Dangerous dive cycles and the proverbial ostrich
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data rarely are available to address the level of predation risk faced by diving animals in different parts of the water column. Consequently, most published research on diving behaviour implicitly assumes – like the proverbial ostrich – that ‘unseen’ predators are functionally unimportant. We argue that failure to consider diving in a predation risk framework may have precluded many insights into the ecology of aquatic foragers that breathe air. Using existing literature and a simple model, we suggest that fear from submerged predators in several systems might be influencing patch residence time, and therefore the duration of other dive cycle components. These analyses, along with an earlier model of predation risk faced by diving animals at the surface, suggest that dive cycle organisation can be modified to increase safety from predators, but only at the cost of reduced energy gain. Theoretical arguments presented here can seed hypotheses on factors contributing to population declines of diving species. For instance, adjustments to the dive cycle that reduce predation risk might be unaffordable if resources are scarce. Thus, if animals are to avoid imminent starvation or substantial loss of reproductive potential, resource declines might indirectly increase predation rates by limiting the extent to which dive cycles can deviate from those that would maximize energy gain. We hope that ideas presented in this paper stimulate other researchers to further develop theory and test predictions on how predation risk might influence diving behaviour and its ecological consequences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".