.; Fernández, A. Gas-bubble lesions in stranded cetaceans. Nature 2003, 425, 575–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Evans, P.G.; Hammond, P.S. Monitoring cetaceans in European waters. Mammal Rev. 2004, 34, 131–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yang, W.C.; Chou, L.S.; Jepson, P.D.; Brownell, R.L.; Cowan, D.; Chang, P.H.; Wang, P.J. Unusual cetacean mortality event in Taiwan, possibly linked to naval activities. Vet. Rec. 2008, 162, 184–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Aragones, L.V.; Roque MA, A.; Flores, M.B.; Encomienda, R.P.; Laule, G.E.; Espinos, B.G.; Braun, R.C. The Philippine marine mammal strandings from 1998 to 2009: Animals in the Philippines in peril? Aquat. Mamm. 2010, 36, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Engel, M.H.; Marcondes, M.C.; Martins, C.C.; Luna, F.O.; Lima, R.P.; Campos, A. Are seismic surveys responsible for cetacean strandings? An unusual mortality of adult humpback whales in Abrolhos Bank, northeastern coast of Brazil. 2004, (in press). [Google Scholar]
  31. Walker, R.; Keith, E.; Yankovsky, A.; Odell, D.K. Environmental correlates of cetacean mass stranding sites in Florida. Mar. Mammal Sci. 2005, 21, 327–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bogomolni, A.L.; Pugliares, K.R.; Sharp, S.M.; Patchett, K.; Harry, C.T.; LaRocque, J.M.; Moore, M. Mortality trends of stranded marine mammals on Cape Cod and southeastern Massachusetts, USA, 2000 to 2006. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2010, 88, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Di Guardo, G.; Di Francesco, C.E.; Eleni, C.; Cocumelli, C.; Scholl, F.; Casalone, C.; Leonardi, L. Morbillivirus infection in cetaceans stranded along the Italian coastline: Pathological, immunohistochemical and biomolecular findings. Res. Vet. Sci. 2013, 94, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Rubio-Guerri, C.; Melero, M.; Esperón, F.; Bellière, E.N.; Arbelo, M.; Crespo, J.L.; Sierra EGarcía-Párraga DSánchez-Vizcaíno, J.M. Unusual striped dolphin mass mortality episode related to cetacean morbillivirus in the Spanish Mediterranean Sea. BMC Vet. Res. 2013, 9, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Casalone, C.; Mazzariol, S.; Pautasso, A.; Di Guardo, G.; Di Nocera, F.; Lucifora, G.; Cersini, A. Cetacean strandings in Italy: An unusual mortality event along the Tyrrhenian Sea coast in 2013. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2014, 109, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Sundaram, B.; Poje, A.C.; Veit, R.R.; Nganguia, H. Acoustical dead zones and the spatial aggregation of whale strandings. J. Theor. Biol. 2006, 238, 764–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Fire, S.E.; Wang, Z.; Berman, M.; Langlois, G.W.; Morton, S.L.; Sekula-Wood, E.; Benitez-Nelson, C.R. Trophic Transfer of the Harmful Algal Toxin Domoic Acid as a Cause of Death in a Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Stranding in Southern California. Aquat. Mamm. 2010, 36, 342–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. McManus, T.J.; Wapstra, J.E.; Guiler, E.R.; Munday, B.L.; Obendorf, D.L. Cetacean strandings in Tasmania from February 1978 to May 1983. Pap. Proc. R. Soc. Tasman. 1984, 118, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. MacLeod, C.D.; Pierce, G.J.; Santos, M.B. Geographic and temporal variations in strandings of beaked whales (Ziphiidae) on the coasts of the UK and the Republic of Ireland from 1800–2002. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. 2004, 6, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Evans, K.; Thresher, R.; Warneke, R.M.; Bradshaw, C.J.; Pook, M.; Thiele, D.; Hindell, M.A. Periodic variability in cetacean strandings: Links to large-scale climate events. Biol. Lett. 2005, 1, 147–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lloyd, H.B.; Ross, G.A. Long-term trends in cetacean incidents in New South Wales, Australia. Aust. Zool. 2015, 37, 492–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Brabyn, M.W. An Analysis of the New Zealand Whale Stranding Record; Department of Conservation, Head Office: Wellington, New Zealand, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu, M.; Lin, M.; Zhang, P.; Xue, T.; Li, S. An overview of cetacean stranding around Hainan Island in the South China Sea, 1978–2016: Implications for research, conservation and management. Mar. Policy 2019, 101, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kirschvink, J.L. Geomagnetic sensitivity in cetaceans: An update with live stranding records in the United States. In Sensory Abilities of Cetaceans; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1990; pp. 639–649. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hutchison, Z.L.; Gill, A.B.; Sigray, P.; He, H.; King, J.W. Anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (EMF) influence the behaviour of bottom-dwelling marine species. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 4219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Levitt, B.B.; Lai, H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ. Rev. 2010, 18, 369–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Balmori, A. Electrosmog and species conservation. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 496, 314–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Balmori, A. Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 518, 58–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Levitt, B.B.; Lai, H.C.; Manville, A.M. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Rev. Environ. Health 2022, 37, 81–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Levitt, B.B.; Lai, H.C.; Manville, A.M. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: How species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Rev. Environ. Health 2022, 37, 327–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Coombs, E.J.; Deaville, R.; Sabin, R.C.; Allan, L.; O’Connell, M.; Berrow, S.; Cooper, N. What can cetacean stranding records tell us? A study of UK and Irish cetacean diversity over the past 100 years. Mar. Mammal Sci. 2019, 35, 1527–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Berrow, S.D.; Rogan, E. Review of cetaceans stranded on the Irish coast, 1901–1995. Mammal Rev. 1997, 27, 51–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Coughran, D.K.; Gales, N.J.; Smith, H.C. A note on the spike in recorded mortality of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Western Australia. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. 2013, 13, 105–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. McGovern, B.; Culloch, R.M.; O’Connell, M.; Berrow, S. Temporal and spatial trends in stranding records of cetaceans on the Irish coast, 2002–2014. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 2016, 98, 977–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Alvarado-Rybak, M.; Toro, F.; Escobar-Dodero, J.; Kinsley, A.C.; Sepúlveda, M.A.; Capella, J.; Mardones, F.O. 50 Years of Cetacean Strandings Reveal a Concerning Rise in Chilean Patagonia. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 9511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Wiley, D.N.; Asmutis, R.A. Stranding and mortality of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae. Fish. Bull. 1995, 93, 196–205. [Google Scholar]
  57. Peltier, H.; Baagøe, H.J.; Camphuysen, K.C.; Czeck, R.; Dabin, W.; Daniel, P.; Jepson, P.D. The stranding anomaly as population indicator: The case of harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena in North-Western Europe. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e62180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. López, A.; Santos, M.B.; Pierce, G.J.; González, Á.F.; Valeiras, X.; Guerra, Á. Trends in strandings and by-catch of marine mammals in north-west Spain during the 1990s. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 2002, 82, 513–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Quiroga, J.M. Primeros desarrollos de tecnología radar en los principales beligerantes de la II Guerra Mundial. Un análisis desde la perspectiva Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad. Cienc. Docencia Y Tecnol. 2018, 57, 36–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pikesley, S.K.; Witt, M.J.; Hardy, T.; Loveridge, J.; Loveridge, J.; Williams, R.; Godley, B.J. Cetacean sightings and strandings: Evidence for spatial and temporal trends? J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 2012, 92, 1809–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Podesta, M.; DAmico, A.; Pavan, G.; Drougas, A.; Komnenou, A.; Portunato, N. A review of Cuvier’s beaked whale strandings in the Mediterranean Sea. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. 2006, 7, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Maldini, D.; Mazzuca, L.; Atkinson, S. Odontocete Stranding Patterns in the Main Hawaiian Islands (1937–2002): How Do They Compare with Live Animal Surveys? 1. Pac. Sci. 2005, 59, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Brownell, R.L., Jr.; Yao, C.J.; Lee, C.S.; Wang, M.C. Worldwide Review of Pygmy Killer Whales, Feresa Attenuate, Mass Strandings Reveals Taiwan Hot Spot; U.S. Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  64. Masski, H.; De Stéphanis, R. Cetaceans of the Moroccan coast: Information from a reconstructed strandings database. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 2018, 98, 1029–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gonçalves, J.M.; Barreiros, J.P.; Azevedo, J.; Norberto, R. Cetaceans stranded in the Azores during 1992–1996. Arquipélago Ciências Biológicas E Mar. Life Mar. Sci. 1996, 14, 57–65. [Google Scholar]
  66. Pimper, L.E.; Goodall RN, P.; Gibbons JO RG, E.; Sobral, A.P.; Lockyer, C.H.; Praderi, R. A Review of Strandings of Sperm Whales from the Strait of Magellan to Cape Horn; Paper SC/60/O3 Presented to the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee; International Whaling Commission Office: Cambridge, UK, 2008; 8p. [Google Scholar]
  67. Mazzariol, S.; Di Guardo, G.; Petrella, A.; Marsili, L.; Fossi, C.M.; Leonzio, C.; Fernández, A. Sometimes sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) cannot find their way back to the high seas: A multidisciplinary study on a mass stranding. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e19417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Borsa, P. Marine mammal strandings in the New Caledonia region, Southwest Pacific. Comptes Rendus Biol. 2006, 329, 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Caracappa, S.; Puleio, R.; Loria, G.R.; Gentile, A.; Persichetti, M.F.; Caracappa, G.; Arculeo, M. Stranding patterns of the striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba, Meyen 1833, Delphinidae) along the Sicilian coast (Mediterranean Sea). Mar. Mammal Sci. 2019, 35, 1083–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rojo–Nieto, E.; Álvarez–Díaz, P.D.; Morote, E.; Burgos–Martín, M.; Montoto–Martínez, T.; Sáez–Jiménez, J.; Toledano, F. Strandings of cetaceans and sea turtles in the Alboran Sea and Strait of Gibraltar: A long–term glimpse at the north coast (Spain) and the south coast (Morocco). Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 2011, 34, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Brabyn, M.W.; McLean, I.G. Oceanography and coastal topography of herd-stranding sites for whales in New Zealand. J. Mammal. 1992, 73, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. IJsseldijk, L.L.; Van Neer, A.; Deaville, R.; Begeman, L.; van de Bildt, M.; van den Brand, J.M.; Brownlow, A.; Czeck, R.; Dabin, W.; ten Doeschate, M.; et al. Beached bachelors: An extensive study on the largest recorded sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus mortality event in the North Sea. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0201221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Klinowska, M. Cetacean live stranding dates relate to geomagnetic disturbances. Aquat. Mamm. 1986, 11, 109–119. [Google Scholar]
  74. Klinowska, M. Cetacean live stranding sites relate to geomagnetic topography. Aquat. Mamm. 1985, 1, 27–32. [Google Scholar]
  75. Walker, M.M.; Kirschvink, J.L.; Ahmed, G.; Dizon, A.E. Evidence that fin whales respond to the geomagnetic field during migration. J. Exp. Biol. 1992, 171, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Vanselow, K.H.; Jacobsen, S.; Hall, C.; Garthe, S. Solar storms may trigger sperm whale strandings: Explanation approaches for multiple strandings in the North Sea in 2016. Int. J. Astrobiol. 2018, 17, 336–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Burda, H.; Begall, S.; Hart, V.; Malkemper, E.P.; Painter, M.S.; Phillips, J.B. Magnetoreception in Mammals. In The Senses: A Comprehensive Reference; Fritzsch, B., Bleckmann, H., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; Volume 7, pp. 421–444. [Google Scholar]
  78. Vanselow, K.H.; Ricklefs, K. Are solar activity and sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus strandings around the North Sea related? J. Sea Res. 2005, 53, 319–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ferrari, T.E. Cetacean beachings correlate with geomagnetic disturbances in Earth’s magnetosphere: An example of how astronomical changes impact the future of life. Int. J. Astrobiol. 2017, 16, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wiltschko, R.; Thalau, P.; Gehring, D.; Nießner, C.; Ritz, T.; Wiltschko, W. Magnetoreception in birds: The effect of radio-frequency fields. J. R. Soc. Interface 2015, 12, 20141103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Engels, S.; Schneider, N.L.; Lefeldt, N.; Hein, C.M.; Zapka, M.; Michalik, A.; Elbers, D.; Kittel, A.; Hore, P.J.; Mouritsen, H. Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Nature 2014, 509, 353–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Leberecht, B.; Wong, S.Y.; Satish, B.; Döge, S.; Hindman, J.; Venkatraman, L.; Hore, P.J. Upper bound for broadband radiofrequency field disruption of magnetic compass orientation in night-migratory songbirds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023, 120, e2301153120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Vácha, M.; Půžová, T.; Kvíćalová, M. Radio frequency magnetic fields disrupt magnetoreception in American cockroach. J. Exp. Biol. 2009, 212, 3473–3477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Malkemper, P.; Eder, S.H.K.; Begall, S.; Phillips, J.B.; Winklhofer, M.; Hart, V.; Burda, H. Magnetoreception in the wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus): Influence of weak frequency-modulated radio frequency fields. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 9917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Phillips, J.; Painter, M. Small differences in weak electromagnetic fields disrupt magnetic compass orientation of C57 BL/6 mice (Rodentia: Muridae). Lynx Ser. Nova 2022, 53, 219–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bartos, P.; Netusil, R.; Slaby, P.; Dolezel, D.; Ritz, T.; Vacha, M. Weak radiofrequency fields affect the insect circadian clock. J. R. Soc. Interface 2019, 16, 20190285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Ritz, T.; Thalau, P.; Phillips, J.B.; Wiltschko, R.; Wiltschko, W. Resonance effects indicate a radical-pair mechanism for avian magnetic compass. Nature 2004, 429, 177–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Hiscock, H.G.; Mouritsen, H.; Manolopoulos, D.E.; Hore, P.J. Disruption of magnetic compass orientation in migratory birds by radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Biophys. J. 2017, 113, 1475–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Sheridan, E.; Randolet, J.; DeVault, T.L.; Seamans, T.W.; Blackwell, B.F.; Fernández-Juricic, E. The effects of radar on avian behavior: Implications for wildlife management at airports. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015, 171, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Southall, B.L.; Braun, R.C.; Gulland, F.; Heard, A.; Baird, R.W.; Wilkins, S. Hawaiian Melon-Headed Whale (Peponacephala electra) Mass Stranding Event of July 3–4, 2004; NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-31; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  91. D’Spain, G.L.; D’Amico, A.; Fromm, D.M. Properties of the underwater sound fields during some well documented beaked whale mass stranding events. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. 2006, 7, 223–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Frey, A.H. Auditory system response to radio frequency energy. AeMed 1961, 32, 1140–1142. [Google Scholar]
  93. Foster, K.R.; Finch, E.D. Microwave hearing: Evidence for thermoacoustic auditory stimulation by pulsed microwaves. Science 1974, 185, 256–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lin, J.C. Hearing microwaves: The microwave auditory phenomenon. IAPM 2001, 43, 166–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Elder, J.A.; Chou, C.K. Auditory response to pulsed radiofrequency energy. Bioelectromagnetics 2003, 6, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Nicholls, B.; Racey, P.A. Bats avoid radar installations: Could electromagnetic fields deter bats from colliding with wind turbines? PLoS ONE 2007, 2, e297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Popper, A.N.; Fay, R.R.; Au, W. Hearing by whales and dolphins. In Springer Handbook of Auditory Research; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; Volume 12. [Google Scholar]
  98. Panagopoulos, D.J.; Messini, N.; Karabarbounis, A.; Filippetis, A.L.; Margaritis, L.H. A mechanism for action of oscillating electric fields on cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2000, 272, 634–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Panagopoulos, D.J.; Karabarbounis, A.; Margaritis, L.H. Mechanism for action of electromagnetic fields on cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2002, 298, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Pall, M.L. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2013, 17, 958–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Panagopoulos, D.J.; Balmori, A. On the biophysical mechanism of sensing atmospheric discharges by living organisms. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 599–600, 2026–2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Panagopoulos, D.J.; Balmori, A.; Chrousos, G.P. On the biophysical mechanism of sensing upcoming earthquakes by animals. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 717, 136989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Balmori, A. Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer. Environ. Res. 2022, 214, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Mann, K.; Roschkle, J. Effects of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human sleep. Neuropsychobiology 1996, 33, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Beasond, R.C.; Semm, P. Responses of neurons to an amplitude modulated microwave stimulus. Neurosci. Lett. 2002, 33, 175–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Kramarenko, A.V.; Tan, U. Effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields on human EEG: A brain mapping study. Int. J. Neurosci. 2003, 113, 1007–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Duarte, C.M.; Chapuis, L.; Collin, S.P.; Costa, D.P.; Devassy, R.P.; Eguiluz, V.M.; Juanes, F. The soundscape of the Anthropocene ocean. Science 2021, 371, eaba4658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sutherland, W.J.; Butchart, S.H.; Connor, B.; Culshaw, C.; Dicks, L.V.; Dinsdale, J.; Doran, H.; Entwistle, A.C.; Fleishman, E.; Gibbons, D.W.; et al. A 2018 horizon scan of emerging issues for global conservation and biological diversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2018, 33, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Radiation 04 00001 g001
Figure 1. Trends of the installations of military and meteorological radars in the world, as well as the cumulative trend for radars from both sources. Source: https://www.radars.org.uk/ (military radars, accessed on 1 December 2023) and https://wrd.mgm.gov.tr/Home/Wrd (meteorological radars, accessed on 1 December 2023).
Figure 1. Trends of the installations of military and meteorological radars in the world, as well as the cumulative trend for radars from both sources. Source: https://www.radars.org.uk/ (military radars, accessed on 1 December 2023) and https://wrd.mgm.gov.tr/Home/Wrd (meteorological radars, accessed on 1 December 2023).
Radiation 04 00001 g001
Radiation 04 00001 g002
Figure 2. Linear regression relationship between the cumulative number of military radars in the UK from 1913 to 2015 and stranding records (individual animals, log 10) from Coombs et al. [51] (dataset from https://doi.org/10.5519/qd.k5cfxhlg, accessed on 1 December 2023). Although only military radars from the UK were considered, stranding records include those from the UK and Ireland.
Figure 2. Linear regression relationship between the cumulative number of military radars in the UK from 1913 to 2015 and stranding records (individual animals, log 10) from Coombs et al. [51] (dataset from https://doi.org/10.5519/qd.k5cfxhlg, accessed on 1 December 2023). Although only military radars from the UK were considered, stranding records include those from the UK and Ireland.
Radiation 04 00001 g002
Radiation 04 00001 g003
Figure 3. Unexplained accumulation of strandings observed in bibliographic reviews of different areas around the globe following radar installation (black dots). Grey circles in the small panels represent a buffer of ~100 km covering the area most affected by radar radiofrequency radiation, and the thicker black coastline indicates areas with a high number of stranding records described in the literature ((A) [32]; (B) [12,60]; (C) [61]; (D) [58]; (E) [69]; and (F) [18]). The military and weather radar stations and their running dates are as follows: (A), Cape Cod Air Force Station (Massachusetts, 1980); (B), Predannack (UK, 1986); (C), Marconi (Italy, 1962); (D), Iroite (Spain, 1980); (E), Sigonella Naval Air Station (Sicily, 1959); and (F), Ipswich (Australia, 1938). The scale bar represents 50 km.
Figure 3. Unexplained accumulation of strandings observed in bibliographic reviews of different areas around the globe following radar installation (black dots). Grey circles in the small panels represent a buffer of ~100 km covering the area most affected by radar radiofrequency radiation, and the thicker black coastline indicates areas with a high number of stranding records described in the literature ((A) [32]; (B) [12,60]; (C) [61]; (D) [58]; (E) [69]; and (F) [18]). The military and weather radar stations and their running dates are as follows: (A), Cape Cod Air Force Station (Massachusetts, 1980); (B), Predannack (UK, 1986); (C), Marconi (Italy, 1962); (D), Iroite (Spain, 1980); (E), Sigonella Naval Air Station (Sicily, 1959); and (F), Ipswich (Australia, 1938). The scale bar represents 50 km.
Radiation 04 00001 g003
Radiation 04 00001 g004
Figure 4. The hypothesis proposed in this study taking into account the studies of Granger et al., 2020 [4] and Engels et al., 2014 [81].
Figure 4. The hypothesis proposed in this study taking into account the studies of Granger et al., 2020 [4] and Engels et al., 2014 [81].
Radiation 04 00001 g004
Table 1. Studies reporting stranding events with unknown causes, indicating the species, area, time frame, and information on the closest military and meteorological radar(s) and their running dates. The methodological considerations of the studies and their inclusion in the spatial (S) and temporal (T) sections are also included.
Table 1. Studies reporting stranding events with unknown causes, indicating the species, area, time frame, and information on the closest military and meteorological radar(s) and their running dates. The methodological considerations of the studies and their inclusion in the spatial (S) and temporal (T) sections are also included.
ReferenceStudy SpeciesTime PeriodStudy AreaClosest Radar(s) FoundDateConsiderationsST
Leeney et al., 2008 [12]Cetaceans1911–2006UK (Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly)Cornwall meteorological radar (Predannack)1986 YesYes
Pikesley et al., 2012 [60]Cetaceans1991–2008UK (Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly)Cornwall meteorological radar (Predannack)1986Data after radar setupYes
Podesta et al., 2006 [61]Cuvier’s beaked whales1803–2003Mediterranean SeaMarconi radar1962 YesYes
Bogomolni et al., 2010 [32]Marine mammals2000–2006USA (Massachusetts)Cape Cod Air Force Station1980Data after radar setupYes
Maldini et al., 2005 [62]Odontocetes1950–2002USA (Hawaii, Oahu)Pearl Harbour base1941More prospection in that island
Lloyd and Ross, 2015 [41]Cetaceans1970–2013Australia (NSW)Woolloomooloo base1941Data after radar setup; scattered stranding hotspots
D’amico et al., 2009 [24]Beaked whales1874–2015GlobalYokosuka naval base1951Strandings linked to naval sonars
Brownell et al., 2009 [63]Pygmy killer whales1968–2006TaiwanTainan and Kaohsiung military bases-Without radar running date
Masski and De Stéphanis 2018 [64]Cetaceans1980–2009Morocco1: Tarifa radar
2: Casablanca marine base		1: 2009
2: -		Data before radar setup
Groom and Coughran 2012 [5]Cetaceans1981–2010Australia (WA)Perth meteorological radar2009Data before radar setup
Mcgovern et al., 2016 [54]Cetaceans2002–2014Ireland--Radar not found
Walker et al., 2005 [31]Cetaceans1977–2001USA (Florida)Key West meteorological radar and naval air station (south Florida)2012Data before radar setup
Gonçalves et al., 1996 [65]Cetaceans1992–1996Portugal (Azores)--Radar not found
Pimper et al., 2008 [66]Sperm whales1977–1981Argentina (Tierra del Fuego)--Radar not found
Mazzariol et al., 2011 [67]Sperm whales2009Italy (Adriatic)Remote radar squadron and Jacotenente Air Force detachment1963Only one stranding event after radar setup
Bearzi et al., 2011 [1]Sperm whales1955–2009Italy (Adriatic)Potenza Picena radar1970–1998Strandings scattered in time
Song 2016 [19]Cetaceans1997–2004Korea--Radar not found
Augé et al., 2018 [10]Cetaceans1980–2015UK (Falkland Islands)Mont Pleasant Air Base1986Scattered stranding hotspots; reliable only from 2007
Aragones et al., 2010 [29]Marine mammals1998–2009Philippines--Radar not found; scattered stranding hotspots
Borsa 2006 [68]Marine mammals1877–2005New Caledonia--Radar not found
Caracappa et al., 2018 [69]Striped dolphins2013–2016SicilySigonella Naval Air Station1959Data after radar setup; some morbillivirus effectsYes
Coughran et al., 2013 [53]Humpback whales1989–2012Australia (WA)--Radar not found
López et al., 2002 [58]Marine mammals1990–1999Spain (Northwest)Iroite military radar1980Data after radar setupYes
McManus et al., 1984 [38]Cetacean strandings1978–1983TasmaniaHobart Military and Naval Base-Without radar running date
Meynecke & Meager 2016 [18]Humpback whales1989–2014Australia (Queensland)1: Ipswich Base
2: Marburg meteorological radar
3: Brisbane meteorological radar		1: 1938
2: 1993
3: 2005		Difficult to correlate strandings and localitiesYes
Rojo-Nieto et al., 2011 [70]Cetaceans and sea turtles1991–2008Spain and MoroccoTarifa radar2009Data before radar setup
Alvarado-Rybak et al., 2020 [55]Cetaceans1968–2020ChileBío Bío radars2016Only one stranding event after radar setup Yes
Brabyn 1991 [42]Cetaceans1840–1989New Zealand--Radar not found
Brabyn & McLean 1992 [71]Cetaceans1840–1993New Zealand--Radar not found
Sundaram, 2006 [36]Whale strandings1850–2005USA (Massachusetts) and New Zealand--Radar not found
IJsseldijk et al., 2018 [72]White-beaked dolphins1991–2017North Sea--Radar not found
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Balmori-de la Puente, A.; Balmori, A. Potential Effects of Anthropogenic Radiofrequency Radiation on Cetaceans. Radiation 2024, 4, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/radiation4010001

AMA Style

Balmori-de la Puente A, Balmori A. Potential Effects of Anthropogenic Radiofrequency Radiation on Cetaceans. Radiation. 2024; 4(1):1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/radiation4010001

Chicago/Turabian Style

Balmori-de la Puente, Alfonso, and Alfonso Balmori. 2024. "Potential Effects of Anthropogenic Radiofrequency Radiation on Cetaceans" Radiation 4, no. 1: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/radiation4010001

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop