MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317718122 · doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.853525

Year-round foraging across large spatial scales suggest that bowhead whales have the potential to adapt to climate change

2023· article· en· W4317718122 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sarah M. E. Fortune, Andrew W. Trites, Valerie LeMay, Mark F. Baumgartner, Steven H. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Marine Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaFisheries and Oceans CanadaDalhousie University
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaArcticNetNunavut Wildlife Research Trust
KeywordsForagingPredationClimate changeEcologySea iceGeographyApex predatorEnvironmental scienceFisheryOceanographyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ecological impact of environmental changes at high latitudes (e.g., increasing temperature, and decreased sea ice cover) on low-trophic species, such as bowhead whales, are poorly understood. Key to understanding the vulnerability of zooplanktivorous predators to climatic shifts in prey is knowing whether they can make behavioural or distributional adjustments to maintain sufficient prey acquisition rates. However, little is known about how foraging behaviour and associated environmental conditions fluctuate over space and time. We collected long-term movement (average satellite transmission days were 397 (± 204 SD) in 2012 and 484 (± 245 SD) in 2013) and dive behaviour data for 25 bowhead whales ( Balaena mysticetus ) equipped with time-depth telemetry tags, and used hierarchical switching-state-space models to quantify their movements and behaviours (resident and transit). We examined trends in inferred two-dimensional foraging behaviours based on dive shape of Eastern Canada-West Greenland bowhead whales in relation to season and sea ice, as well as animal sex and age via size. We found no differences with regards to whale sex and size, but we did find evidence that subsurface foraging occurs year-round, with peak foraging occurring in fall (7.3 hrs d -1 ± 5.70 SD; October) and reduced feeding during spring (2.7 hrs d -1 ± 2.55 SD; May). Although sea ice cover is lowest during summer foraging, whales selected areas with 65% (± 36.1 SD) sea ice cover. During winter, bowheads occurred in areas with 90% (± 15.5 SD) ice cover, providing some open water for breathing. The depth of probable foraging varied across seasons with animals conducting epipelagic foraging dives (< 200 m) during spring and summer, and deeper mesopelagic dives (> 400 m) during fall and winter that approached the sea bottom, following the seasonal vertical migration of lipid-rich zooplankton. Our findings suggest that, compared to related species (e.g., right whales), bowheads forage at relatively low rates and over a large geographic area throughout the year. This suggests that bowhead whales have the potential to adjust their behaviours (e.g., increased time allocated to feeding) and shift their distributions (e.g., occupy higher latitude foraging grounds) to adapt to climate-change induced environmental conditions. However, the extent to which energetic consumption may vary seasonally is yet to be determined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Marine ScienceSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207