Animal songs, often used as acoustic sexual displays, can change within and between populations through different evolutionary processes. These processes can be selective (i.e. sexual, cultural, or natural selection), favouring song changes that confer advantages to singers, or non-selective (i.e. cultural or genetic drift), causing random changes in songs. Both selective and non-selective processes may result in rapid and gradual population-wide shifts in the structure, complexity, frequency, and temporal properties of songs (Garland et al., 2011; Otter et al., 2020; Whiten, 2019; Williams et al., 2013), although song evolution can also be constrained by the species’ genetic variation and mechanical design (Podos et al., 2004).

The best-known examples of song evolution are found among songbirds, which field studies started decades ago and have led to extensive literature on the topic. Songs from many songbirds are culturally transmitted through vocal learning, wherein animals learn to sing by hearing and imitating conspecifics (Williams, 2021). Vocal learning and specific patterns of dispersal are largely responsible for the geographic variation found in songs of many bird species (Podos and Warren, 2007). The formation of local dialects is, in part, a consequence of certain mechanisms of song learning (i.e., copying ‘errors’) that generate vocal novelties (Podos and Warren, 2007). Learned songs may also undergo rapid evolutions within populations, basically because cultural novelties can emerge more frequently than genetic mutations (Wilkins et al., 2013). One example of rapid song evolution is found in the white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), in which a new doublet ending song spread across the North America continent in less than 20 years, completely replacing the established triplet-ending song. This fast spread is believed to have occurred because birds singing the old and new songs overwintered in the same grounds and learned from each other. Although it remains unclear why the new song overturned the old song, one possible explanation for this rapid song transition is that certain innovations are adopted non-randomly by all males to maintain female interest (Otter et al., 2020). Birdsong properties can also show a gradual directional evolution in response to specific evolutionary process. A clear example are birds from urban areas, which song elements increase in frequency (Hz) in response to noisy environmental conditions (Slabbekoorn, 2013). Directional song evolution can also cause directional song changes (e.g. faster trill rates, broader frequency bands, and lower frequency trills) driven by sexual selection operating through male-male interactions, mate choice by females or both (de Kort et al., 2009; Illes et al., 2006; Williams et al., 2013). Yet, all these song variations are constrained by the singers’ morphological (e.g. beak shape or body size) and neurological limitations that sometimes can hinder the animals’ adaptation to rapid human induced changes in the environment (e.g. urban noise; Luther and Derryberry, 2012; Podos et al., 2004).

A parallelism to birdsong evolution can be found in the marine realm. Songs from humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) differ across ocean regions (Winn et al., 1981), evolve gradually over time (Payne et al., 1983; Payne and Payne, 1985) and can go through revolutionary changes (Noad et al., 2000). During song revolutions, a population song type is rapidly replaced by a novel song type introduced from a neighbouring population (Garland et al., 2011; Noad et al., 2000). Most authors agree that these spatial and temporal patterns in humpback whale song changes can only be explained by vocal learning (Garland et al., 2011; Janik and Knörnschild, 2021; Noad et al., 2000; Tyack, 2008). Yet, the learning capacity of novel songs in humpback whales may be limited because song complexity always decreases in each revolutionary event (Allen et al., 2018).

Compared to humpback whales and most songbirds, fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) produce simpler songs consisting of a stereotyped repetition of a few low-frequency note types. These songs are also believed to act as mating displays (Thompson et al., 1992; Watkins et al., 1987), because they are produced by males (Croll et al., 2002) and intensify during the breeding season (Lockyer, 1984; Širović et al., 2013; Thompson et al., 1992; Watkins et al., 1987). In this species, the song inter-note interval (INI) is the most distinctive parameter between regions (Castellote et al., 2012; Delarue et al., 2009; Hatch and Clark, 2004; Širović et al., 2017; Watkins et al., 1987) and has been used to differentiate stocks and populations (Castellote et al., 2012; Delarue et al., 2009; Morano et al., 2012; Širović et al., 2017; Wood and Širović, 2022). Previous studies showed that fin whale song INIs differed between western, central, and eastern North Atlantic areas, as well as between these and the Mediterranean Sea (Castellote et al., 2012; Delarue et al., 2009; Hatch and Clark, 2004; Morano et al., 2012). These results partially agree with genetic data that indicate significant levels of heterogeneity in the mitochondrial DNA between the Mediterranean Sea, the eastern (Spain), and the western (Gulf of Maine and Gulf of St Lawrence) North Atlantic; however, samples from West Greenland and Iceland could not be assigned to either of the two North Atlantic areas, suggesting a mixture of subpopulations in these feeding grounds (Bérubé et al., 1998). Another large-scale study combining fin whale genetic and song data from the Northeast Pacific, North Atlantic, and Mediterranean Sea showed that acoustic differentiation among fin whales were not always reflected in estimates of genetic divergence (Hatch and Clark, 2004). These authors concluded that differences in songs may reflect differences in fin whale movements and/or social and vocal behaviours that occur at shorter timescales than genome evolution. In fact, fin whale song INIs can change abruptly from one year to the next in the same region (Delarue et al., 2009; Hatch and Clark, 2004; Helble et al., 2020; Morano et al., 2012; Širović et al., 2017) and have been progressively changing over time in different ocean regions (Best et al., 2022; Helble et al., 2020; Leroy et al., 2018a; Weirathmueller et al., 2017). Also, the center frequencie of two fin whale song components, the 20 Hz note and the higher frequency (~130 Hz) upsweep (hereafter HF note; Hatch and Clark, 2004), have been decreasing gradually over the last decade in different ocean basins (Leroy et al., 2018a; Weirathmueller et al., 2017; Wood and Širović, 2022).

Currently, we do not understand the mechanisms and drivers of fin whale song variations nor how these variations may be affected by the species’ physiological and morphological constraints of vocal performance. Broad-scale studies matching the known scales of fin whale natural history and ecology can shed light into the species’ population structure and demography, even before genetic differentiation is evident, and elucidate patterns, drivers and limits of song evolution that can ultimately inform on the species’ capacity to adapt to human-induced changes in their acoustic habitats (e.g. anthropogenic noise and climate change).

Our study attempts to address these issues by investigating changes over two decades of three fin whale song parameters (INIs and peak frequencies of the 20 Hz and HF note types) in a wide area of the North Atlantic Ocean. Our work provides evidence of social learning in fin whale songs and shows: (i) a rapid evolution in song INIs across a vast area of the central North Atlantic in just four singing seasons, with the existence of hybrid songs (including both INIs) and a clear geographic gradient of song INIs during the transition period; (ii) a gradual evolution of song parameters showing an increase in INIs and a decrease in frequencies of the 20 Hz and HF notes over more than a decade in the central and eastern North Atlantic; and (iii) the adoption of both rapid and gradual song changes by fin whales from a wide region. We conclude by discussing song changes under the scope of cultural transmission, song function and the limits of song variation.

The processing across all acoustic data resulted in 379 songs, from which 39680 INIs and its corresponding note frequencies were measured, and 143 songs, from which 9185 HF note peak frequencies were measured (Supplementary file 1a; ‘Materials and methods’). The greatest numbers of INIs came from the SE and Azores locations in the Oceanic Northeast Atlantic (ONA) region, with ~32% and~1% respectively. Contributions from the remaining locations of the ONA region ranged from 3% to 7%, while contributions from locations outside the ONA region ranged from 0.6% to 7%. Among the locations in which the measurement of the HF note was possible, the Azores and SE Greenland locations contributed the most (~46% and~22% respectively; Table 1).

Transition in song INIs in the Offshore Northeast Atlantic region

Results showed a rapid shift in song INIs in the SE location from the ONA region (Figure 1A), previously noted by Nieukirk et al., 2011, where songs with 19 s INIs were completely replaced by songs with 12 s INIs in just four singing seasons (Figure 1B and C). In 1999 and 2000, the 19s-INI song was the only song present in this location. By 2004, the 19s-INI song had disappeared from this location (Figure 1B) and was not detected in any of the sampled regions from 2006 to 2020, except from a single song in 2008 Figure 3A. During the transition period, 12s- and 19s INI-songs co-existed and there was a notable percentage of songs containing both INIs, which we refer as ‘hybrid songs’. Hybrid songs showed two INIs in variable ratios and no apparent pattern, either mixed within the same song sequences (i.e. series of consecutive 20 Hz notes separated by periods of silence; Watkins et al., 1987) or found separated in different sequences from the same song. The singing season with the most hybrid songs was 2002/2003, when there were ~30% of hybrids.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Six locations of the ONA region, with simultaneous data from the 2002/2003 singing season, were used to analyse the spatial pattern in song INIs. In this period, the prevalence of songs with each INI type showed a clear spatial gradient across the entire ONA region. The 19s-INI song largely dominated in the SW ONA, with only 9% of hybrid songs, and no detection of 12s-INI songs. The proportion of 19s-INI songs decreased progressively to the east, reaching 0–4% in the easternmost locations (CE and NE), where the 12s-INI songs were prominent (90 and 83%). Hybrid songs were more abundant (17–23%) at central ONA (NW, CW, and SE) than in easternmost locations (NE and CE; 10–13%; Figure 2).

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Gradual changes in song INIs and notes frequencies

After the song transition, we found a gradual change in three fin whale song parameters over more than a decade, with most regions fitting the trend. The only exception was the Barents Sea where INIs differed from the rest of the sampled area showing a bimodal pattern. From 2006 to 2021, INIs increased at 0.21 s/yr (Adj. R-sq.=0.4; p<0.001) (Figure 3A and Figure 3—figure supplement 1). Peak frequencies of the 20 Hz note decreased at a rate of –0.06 Hz/yr (Adj. R-sq.=0.1 from 2009 to 2020; p<0.001) (Figure 3B and Figure 3—figure supplement 1) while peak frequencies of the HF note decreased at a rate of –0.35 Hz/yr (Adj. R-sq.=0.8; p<0.001) from 2007 to 2020, with all regions fitting the trend including the Barents Sea region (Figure 3C and Figure 3—figure supplement 1).

Figure 3 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Differences in fin whale song parameters between regions

When comparing data from different regions (SE Iceland, SE Greenland, ONA, SW Portugal, Canary Islands, Barents and Celtic Sea) with simultaneous recordings (i.e. in the same singing season) results showed unimodal overlapping distributions in INIs and HF note peak frequencies (Figure 4). The only exception was the Barents Sea region, where INIs differed from the Canary Islands in 2014/2015 (Barents Sea:~9 s and ~14 s; Canary Islands:~15 s), from SW Portugal and the Celtic Sea in 2015/2016 (Barents Sea:~10 s and ~15 s; SW Portugal and Celtic Sea:~15 s) and from the ONA region in 2017/2018 (Barents Sea:~10 s and 16 s; ONA:~16 s; Figure 4A).

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

The rapid and gradual changing patterns of different fin whale song parameters reported here for a wide area of the central and eastern North Atlantic provides evidence of vocal learning in this species. Decoupled variations in song INIs and frequency (i.e. INIs changed abruptly but frequencies did not) reveal the complex interplay between different selective pressures and shed some light on the potential limits of song variation.

The rapid replacement of fin whales’ song INIs (from 19s to 12s) described here for the ONA region cannot be explained by environmental causation. The shift in INIs found in the ONA region seemed to occur simultaneously at northern feeding grounds, in the so-called Northeast North Atlantic (NENA) region (Hatch and Clark, 2004). This variation in INI patterns during the same singing season between neighbouring locations within ONA, together with an identical shift in INIs documented for the same period in the environmentally distant NENA region (Hatch and Clark, 2004), strongly suggest that the transition in INIs was not a response to local acoustic environments. Fin whale song INIs are regionally distinct (Castellote et al., 2012; Constaratas et al., 2021; Delarue et al., 2009; Hatch and Clark, 2004; Morano et al., 2012; Pereira et al., 2020; Širović et al., 2017; Víkingsson and Gunnlaugsson, 2006) and the shift in INIs found in our study could have been caused by a population replacement. However, if this was the case, we would not find hybrid songs containing both INIs during the transition period, as the new song pattern would simply substitute the former, as documented for fin whale songs off Southern California (Širović et al., 2017). Multiyear and seasonal alternation of different fin whale song INIs, with presence of hybrid songs, have also been reported in two regions of the Northwest Atlantic. In both cases, authors suggest INI shifts occurred within the same population (Delarue et al., 2009; Morano et al., 2012). Thus, we suggest that the rapid turnover of fin whale song INIs along a spatial gradient in the ONA region, with males adopting the new song INI, and the existence of hybrid songs, is the result of cultural transmission, the social learning of information or behaviours from conspecifics (Rendell and Whitehead, 2001).

Our study also shows that fin whale song INIs from the distant Barents Sea region differ from the rest of the sampled area (central and eastern North Atlantic). Geographic differentiation in song INIs (Hatch and Clark, 2004) with fin whales within a certain area conforming the same INI has been widely documented (Castellote et al., 2012; Delarue et al., 2009; Hatch and Clark, 2004; Širović et al., 2017; Wood and Širović, 2022). Bird songs also vary geographically, and this variation can be largely attributed to their ability of learning to vocalize through imitation (Kroodsma, 2004; Podos and Warren, 2007). When songbirds learn their songs from models (i.e. conspecifics) inhabiting the same geographic area where they set their breeding territories, local similarities in song structure can arise (i.e. dialects). This learning can occur after dispersal with birds learning or retaining the dialects sang in the breeding grounds where they set (Nelson et al., 2001). Thus, in most species in which vocal learning occurs, the distribution of learned songs may reflect the social interactions among birds, not the genetic structure of the populations (Kroodsma, 2004). A decoupling between patterns of cultural (songs) and genetic variation has also been reported for fin whales (Hatch and Clark, 2004), further suggesting that song INIs may be socially learned in this species. Learning of novel rhythms (i.e. INIs; Vernes et al., 2021) can also be found in sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), which can match their clicks to the rhythm of a ship echosounder (Backus and Schevill, 1996), and use codas (i.e. rhythmic patterns of clicks) that are unique to each vocal clan and are socially learned (Rendell and Whitehead, 2003). Fin whales may also be able to learn songs from other populations that not only differ in their INIs but also in their note composition (Helble et al., 2020).

After the song transition from 1999 to 2005, we found a gradual increase in song INIs along with a decrease in peak frequencies of the 20 Hz and HF notes. These findings are in line with the gradual trends of decreasing frequencies (Best et al., 2022; Leroy et al., 2018b; Weirathmueller et al., 2017) and increasing INIs (Best et al., 2022; Morano et al., 2012; Širović et al., 2017; Weirathmueller et al., 2017) described for fin whale songs in other ocean basins and in the Mediterranean Sea. Contrarily to the rapid changes in INIs, a global-scale process of cultural transmission cannot explain these directional changes. First, changes in INIs and frequencies occur at different rates in different oceans and there is no convergence in song acoustic characteristics across populations (Leroy et al., 2018a; Širović et al., 2017; Weirathmueller et al., 2017). Second, a similar pattern of decreasing frequencies and increasing INIs has been described for blue whale (B. musculus) songs (Jolliffe et al., 2019; Malige et al., 2020; McDonald et al., 2009), and decreasing frequencies have been reported for bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) calls (Thode et al., 2017). Such gradual song changes in multiple species and different ocean basins suggest an adaptation to a common selective pressure, which does not mean that within-region conformity in song characteristics does not result from cultural transmission. Mathematical modelling of the linear decrease in blue whale song frequencies suggest a simultaneous effect from two selection processes: conformity and sexual selection (Malige et al., 2022). Conformity would occur because individuals would be more likely to share variants of a cultural trait with nearby individuals than with more distant ones. This could be caused either by a conformist bias, which occurs when individuals select common variants from those available more often than would be expected by chance, or by more simple processes, such as only learning from nearby individuals (Morgan and Laland, 2012). Sexual selection would drive males to sing lower frequency songs than other whales, presumably because females prefer bigger males that are able to sing lower pitch songs (Malige et al., 2022). Increased blue whale body size in a post-whaling recovery scenario has also been proposed as a potential explanation for this species’ song changes; yet blue whale body size distributions should have returned to near pre-whaling values by now and song frequencies continue to decrease (McDonald et al., 2009). Also, it is very unlikely that changes in whale body size evolved in such a straight line at this timescale (Malige et al., 2022). Fin whale songs may evolve in a similar way as blue whale songs do, but so far, none of the proposed hypotheses can convincingly explain the slow frequency song changes in these species (McDonald et al., 2009; Thode et al., 2017). Large-scale and long-term datasets would help understanding if fin whale song INIs and frequencies are constantly evolving or started changing recently in response to a new driver.

The rapid and gradual evolution of fin whale song parameters found in this, and other studies (Hatch and Clark, 2004; Širović et al., 2017; Weirathmueller et al., 2017), resemble the patterns of song evolution of some bird species and humpback whales. Evidence from songbirds suggest that these different trajectories in song evolution (rapid versus gradual) occur within certain boundaries because learned songs are subject to a combination of strong stabilizing selection and underlying genetic variation that prevent incremental change for long periods of time (McEntee et al., 2021). In humpback whales, song complexity increases as songs evolve gradually over time, but decreases when revolutions occur (i.e. periods of rapid song changes), suggesting that learning capacities in this species are limited (Allen et al., 2018). After the rapid shift in fin whale song INIs, from 19s to 12s, a gradual reset towards the 19s-INIs seems to be occurring in all sampled areas, except from the Barents Sea. In the northwest Atlantic Ocean, rapid shifts in fin whale song INIs occurred between 15 s and 9 s (Delarue et al., 2009; Morano et al., 2012). Perhaps, like in birdsongs and humpback whales, changes in fin whale song INIs are also limited by learning constrains and genetic predispositions. Our results show that fin whale song INIs from the Barents Sea region differ from the rest of the sampled area. Yet, satellite tracking data from 2015 to 2019 showed that some fin whales summering in Svalbard (Barents Sea) migrate to the SW Portugal region in fall and winter (Lydersen et al., 2020), so some degree of mixing between males from these two acoustic populations occur. Also, a recent study from Svalbard revealed that fin whale song INIs differed between singing seasons, which suggests that either fin whales from that area switch between INIs or different populations use the area sequentially (Papale et al., 2023). Investigating the changing patterns of fin whale song INIs in these two regions (Barents seas and SW Portugal) may shed some light on the learning mechanisms of song INIs and the limitations of its variability.

Compared to INIs, fin whale song frequencies of the 20 Hz and HF notes do not vary abruptly but only gradually. Fundamental frequencies of this species’ songs seem constrained by the optimisation of long-range communication in pelagic environments (Clark and Garland, 2022; Payne and Webb, 1971). This song frequency limitation may be an adaptation first, to a dispersed and open water distribution of this species during the breeding season (Edwards et al., 2015; Nieukirk et al., 2004) and second, to match a particular frequency band with low levels of noise in deep waters (i.e. a quiet window in frequency) (Clark and Garland, 2022; Curtis et al., 1999). Comparatively, humpback and right whales (Eubalaena spp.) aggregate in coastal breeding grounds (Clapham, 2018; Kenney, 2009) and use higher frequency songs and calls that transmit better in shallow environments (quiet window: 100–400 Hz) (Clark and Ellison, 2004) and do not need to reach distant conspecifics (Clark, 1982; Clark and Garland, 2022). Therefore, the acoustic environment during the mating season and the species’ breeding behaviour could constrain variation in song frequencies to keep them within the quiet window. In addition, the animals’ physiology can constrain song frequency variation. In birds, the ability to produce low-frequency songs is linked to body size (Ryan and Brenowitz, 1985). If fin whale song frequencies continue to decrease, it can potentially reach the physiological limits of sound production. These limits in song variation can compromise song function and ultimately male fitness when the acoustic habitat in which these songs evolved is changing too rapidly to adapt. For example, the vocal adaptation ability of birds in urban environments (e.g. increasing song frequencies) affect the detection by receivers. If birds are not able to avoid the masking of their songs by noise, this may difficult the establishment and defence of a territory that can ultimately affect their fitness (Habib et al., 2007; Luther and Derryberry, 2012). Similarly, the constraints in fin whale song frequency may limit adaptation to an increasingly noisy environment. Shipping noise, the major source of ocean noise, overlaps in frequency with fin whale songs and can cause a reduction of the communication space (CS) in this species (Clark et al., 2009; Erbe et al., 2019). Models estimate a reduction of CS by vessel noise of up to 80% for fin whales (Cholewiak et al., 2018; Clark et al., 2009). We ignore if fin whales use any anti-masking release mechanism when exposed to vessel noise (e.g. changing song frequencies), but if they do not, such reduction of CS could certainly disrupt communication and hinder the search of mates for reproduction, which ultimately would affect fin whale fitness.

Results from this and other studies suggest that male fin whales are in acoustic contact over vast areas and adjust their song properties to match those of conspecifics (Leroy et al., 2018a; Oleson et al., 2014; Weirathmueller et al., 2017). These acoustic communities culturally evolve more quickly and efficiently than genetic communities (Hatch and Clark, 2004) and should be considered in conservation strategies when delimiting stocks or populations. The acoustic habitat in which these songs evolved has shaped the acoustic properties and limits of variation of these signals. Understanding the cultural evolution of fin whale songs can inform us about the species’ ability to adapt to the actual scenario of rapidly changing ocean soundscapes due to anthropogenic activities. These results also have implications for cue counting approaches, which use cue rates (e.g. notes per unit time) to convert density of sounds to density of animals (Marques et al., 2013). The temporal and spatial changes in fin whale song INIs found here affect cue rates and need to be considered to avoid bias in estimating densities using passive acoustic monitoring in this species. The unique large spatial scale over which fin whales communicate, although technologically challenging for researchers, opens interesting perspectives in the processes of animal acoustic communication.

All datasets and R scripts used in this study have been deposited in the Dryad Digital Repository.

1. 1. Romagosa M
   2. Sharon N
   3. Cascâo I
   4. Marques T
   5. Dziak R
   6. Royer J
   7. O'Brien J
   8. Mellinger D
   9. Pereira A
   10. Ugalde A
   11. Papale E
   12. Aniceto S
   13. Buscaino G
   14. Rasmussen M
   15. Matias L
   16. Prieto R
   17. Silva MA

   (2023) Dryad Digital Repository

   Data and R code from: Fin whale song evolution in the North Atlantic.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.f1vhhmh13

1. 1. Allen JA
   2. Garland EC
   3. Dunlop RA
   4. Noad MJ

   (2018) Cultural revolutions reduce complexity in the songs of humpback whales

   Proceedings. Biological Sciences 285:20182088.

   https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2088

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Backus R
   2. Schevill W

   (1996)

   Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises

   510–527, Physeter clicks, Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises, Berckley, University of California Press.

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Baumgartner MF
   2. Mussoline SE

   (2011) A generalized baleen whale call detection and classification system

   The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129:2889–2902.

   https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3562166

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bérubé M
   2. Aguilar A
   3. Dendanto D
   4. Larsen F
   5. Notarbartolo di Sciara G
   6. Sears R
   7. Sigurjónsson J
   8. Urban-R J
   9. Palsbøll PJ

   (1998) Population genetic structure of North Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea and Sea of Cortez fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus (Linnaeus 1758): analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear loci

   Molecular Ecology 7:585–599.

   https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00359.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Best P
   2. Marxer R
   3. Paris S
   4. Glotin H

   (2022) Temporal evolution of the Mediterranean fin whale song

   Scientific Reports 12:1–12.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15379-0

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Castellote M
   2. Clark CW
   3. Lammers MO

   (2012) Fin whale ( Balaenoptera physalus ) population identity in the western Mediterranean Sea

   Marine Mammal Science 28:325–344.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2011.00491.x

   • Google Scholar
7. Book

   1. Charif RA
   2. Waack AM
   3. Strickman LM

   (2010)

   Raven Pro 1.4 User’s Manual

   New York: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Cholewiak D
   2. Clark C
   3. Ponirakis D
   4. Frankel A
   5. Hatch L
   6. Risch D
   7. Stanistreet J
   8. Thompson M
   9. Vu E
   10. Van Parijs S

   (2018) Communicating amidst the noise: modeling the aggregate influence of ambient and vessel noise on baleen whale communication space in a national marine sanctuary

   Endangered Species Research 36:59–75.

   https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00875

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Clapham PJ

   (2018)

   Megaptera Novaeangliae

   489–492, Humpback whale, Megaptera Novaeangliae, Academic Press, 10.1016/B978-0-12-804327-1.00154-0.

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Clark CW

    (1982) The acoustic repertoire of the Southern right whale, a quantitative analysis

    Animal Behaviour 30:1060–1071.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(82)80196-6

    • Google Scholar
11. Book

    1. Clark CW
    2. Ellison WT

    (2004)

    Potential use of low frequency sounds by baleen whales for probing the environment: evidence from models and empirical measurements

    In: Thomas JA, Moss CF, Vater M, editors. Advances Ion the Study of Echolocation in Bats and Dolphins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 564–589.

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Clark C
    2. Ellison W
    3. Southall B
    4. Hatch L
    5. Van Parijs S
    6. Frankel A
    7. Ponirakis D

    (2009) Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication

    Marine Ecology Progress Series 395:201–222.

    https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08402

    • Google Scholar
13. Book

    1. Clark CW
    2. Garland EC

    (2022) Ethology and behavioral Ecology of Mysticetes

    In: Clark CW, Garland EC, editors. Baleen Whale Acoustic Ethology BT - Ethology and Behavioral Ecology of Mysticetes In. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 11–43.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98449-6

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Constaratas AN
    2. McDonald MA
    3. Goetz KT
    4. Giorli G

    (2021) Fin whale acoustic populations present in New Zealand waters: description of song types, occurrence and seasonality using passive acoustic monitoring

    PLOS ONE 16:e0253737.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253737

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Croll DA
    2. Clark CW
    3. Acevedo A
    4. Tershy B
    5. Flores S
    6. Gedamke J
    7. Urban J

    (2002) Only male fin whales sing loud songs

    Nature 417:5–7.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/417809a

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Curtis KR
    2. Howe BM
    3. Mercer JA

    (1999) Low-frequency ambient sound in the North Pacific: long time series observations

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106:3189–3200.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428173

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. de Kort SR
    2. Eldermire ERB
    3. Cramer ERA
    4. Vehrencamp SL

    (2009) The deterrent effect of bird song in territory defense

    Behavioral Ecology 20:200–206.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arn135

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Delarue J
    2. Todd SK
    3. Van Parijs SM
    4. Di Iorio L

    (2009) Geographic variation in Northwest Atlantic fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) song: implications for stock structure assessment

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125:1774–1782.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3068454

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Edwards EF
    2. Hall C
    3. Moore TJ
    4. Sheredy C

    (2015) Global distribution of fin whales Balaenoptera physalus in the post-whaling era (1980-2012)

    Mammal Review 45:197–214.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12048

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Erbe C
    2. Marley SA
    3. Schoeman RP
    4. Smith JN
    5. Trigg LE
    6. Embling CB

    (2019) The effects of ship noise on marine mammals—a review

    Frontiers in Marine Science 6:606.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00606

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Garland EC
    2. Goldizen AW
    3. Rekdahl ML
    4. Constantine R
    5. Garrigue C
    6. Hauser ND
    7. Poole MM
    8. Robbins J
    9. Noad MJ

    (2011) Dynamic horizontal cultural transmission of humpback whale song at the ocean basin scale

    Current Biology 21:687–691.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Habib L
    2. Bayne EM
    3. Boutin S

    (2007) Chronic industrial noise affects pairing success and age structure of ovenbirds Seiurus aurocapilla

    Journal of Applied Ecology 44:176–184.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01234.x

    • Google Scholar
23. Conference

    1. Hatch LT
    2. Clark CW

    (2004)

    Acoustic differentiation between fin whales in both the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans, and integration with genetic estimates of divergence

    Paper presented to the IWC Scientific Committee.

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Helble TA
    2. Guazzo RA
    3. Alongi GC
    4. Martin CR
    5. Martin SW
    6. Henderson EE

    (2020) Fin whale song patterns shift over time in the Central North Pacific

    Frontiers in Marine Science 7:1–16.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.587110

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Illes AE
    2. Hall ML
    3. Vehrencamp SL

    (2006) Vocal performance influences male receiver response in the banded wren

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273:1907–1912.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3535

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Janik VM
    2. Knörnschild M

    (2021) Vocal production learning in mammals revisited

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 376:0244.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0244

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Jolliffe CD
    2. McCauley RD
    3. Gavrilov AN
    4. Jenner KCS
    5. Jenner MNM
    6. Duncan AJ

    (2019) Song variation of the South Eastern Indian Ocean pygmy blue whale population in the Perth Canyon, Western Australia

    PLOS ONE 14:e0208619.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208619

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Kenney RD

    (2009)

    Right Whales: Eubalaena Glacialis

    962–972, Encyclopedia of Marine mammals, Right Whales: Eubalaena Glacialis, London, Academic Press, 10.1016/B978-0-12-373553-9.00220-0.

    • Google Scholar
29. Book

    1. Kroodsma D

    (2004) The diversity and plasticity of Birdsong

    In: Peter M, Hans S, editors. Nature’s Music: The Science of Birdsong. Cambridge: Academic Press. pp. 108–131.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012473070-0/50007-4

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Lammers MO
    2. Brainard RE
    3. Au WWL
    4. Mooney TA
    5. Wong KB

    (2008) An ecological acoustic recorder (EAR) for long-term monitoring of biological and anthropogenic sounds on coral reefs and other marine habitats

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123:1720–1728.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2836780

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Leroy EC
    2. Royer JY
    3. Bonnel J
    4. Samaran F

    (2018a) Long‐term and seasonal changes of large whale call frequency in the Southern Indian Ocean

    Journal of Geophysical Research 123:8568–8580.

    https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014352

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Leroy EC
    2. Samaran F
    3. Stafford KM
    4. Bonnel J
    5. Royer JY

    (2018b) Broad-scale study of the seasonal and geographic occurrence of blue and fin whales in the Southern Indian Ocean

    Endangered Species Research 37:289–300.

    https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00927

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Lockyer C

    (1984)

    Review of baleen whale (Mysticeti) reproduction and implications for management

    International Whaling Commission 6:27–50.

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Luther DA
    2. Derryberry EP

    (2012) Birdsongs keep pace with city life: changes in song over time in an urban songbird affects communication

    Animal Behaviour 83:1059–1066.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.01.034

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Lydersen C
    2. Vacquié-Garcia J
    3. Heide-Jørgensen MP
    4. Øien N
    5. Guinet C
    6. Kovacs KM

    (2020) Autumn movements of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) from Svalbard, Norway, revealed by satellite tracking

    Scientific Reports 10:16966.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73996-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Malige F
    2. Patris J
    3. Buchan SJ
    4. Stafford KM
    5. Shabangu F
    6. Findlay K
    7. Hucke-Gaete R
    8. Neira S
    9. Clark CW
    10. Glotin H

    (2020) Inter-annual decrease in pulse rate and peak frequency of Southeast Pacific blue whale song types

    Scientific Reports 10:8121.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64613-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Malige F
    2. Patris J
    3. Hauray M
    4. Giraudet P
    5. Glotin H
    6. Camille Noûs

    (2022) Mathematical models of long term evolution of blue whale song types’ frequencies

    Journal of Theoretical Biology 548:111184.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2022.111184

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Marques TA
    2. Thomas L
    3. Martin SW
    4. Mellinger DK
    5. Ward JA
    6. Moretti DJ
    7. Harris D
    8. Tyack PL

    (2013) Estimating animal population density using passive acoustics

    Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 88:287–309.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. McDonald M
    2. Hildebrand J
    3. Mesnick S

    (2009) Worldwide decline in tonal frequencies of blue whale songs

    Endangered Species Research 9:13–21.

    https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00217

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. McEntee JP
    2. Zhelezov G
    3. Werema C
    4. Najar N
    5. Peñalba JV
    6. Mulungu E
    7. Mbilinyi M
    8. Karimi S
    9. Chumakova L
    10. Gordon Burleigh J
    11. Bowie RCK

    (2021) Punctuated evolution in the learned songs of African sunbirds

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B 288:.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.2062

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Morano JL
    2. Salisbury DP
    3. Rice AN
    4. Conklin KL
    5. Falk KL
    6. Clark CW

    (2012) Seasonal and geographical patterns of fin whale song in the western North Atlantic Ocean

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 132:1207–1212.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4730890

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Morgan TJH
    2. Laland KN

    (2012) The biological bases of conformity

    Frontiers in Neuroscience 6:1–7.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2012.00087

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Nelson DA
    2. Khanna H
    3. Marler PR

    (2001) Learning by instruction or selection: implications for patterns of geographic variation in bird song

    Behaviour 138:1137–1160.

    https://doi.org/10.1163/156853901753287172

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Nieukirk SL
    2. Stafford KM
    3. Mellinger DK
    4. Dziak RP
    5. Fox CG

    (2004) Low-frequency whale and seismic airgun sounds recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115:1832–1843.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1675816

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. Conference

    1. Nieukirk SL
    2. Mellinger DK
    3. Klinck R

    (2011)

    Increase in peak fin whale calling levels observed in the mid-Atlantic ocean

    Fifth International Workshop on Detection, Classification, Localization, and Density Estimation of Marine Mammals Using Passive Acoustics. 81.

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Noad MJ
    2. Cato DH
    3. Bryden MM
    4. Jenner MN
    5. Jenner KCS

    (2000) Cultural revolution in whale songs

    Nature 408:537.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/35046199

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Oleson EM
    2. Širović A
    3. Bayless AR
    4. Hildebrand JA
    5. Deng ZD

    (2014) Synchronous seasonal change in fin whale song in the North Pacific

    PLOS ONE 9:e115678.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115678

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Otter KA
    2. Mckenna A
    3. LaZerte SE
    4. Ramsay SM

    (2020) Continent-wide shifts in song dialects of White-Throated Sparrows

    Current Biology 30:3231–3235.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.05.084

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Papale E
    2. Pelagatti M
    3. Pedrazzi G
    4. Buscaino G

    (2023) Occurrence and patterns of fin whale songs reveal alternative migration strategies in Svalbard Islands, Norway

    Scientific Reports 13:4436.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31665-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Payne R
    2. Webb D

    (1971) Orientation by means of long range acoustic signaling in baleen whales

    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 188:110–141.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1971.tb13093.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. Book

    1. Payne K
    2. Tyack P
    3. Payne RS

    (1983)

    Progressive changes in the songs of Humpback whales Megaptera Novaeangliae: a detailed analysis of two seasons in Hawaii

    In: Payne R, editors. Communication and Behavior of Whales. Boulder, CO: Westview. pp. 9–57.

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Payne K
    2. Payne R

    (1985) Large scale changes over 19 years in songs of humpback Whales in Bermuda

    Zeitschrift Für Tierpsychologie 68:89–114.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1985.tb00118.x

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Pereira A
    2. Harris D
    3. Tyack P
    4. Matias L

    (2020) Fin whale acoustic presence and song characteristics in seas to the southwest of Portugal

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 147:2235–2249.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001066

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Podos J
    2. Huber SK
    3. Taft B

    (2004) Bird Song: the interface of evolution and mechanism

    Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:55–87.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105719

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Podos J
    2. Warren PS

    (2007) The evolution of geographic variation in birdsong

    Advances in the Study of Behavior 37:403–458.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(07)37009-5

    • Google Scholar
56. Book

    1. R Core team

    (2020)

    R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

    Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Rendell L
    2. Whitehead H

    (2001) Culture in whales and dolphins

    The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24:309–324.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0100396x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Rendell LE
    2. Whitehead H

    (2003) Vocal clans in sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus)

    Proceedings. Biological Sciences 270:225–231.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2239

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Romagosa M
    2. Baumgartner M
    3. Cascão I
    4. Lammers MO
    5. Marques TA
    6. Santos RS
    7. Silva MA

    (2020) Baleen whale acoustic presence and behaviour at a Mid-Atlantic migratory habitat, the Azores Archipelago

    Scientific Reports 10:6087.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63117-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Ryan MJ
    2. Brenowitz EA

    (1985) The role of body size, phylogeny, and ambient noise in the evolution of bird song

    The American Naturalist 126:87–100.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/284398

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Širović A
    2. Williams LN
    3. Kerosky SM
    4. Wiggins SM
    5. Hildebrand JA

    (2013) Temporal separation of two fin whale call types across the eastern North Pacific

    Marine Biology 160:47–57.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-012-2061-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Širović A
    2. Oleson EM
    3. Buccowich J
    4. Rice A
    5. Bayless AR

    (2017) Fin whale song variability in southern California and the Gulf of California

    Scientific Reports 7:10126.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09979-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Slabbekoorn H

    (2013) Songs of the city: noise-dependent spectral plasticity in the acoustic phenotype of urban birds

    Animal Behaviour 85:1089–1099.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.01.021

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Thode AM
    2. Blackwell SB
    3. Conrad AS
    4. Kim KH
    5. Michael Macrander A

    (2017) Decadal-scale frequency shift of migrating bowhead whale calls in the shallow Beaufort Sea

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 142:1482-1502.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5001064

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Thompson PO
    2. Findley LT
    3. Vidal O

    (1992) 20-Hz pulses and other vocalizations of fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, in the Gulf of California, Mexico

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 92:3051–3057.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.404201

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Tyack PL

    (2008) Convergence of calls as animals form social bonds, active compensation for noisy communication channels, and the evolution of vocal learning in mammals

    Journal of Comparative Psychology 122:319–331.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013087

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Vernes SC
    2. Kriengwatana BP
    3. Beeck VC
    4. Fischer J
    5. Tyack PL
    6. Ten Cate C
    7. Janik VM

    (2021) The multi-dimensional nature of vocal learning

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 376:20200236.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0236

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. Conference

    1. Víkingsson G
    2. Gunnlaugsson T

    (2006)

    Stock structure of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in the North Atlantic – indications from non-genetic data

    Joint North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) and International Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific workshop on the catch history, stock structure and abundance of North Atlantic fin whales.

    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Watkins WA
    2. Tyack P
    3. Moore KE
    4. Bird JE

    (1987) The 20-Hz signals of finback whales (Balaenoptera physalus)

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 82:1901–1912.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.395685

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Weirathmueller MJ
    2. Stafford KM
    3. Wilcock WSD
    4. Hilmo RS
    5. Dziak RP
    6. Tréhu AM

    (2017) Spatial and temporal trends in fin whale vocalizations recorded in the NE Pacific Ocean between 2003-2013

    PLOS ONE 12:e0186127.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186127

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Whiten A

    (2019) Cultural evolution in animals

    Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 50:27–48.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110218-025040

    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Wilkins MR
    2. Seddon N
    3. Safran RJ

    (2013) Evolutionary divergence in acoustic signals: causes and consequences

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28:156–166.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Williams H
    2. Levin II
    3. Norris DR
    4. Newman AEM
    5. Wheelwright NT

    (2013) Three decades of cultural evolution in Savannah sparrow songs

    Animal Behaviour 85:213–223.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.10.028

    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Williams H

    (2021) Mechanisms of cultural evolution in the songs of wild bird populations

    Frontiers in Psychology 12:643343.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643343

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Winn HE
    2. Thompson TJ
    3. Cummings WC
    4. Hain J
    5. Hudnall J
    6. Hays H
    7. Steiner WW

    (1981) Song of the humpback whale? Population comparisons

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 8:41–46.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302842

    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Wood M
    2. Širović A

    (2022) Characterization of fin whale song off the Western Antarctic Peninsula

    PLOS ONE 17:e0264214.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264214

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Miriam Romagosa

   Institute of Marine Sciences - OKEANOS & Institute of Marine Research - IMAR, University of the Azores, Horta, Portugal

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft

   For correspondence

   m.romagosa4@gmail.com

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2781-5528

2. Sharon Nieukirk

   Cooperative Institute for Marine Ecosystem and Resources Studies, Oregon State University, Corvallis, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Irma Cascão

   Institute of Marine Sciences - OKEANOS & Institute of Marine Research - IMAR, University of the Azores, Horta, Portugal

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6231-0483

4. Tiago A Marques

   1. Centre for Research into Ecological and Environmental Modelling, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom
   2. Centro de Estatística e Aplicações, Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

   Contribution

   Supervision, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Robert Dziak

   NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Hatfield Marine Science Center, Corvallis, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Jean-Yves Royer

   CNRS - UBO - UBS - Ifremer, IUEM - Lab. Geo-Ocean, Plouzane, France

   Contribution

   Resources

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Joanne O'Brien

   Marine and Freshwater Research Centre (MFRC), Atlantic Technological University, Galway, Ireland

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. David K Mellinger

   Cooperative Institute for Marine Ecosystem and Resources Studies, Oregon State University, Corvallis, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5228-0513

9. Andreia Pereira

   Instituto Dom Luiz (IDL), Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Arantza Ugalde

    Institute of Marine Sciences, ICM‐CSIC, Barcelona, Spain

    Contribution

    Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Elena Papale

    Institute for the Study of Anthropic Impacts and Sustainability in the Marine Environment of the National Research Council of Italy (CNR-IAS), Torretta Granitola, Italy

    Contribution

    Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

12. Sofia Aniceto

    Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Norway

    Contribution

    Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

13. Giuseppa Buscaino

    Institute for the Study of Anthropic Impacts and Sustainability in the Marine Environment of the National Research Council of Italy (CNR-IAS), Torretta Granitola, Italy

    Contribution

    Resources

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

14. Marianne Rasmussen

    University of Iceland Research Centre in Húsavík, Húsavík, Iceland

    Contribution

    Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

15. Luis Matias

    Instituto Dom Luiz (IDL), Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

    Contribution

    Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

16. Rui Prieto

    Institute of Marine Sciences - OKEANOS & Institute of Marine Research - IMAR, University of the Azores, Horta, Portugal

    Contribution

    Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

17. Mónica A Silva

    Institute of Marine Sciences - OKEANOS & Institute of Marine Research - IMAR, University of the Azores, Horta, Portugal

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2683-309X

• 1,186

  views

• 227

  downloads

• 1

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.