Foraging patterns of gray whales in central Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MEPS Marine Ecology Progress Series Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections MEPS 223:299-310 (2001) - doi:10.3354/meps223299 Foraging patterns of gray whales in central Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia, Canada Jason S. Dunham*, David A. Duffus Whale Research Laboratory, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, PO Box 3050, Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3P5, Canada *E-mail: jdunham@horizon.bc.ca ABSTRACT: Gray whales Eschrichtius robustus forage in parts of Clayoquot Sound on several prey species in different habitats. Between June and September in 1996 and 1997 we carried out analyses of the density, biomass, and other measures of their primary prey species, and of whales¹ movement patterns in response to prey characteristics. The prey base consists of hyper-benthic mysids (family Mysidae), pelagic porcelain crab larvae (4 spp. of family Porcellanidae), benthic amphipods (family Ampeliscidae) and benthic ghost shrimp Callianassa californiensis. Whales foraged primarily for mysids, switching to porcelain crab larvae in August, and then to amphipods even later in the season when these organisms increased in body size. In 1997, whales rapidly switched from feeding on planktonic to benthic prey during mid-August. Sampling indicated low numbers of mysids and crab larvae at that time. Selection of amphipod prey was based on high biomass and a high proportion of individuals ≥6 mm in length. In parts of the study area gray whales did not return to forage on benthic amphipods when this size criteria was not met. A single whale departed from a ghost shrimp feeding ground because its search time for food was long, it achieve a low biomass removal rate, and it was not able to find sufficient food each day. We show that gray whales are dynamic and selective foragers that switch prey and foraging tactics rapidly to take advantage of short-term availability of energy. KEY WORDS: Gray whale · Eschrichtius robustus · Prey selection · Prey-switching · Plankton · Benthos · Clayoquot Sound Full text in pdf format PreviousExport citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 223. Online publication date: November 28, 2001 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2001 Inter-Research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".