Satiation and compensation for short-term changes in food quality and availability in young Steller sea lions (<i>Eumetopias jubatus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foraging theory predicts that animals should proportionately increase their food intake to compensate for reduced food energy content and (or) prey availability. However, the theoretical intake levels will, at some point, exceed the digestive capacity of the predator. We tested the ability of Steller sea lions, Eumetopias jubatus (Schreber, 1776), to compensate for short-term changes in prey energy density and availability, and quantified the maximum amount of food a young sea lion could consume. Five 1–2-year-old captive Steller sea lions were offered either herring (high energy) or capelin (low energy) each day or every second day. When prey were available on a daily basis, the sea lions compensated for differences in the energy content of herring and capelin by consuming sufficient quantities of each (8.3 vs. 14.0 kg·d–1, respectively) to maintain equivalent gross energy intakes. When herring was available only on alternate days, the sea lions increased their consumption by 52% to 11.5 kg·d–1, which was not sufficient to maintain an average gross intake equal to that maintained when herring was available every day. When capelin was available only on alternate days, some animals increased their intake for a few days, but average intake (15.2 kg·d–1) was far below levels observed during daily feeding. Generally, the sea lions appeared to reach their digestive limit at a level equivalent to 14%–16% of their body mass. Our findings suggest that Steller sea lions can alter their food intake in response to short-term changes in prey quality or availability, but that these variables can quickly combine to necessitate food intake levels that exceed the physiological digestive capacities of young animals.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".