Possible effects of pollock and herring on the growth and reproductive success of Steller sea lions (<i>Eumetopias jubatus</i>): insights from feeding experiments using an alternative animal model,<i>Rattus norvegicus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The decline of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in the Gulf of Alaska appears to have been associated with a switch of diet from one dominated by fatty forage fishes (such as herring; Clupea pallasi) to one dominated by low-fat fish (such as pollock; Theragra chalcogramma). Observations made during the decline include reduced body size of sea lions, low pregnancy rates, and high mortality. We used the general mammalian model, the laboratory rat (Rattus norvegicus), to test whether changing the quality of prey consumed could cause changes in size and reproductive performance. Five groups of twelve female, weanling rats were fed diets composed of herring (H), pollock (P), pollock supplemented with herring oil (PH), pollock supplemented with pollock oil (PP), or a semi-purified diet (ICN). Mean body weights were greatest for H, followed by PH, P, PP and finally ICN, although ICN was the only group significantly different from the others (P<0.05). Food intakes before mating were 10 % higher for groups on the lower-fat diets (P and ICN), resulting in similar energy intakes in all groups. The protein efficiency ratio was highest for the H diet, slightly lower for all pollock diets, and significantly lower for ICN (P<0.05). The fetal weights for mothers fed P were significantly reduced (P<0.05). The present study shows that the energy content was a major limiting factor in the nutritional quality of pollock. When food intake was adjusted to meet energetic requirements, there were no detrimental consequences from eating pollock. However, supplementation of pollock meal with additional pollock oil may reduce growth and reproductive performance, although the reasons for this were not apparent.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".