Smaller longer, larger shorter: energy budget calculations explain intrapopulation variation in remigration intervals for loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult female loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta (L., 1758)) show a size-related behavioural and trophic dichotomy within several populations: oceanic planktivory by small females and neritic benthivory by large females. Within a Japanese population, smaller females have longer remigration intervals (the intervals between successive nesting years) than larger females. We hypothesized that this is attributed to the size-related foraging dichotomy, and calculated energy budgets and food requirements for the small and large females. Total reproductive energy costs for the small and large females were 1003 and 434 MJ, equivalent to 4043 kg of planktonic items and 275 kg of benthic items, respectively. The minimum durations necessary for accumulating the total reproductive energy for the small and large females were 430 and 26 days, equivalent to remigration intervals of 2 years and 1 year taking into account the nesting and migration durations and seasonal reproduction. Therefore, it was theoretically demonstrated that the intrapopulation variation in remigration intervals for Japanese loggerheads could be caused by the difference in their feeding habits, implying that remigration dynamics in a sea turtle population that shows a foraging dichotomy is regulated by feeding conditions not in a single habitat but in multiple habitats.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".