Fur seals do, but sea lions don't — cross taxa insights into exhalation during ascent from dives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Management of gases during diving is not well understood across marine mammal species. Prior to diving, phocid (true) seals generally exhale, a behaviour thought to assist with the prevention of decompression sickness. Otariid seals (fur seals and sea lions) have a greater reliance on their lung oxygen stores, and inhale prior to diving. One otariid, the Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella), then exhales during the final 50–85% of the return to the surface, which may prevent another gas management issue: shallow-water blackout. Here, we compare data collected from animal-attached tags (video cameras, hydrophones and conductivity sensors) deployed on a suite of otariid seal species to examine the ubiquity of ascent exhalations for this group. We find evidence for ascent exhalations across four fur seal species, but that such exhalations are absent for three sea lion species. Fur seals and sea lions are no longer genetically separated into distinct subfamilies, but are morphologically distinguished by the thick underfur layer of fur seals. Together with their smaller size and energetic dives, we suggest their air-filled fur might underlie the need to perform these exhalations, although whether to reduce buoyancy and ascent speed, for the avoidance of shallow-water blackout or to prevent other cardiovascular management issues in their diving remains unclear. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Measuring physiology in free-living animals (Part I)’.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".