Estimating energetic intake for marine mammal bioenergetic models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bioenergetics is the study of how animals achieve energetic balance. Energetic balance results from the energetic expenditure of an individual and the energy they extract from their environment. Ingested energy depends on several extrinsic (e.g prey species, nutritional value and composition, prey density and availability) and intrinsic factors (e.g. foraging effort, success at catching prey, digestive processes and associated energy losses, and digestive capacity). While the focus in bioenergetic modelling is often on the energetic costs an animal incurs, the robust estimation of an individual's energy intake is equally critical for producing meaningful predictions. Here, we review the components and processes that affect energy intake from ingested gross energy to biologically useful net energy (NE). The current state of knowledge of each parameter is reviewed, shedding light on research gaps to advance this field. The review highlighted that the foraging behaviour of many marine mammals is relatively well studied via biologging tags, with estimates of success rate typically assumed for most species. However, actual prey capture success rates are often only assumed, although we note studies that provide approaches for its estimation using current techniques. A comprehensive collation of the nutritional content of marine mammal prey species revealed a robust foundation from which prey quality (comprising prey species, size and energy density) can be assessed, though data remain unavailable for many prey species. Empirical information on various energy losses following ingestion of prey was unbalanced among marine mammal species, with considerably more literature available for pinnipeds. An increased understanding and accurate estimate of each of the components that comprise a species NE intake are an integral part of bioenergetics. Such models provide a key tool to investigate the effects of disturbance on marine mammals at an individual and population level and to support effective conservation and management.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".