Diving deep into trouble: the role of foraging strategy and morphology in adapting to a changing environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Physiology places constraints on an animal’s ability to forage and those unable to adapt to changing conditions may face increased challenges to reproduce and survive. As the global marine environment continues to change, small, air-breathing, endothermic marine predators such as otariids (fur seals and sea lions) and particularly females, who are constrained by central place foraging during breeding, may experience increased difficulties in successfully obtaining adequate food resources. We explored whether physiological limits of female otariids may be innately related to body morphology (fur seals vs sea lions) and/or dictate foraging strategies (epipelagic vs mesopelagic or benthic). We conducted a systematic review of the increased body of literature since the original reviews of Costa et al. (When does physiology limit the foraging behaviour of freely diving mammals? Int Congr Ser 2004;1275:359–366) and Arnould and Costa (Sea lions in drag, fur seals incognito: insights from the otariid deviants. In Sea Lions of the World Fairbanks. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, Alaska, USA, pp. 309–324, 2006) on behavioural (dive duration and depth) and physiological (total body oxygen stores and diving metabolic rates) parameters. We estimated calculated aerobic dive limit (cADL—estimated duration of aerobic dives) for species and used simulations to predict the proportion of dives that exceeded the cADL. We tested whether body morphology or foraging strategy was the primary predictor of these behavioural and physiological characteristics. We found that the foraging strategy compared to morphology was a better predictor of most parameters, including whether a species was more likely to exceed their cADL during a dive and the ratio of dive time to cADL. This suggests that benthic and mesopelagic divers are more likely to be foraging at their physiological capacity. For species operating near their physiological capacity (regularly exceeding their cADL), the ability to switch strategies is limited as the cost of foraging deeper and longer is disproportionally high, unless it is accompanied by physiological adaptations. It is proposed that some otariids may not have the ability to switch foraging strategies and so be unable adapt to a changing oceanic ecosystem.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".