MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944647386 · doi:10.1111/1365-2435.13357

Foraging rates of ram‐filtering North Atlantic right whales

2019· article· en· W2944647386 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie van der Hoop, Anna McGregor, Douglas P. Nowacek, Susan E. Parks, Peter L. Tyack, Peter T. Madsen

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationEuropean CommissionNational Marine Fisheries ServiceMarine Alliance for Science and Technology for ScotlandHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeScottish Funding Council
KeywordsBiologyForagingEcologyFisheryZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract North Atlantic right whales spend their summer months foraging primarily in American and Canadian Atlantic waters on high‐energy‐density prey. Here, they rapidly accumulate and store energy obtained within a few months to support future migrations and reproduction while fasting. High drag from their ram‐filter foraging strategy places a limit on what prey densities will be energetically efficient to target. Our understanding of the volume of prey‐laden water filtered by right whales during a dive or foraging bout, and what information they use to decide to forage or not, has been limited by the difficulties of measuring when they feed at depth, how fast they swim during continuous ram filtration and how often they might swallow accumulated prey. We used 10 DTAG deployments from right whales in the Bay of Fundy, Canada, to quantify swimming speeds and estimate the volume of prey‐laden water filtered per dive. We used the tag's inertial sensors to evaluate the timing of frequent biomechanical changes that likely indicate the truncation of continuous filtration, and whether the number or timing of these fluking bouts relates to longer feeding dives or other foraging decisions. During foraging dives, right whales descended at 1.4 (±0.2 SD) m/s and slowed to swim at 1.1 (±0.3) m/s while filtering. We found consistent pauses in the fluking behaviour of foraging right whales, every 56 (±22) s. Whales filtered on average 78 (±30) m3 of water per fluking bout and on average 673 (±201) m3 per dive. Right whales filter large volumes of water at low speeds with a high duty cycle, but require sufficiently high prey energy densities to compensate for a high‐drag foraging strategy. Closely related bowhead whales have a larger gape but swim more slowly, filtering greater volumes with lower drag. Our findings highlight that right whales acquire their energy in a relatively short period of intense foraging; even moderate changes in their feeding behaviour or their prey energy density are likely to negatively impact their yearly energy budgets and therefore reduce fitness substantially. A plain language summary is available for this article.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations51
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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