MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510072232 · doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12729

Accelerometers can measure total and activity‐specific energy expenditures in free‐ranging marine mammals only if linked to time‐activity budgets

2016· article· en· W2510072232 on OpenAlexafffund
Tiphaine Jeanniard du Dot, Christophe Guinet, John P. Y. Arnould, John R. Speakman, Andrew W. Trites

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNorth Pacific Research BoardNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsForagingEnergy expenditureAccelerometerBiologyDoubly labeled waterRangingAccelerationEcologyPredationEnergeticsEnergy metabolismGeodesyGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Energy expenditure is an important component of foraging ecology, but is extremely difficult to estimate in free‐ranging animals and depends on how animals partition their time between different activities during foraging. Acceleration data have emerged as a new way to determine energy expenditure at a fine scale but this needs to be tested and validated in wild animals. This study investigated whether vectorial dynamic body acceleration (VeDBA) could accurately predict the energy expended by marine predators during a full foraging trip. We also aimed to determine whether the accuracy of predictions of energy expenditure derived from acceleration increased when partitioned by different types of at‐sea activities (i.e. diving, transiting, resting and surface activities). To do so, we equipped 20 lactating northern (Callorhinus ursinus) and 20 lactating Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella) with GPS, time‐depth recorders and tri‐axial accelerometers and obtained estimates of field metabolic rates using the doubly labelled water (DLW) method. VeDBA was derived from tri‐axial acceleration, and at‐sea activities (diving, transiting, resting and surface activities) were determined using dive depth, tri‐axial acceleration and travelling speed. We found that VeDBA did not accurately predict the total energy expended by fur seals during their full foraging trips (R2 = 0·36). However, the accuracy of VeDBA as a predictor of total energy expenditure increased significantly when foraging trips were partitioned by activity and when activity‐specific VeDBA was paired with time‐activity budgets (R2 = 0·70). Activity‐specific VeDBA also accurately predicted the energy expenditures of each activity independent of each other (R2 > 0·85). Our study confirms that acceleration is a promising way to estimate energy expenditures of free‐ranging marine mammals at a fine scale never attained before. However, it shows that it needs to be based on the time‐activity budgets that make up foraging trips rather than being derived as a single measure of VeDBA applied to entire foraging trips. Our activity‐based method provides a cost‐effective means to accurately calculate energy expenditures of fur seals using acceleration and time‐activity budgets, that can be transfered to studies on other species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations132
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFunctional EcologySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207