Rare seals hide in underwater bubble caves to escape tourists

The uninhabited islet of Formicula in Greece's Inner Ionian archipelago is a popular tourist draw for its clear waters, swimming spots, and marine diversity. The science-journalism coverage adds useful context, while the strongest evidential footing still comes from the underlying data, papers or institutional documentation.

It is relevant because biology becomes more informative when an observed effect begins to look like a mechanism rather than an isolated pattern. The gap between identifying a correlation in biological data and understanding the causal chain that produces it is routinely underestimated, and the history of biomedical research is populated with associations that collapsed when the mechanism was sought and not found. A result that comes with a proposed mechanism, even a partial one, is more useful than a purely descriptive finding because it generates testable predictions that can narrow the hypothesis space. This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: Add as preferred source Oryx (2026).

Mediterranean monk seals Monachus monachus using the bubble cave: (a) three seals sleeping or resting at the surface. In a paper published in the journal Oryx, researchers discovered that the animals regularly seek refuge from the summer crowds in underwater bubble caves, air-filled chambers only.

The seals are designated as Vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), meaning they face a high risk of extinction in the wild. This setup captured images and footage over 141 days, first during a short period in July 2020 and then over a longer stretch from June to October 2021.

During the entire monitoring period, the team observed the seals using the bubble cave for 119 days and the main cave for just 30 days. We rely on readers like you to keep independent science journalism alive.

The broader interest lies in whether the reported effect points toward a real mechanism and not merely a reproducible but unexplained association. Biology has learned from decades of biomarker failures that correlation, even robust correlation, is not a substitute for mechanistic understanding. A pathway that can be traced from molecular interaction to cellular response to organismal phenotype provides a far stronger foundation for intervention than a statistical association discovered in a large dataset, however well the statistics are done.

Joan Gonzalvo et al, Sealed serenity: use of underwater bubble caves as refuge against disturbance by Mediterranean monk seals, Oryx (2026). BSc Biology from University of London.

Because this item comes through Phys. org Biology as science journalism, it should be treated as contextual reporting rather than primary evidence. Good science reporting can identify why a result matters, connect it to the wider literature and make technical work readable, but the decisive evidence remains in the original paper, dataset, mission release or technical record. That distinction is especially important when a story is later repeated by aggregators, because repetition increases visibility, not evidential strength.

The next step is to test whether the effect repeats across different methods, cell types, model organisms and experimental conditions. Reproducibility is the first test, but mechanistic dissection is the second, and a result that passes both has a substantially better chance of translating into something clinically or biotechnologically useful. The path from a laboratory finding to an applied outcome typically takes a decade or more, and most findings do not complete it; the current result sits at the beginning of that process.

Source