Skip to main content
Tessa NewsLink
Paste a health news link, or browse

Source study found

Story checked

Sharks Can Hear Sounds Nearly 250 Feet Away, And Know Where They're Coming From : ScienceAlert (opens in a new tab)

sciencealert.com · 2026-10-06

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Mixed

Mixed.

The claims we could check match the study, but some claims were not covered by the evidence reviewed.

  • 2 supported
  • 2 not covered

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail
1
2

NewsLink checks it

Mixed

Every claim we could check holds up. Two of four claims match the study. This overall rating is based only on the claims we could check. Two claims the study doesn't address.

  • 2 supported
  • 2 not covered
Open claim evidence
3
Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

4 claims in this story

Showing all 4 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Claim 1 of 4Not coveredIn a new study published in Integrative Organismal Biology, researchers from Florida Atlantic University demonstrated that blacktip sharks can hear sounds from as far away as 74 meters (243 feet).View evidenceHide evidence

As stated74 meters (243 feet)

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports that free-swimming blacktip sharks detected/oriented away from low-frequency sounds from at least 62 m and that many responses occurred in the acoustic far field. It does not report a 74 m maximum distance, so the story’s specific 74 m/243 ft magnitude is not verifiable from the supplied abstract-depth evidence.

1

Study evidence

Free-swimming blacktip sharks oriented away from low-frequency underwater sound stimuli from at least 62 m; 71.6% of 209 recorded responses were classified as occurring in the acoustic far field.71.6% (n = 209) far-field responses; responses observed from ≥62 m

“Using an aerial drone, C. limbatus were filmed responding to sound stimuli (100-200 Hz; 200-400 Hz; and 400-800 Hz) generated by an underwater speaker.”
2

Study evidence

In situ SPL measurements combined with propagation modeling were used to calculate the stimulus intensity at each observed shark response-initiation point.

“The sound pressure levels for all stimuli were measured in situ and used to model the propagation away from the source.”
Claim 2 of 4Not coveredThe sharks responded to test sounds between 71.1 and 87 percent of the time, depending on frequency, and for all three frequencies they responded to sounds from as far as 62 meters away.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated71.1% to 87%; 62 meters

Why this verdict

The profile supports that sharks responded to all three low-frequency bands from at least 62 m. However, the stated per-frequency response rates of 71.1% to 87% are not present in the abstract-level profile; the profile explicitly notes that per-band response counts/rates and trial details are not reported at this depth.

1

Study evidence

Free-swimming blacktip sharks oriented away from low-frequency underwater sound stimuli from at least 62 m; 71.6% of 209 recorded responses were classified as occurring in the acoustic far field.71.6% (n = 209) far-field responses; responses observed from ≥62 m

“Using an aerial drone, C. limbatus were filmed responding to sound stimuli (100-200 Hz; 200-400 Hz; and 400-800 Hz) generated by an underwater speaker.”
2

Study evidence

Low-frequency band-limited stimuli (100–200, 200–400, 400–800 Hz) elicited clear orientation/avoidance responses (sudden turns away and rapid swimming) in blacktip sharks.Responses to low frequencies observed from at least 62 m; total n = 209 responses with 71.6% in the far field.

“Using an aerial drone, C. limbatus were filmed responding to sound stimuli (100-200 Hz; 200-400 Hz; and 400-800 Hz)”
Claim 3 of 4SupportedEach response involved a sharp turn away from the sound source, suggesting the sharks knew where the sound was coming from.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile states that responses were defined/reported as sudden 20–160° turns away from the speaker followed by rapid swimming away. It also frames the behavior as detection and orientation/avoidance to the sound source. Because the story hedges the localization inference with “suggesting,” its statement that the sharks knew where the sound was coming from is supported as a directional-orientation interpretation rather than an unqualified cognitive claim.

1

Study evidence

Free-swimming blacktip sharks oriented away from low-frequency underwater sound stimuli from at least 62 m; 71.6% of 209 recorded responses were classified as occurring in the acoustic far field.71.6% (n = 209) far-field responses; responses observed from ≥62 m

“Using an aerial drone, C. limbatus were filmed responding to sound stimuli (100-200 Hz; 200-400 Hz; and 400-800 Hz) generated by an underwater speaker.”
2

Study evidence

Low-frequency band-limited stimuli (100–200, 200–400, 400–800 Hz) elicited clear orientation/avoidance responses (sudden turns away and rapid swimming) in blacktip sharks.Responses to low frequencies observed from at least 62 m; total n = 209 responses with 71.6% in the far field.

“Using an aerial drone, C. limbatus were filmed responding to sound stimuli (100-200 Hz; 200-400 Hz; and 400-800 Hz)”
Claim 4 of 4SupportedThe researchers suggest that blacktip sharks are likely detecting water particle movements rather than using a gas-filled swim bladder, which sharks lack.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile reports that measured SPLs and propagation modeling were used to infer that responses beyond the near field were consistent with detection of particle motion, and it describes this as a likely mechanistic interpretation. The story’s hedged framing tracks that inference, though the supplied profile does not independently elaborate the swim-bladder background beyond the particle-motion interpretation.

1

Study evidence

In situ SPL measurements combined with propagation modeling were used to calculate the stimulus intensity at each observed shark response-initiation point.

“The sound pressure levels for all stimuli were measured in situ and used to model the propagation away from the source.”
Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story left out

Important study details the story did not include.

  • In situ SPL measurements and acoustic propagation modeling were used to estimate received stimulus intensity at the point of response initiation.

    The story mentions far-field responses and particle-motion interpretation, but it does not clearly explain that the received sound intensity estimates depended on in situ measurements plus propagation modeling.

    From acoustic-propagation-back-calculation

  • Frequency-dependent threshold pattern: greater sound pressure levels were required to elicit responses at higher frequencies, consistent with greater sensitivity to lower frequencies.

    The story reports response rates by frequency but does not reflect the paper-profile element that higher frequencies required greater SPLs to elicit responses.

    From Field underwater playback with frequency comparison and high-frequency negative control; acoustic-propagation-back-calcu

  • Limitation: distance estimates, far-field classification, and received-SPL estimates depend on acoustic propagation modeling and response-location estimation; model parameters and uncertainty are not provided at abstract depth.

    The story notes tank-reflection issues and ocean testing, but it does not mention uncertainty or assumptions in the propagation modeling and distance/response-location estimates that underlie the far-field and mechanistic conclusions.

    From field behavioral playback with drone observation; acoustic-propagation-back-calculation

6 things the story did carry across
  • Field playback design: free-swimming blacktip sharks were exposed to underwater speaker playback while filmed by aerial drone in the ocean.
  • Stimuli included three low-frequency bands: 100–200 Hz, 200–400 Hz, and 400–800 Hz.
  • Behavioral response was an orientation/avoidance response: a sudden 20–160° turn away from the speaker followed by rapid swimming away.
  • Distance/far-field result: sharks responded to all low-frequency stimuli from at least 62 m, and 71.6% of 209 responses occurred in the acoustic far field.
  • High-frequency 10 kHz control stimulus of comparable volume elicited no responses.
  • Mechanistic interpretation: results are consistent with particle-motion detection in the far field, but the hearing mechanism remains unresolved.
Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

3

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

in vivo animal

1Lead resultin vivo animalQuantify the distance at which free-swimming blacktip sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus) detect and orient to low-frequency underwater sound, including whether responses can be initiated from the acoustic far field.field behavioral playback with drone observationExpand

In plain English

Field playback experiment using an underwater speaker and aerial-drone videography showed free-swimming blacktip sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus) oriented away from low-frequency pulsed sounds (100–200 Hz, 200–400 Hz, 400–800 Hz). Responses were defined as a sudden 20–160° turn away from the speaker followed by rapid swimming. Sharks responded from at least 62 m, and 71.6% of 209 recorded responses were classified as occurring in the acoustic far field. Sharks did not respond to a high-frequency (10 kHz) control of comparable volume. Measured in situ sound pressure levels and propagation modeling were used to estimate the stimulus intensity at each shark’s response point; higher sound pressure levels were required to elicit responses at higher frequencies.

Key findings

  • Free-swimming blacktip sharks oriented away from low-frequency underwater sound stimuli from at least 62 m; 71.6% of 209 recorded responses were classified as occurring in the acoustic far field.71.6% (n = 209) far-field responses; responses observed from ≥62 m
  • Sharks did not respond to a high-frequency (10 kHz) control stimulus of comparable volume.
“Using an aerial drone, C. limbatus were filmed responding to sound stimuli (100-200 Hz; 200-400 Hz; and 400-800 Hz) generated by an underwater speaker.”
What this piece can’t prove

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

2in vivo animalTest frequency dependence and stimulus specificity of the orientation/avoidance response, including a high-frequency (10 kHz) negative control of comparable volume.Field underwater playback with frequency comparison and high-frequency negative controlExpand

In plain English

Within a field playback experiment, blacktip sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus) oriented away from low-frequency underwater sound stimuli presented in three bands (100–200 Hz; 200–400 Hz; 400–800 Hz) but did not respond to a high-frequency (10 kHz) control of comparable overall volume, indicating frequency-specific behavioral sensitivity and stimulus specificity.

Key findings

  • Low-frequency band-limited stimuli (100–200, 200–400, 400–800 Hz) elicited clear orientation/avoidance responses (sudden turns away and rapid swimming) in blacktip sharks.Responses to low frequencies observed from at least 62 m; total n = 209 responses with 71.6% in the far field.
  • A high-frequency (10 kHz) control stimulus of comparable overall volume did not elicit any orientation/avoidance responses.No responses to 10 kHz control (reported as 'never responded').
“Using an aerial drone, C. limbatus were filmed responding to sound stimuli (100-200 Hz; 200-400 Hz; and 400-800 Hz)”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Abstract lacks per-frequency response rates, numbers of trials per condition, and number of individual sharks tested, limiting assessment of replication and effect precision.
  • The abstract does not report statistical analyses or uncertainty estimates for the frequency-comparison outcomes.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

3in silicoMeasure in situ sound pressure levels and model acoustic propagation to estimate received stimulus intensity at the shark’s response-initiation point, and relate required SPL to frequency to infer likely detection of particle motion in the far field.acoustic-propagation-back-calculationExpand

In plain English

In situ sound pressure levels (SPLs) were measured for each playback stimulus and an acoustic propagation model was used to back-calculate the received SPL at the location where each blacktip shark initiated a behavioral response; analyses showed that higher SPLs were required to elicit responses at higher frequencies, consistent with greater sensitivity to low frequencies and with detection occurring beyond the acoustic near field.

Key findings

  • In situ SPL measurements combined with propagation modeling were used to calculate the stimulus intensity at each observed shark response-initiation point.
  • Sharks responded to low-frequency stimuli from at least 62 m; 71.6% of 209 recorded responses occurred in the far field, and received SPLs at those points were computed.n = 209 responses; 71.6% in far field; detection distance ≥ 62 m
“The sound pressure levels for all stimuli were measured in situ and used to model the propagation away from the source.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Abstract does not report propagation model parameters, calibration procedures, or uncertainty estimates for back-calculated SPLs.

2 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa takes you deeper.

NewsLink checks the story. Tessa is where you inspect the paper, authors, evidence, and research context.

Papers considered

The selected paper, plus nearby candidates.

PubMed, Europe PMC, Crossref · 15 candidate papers

And 9 more candidates considered.