Seasonal differences in foraging and isotopic niche width related to body size in Gulf of Alaska harbor seals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina Linnaeus, 1758) use different foraging strategies based on body size and sex, but this difference can be difficult to evaluate across seasons. We used stable isotope analysis of harbor seal whiskers from 32 individuals to assess seasonal foraging of seals inhabiting tidewater glacial habitat in Southeast Alaska. We analyzed stable isotope ratios from serial sections of whiskers, estimated deposition date for each section, and used mixed models to determine if sex and body size influence stable isotope ratios. Seals were grouped by size (>1.4 m or ≤1.4 m curvilinear length) as a proxy for sexual maturity to describe isotopic differences between groups using standard ellipse corrected area. Mean carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios differed significantly between size classes (p < 0.005), with no effect of sex. Larger seals exhibited a broader isotopic niche in the fall, winter, and spring relative to smaller seals, but not in the summer. Our results suggest that seals using tidewater glacial habitat share common foraging behavior in the summer, while larger seals exhibit more diverse foraging throughout the rest of the year. These results highlight the importance of tidewater glacial habitat for this population of harbor seals during the summer.
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 | 0.000 | 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".