MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008601031 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-59992-3

Intra-specific Niche Partitioning in Antarctic Fur Seals, Arctocephalus gazella

2020· article· en· W3008601031 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kayleigh A. Jones, Norman Ratcliffe, Stephen C. Votier, Jason Newton, Jaume Forcada, John Dickens, Gabriele Stowasser, Iain J. Staniland

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBritish Antarctic SurveyNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKMcGill University
KeywordsForagingFur sealBiologyCompetition (biology)PopulationEcologyNicheNiche differentiationTrophic levelZoologyHabitatDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Competition for resources within a population can lead to niche partitioning between sexes, throughout ontogeny and among individuals, allowing con-specifics to co-exist. We aimed to quantify such partitioning in Antarctic fur seals, Arctocephalus gazella, breeding at South Georgia, which hosts ~95% of the world’s population. Whiskers were collected from 20 adult males and 20 adult females and stable isotope ratios were quantified every 5 mm along the length of each whisker. Nitrogen isotope ratios (δ15N) were used as proxies for trophic position and carbon isotope ratios (δ13C) indicated foraging habitat. Sexual segregation was evident: δ13C values were significantly lower in males than females, indicating males spent more time foraging south of the Polar Front in maritime Antarctica. In males δ13C values declined with age, suggesting males spent more time foraging south throughout ontogeny. In females δ13C values revealed two main foraging strategies: 70% of females spent most time foraging south of the Polar Front and had similar δ15N values to males, while 30% of females spent most time foraging north of the Polar Front and had significantly higher δ15N values. This niche partitioning may relax competition and ultimately elevate population carrying capacity with implications for ecology, evolution and conservation.

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)0.000
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207