MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386884595 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290643

Vulnerability to climate change of United States marine mammal stocks in the western North Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean

2023· article· en· W4386884595 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew D. Lettrich, Michael J. Asaro, Diane Borggaard, Dorothy M. Dick, Roger B. Griffis, Jenny A. Litz, Christopher Orphanides, Debra L. Palka, Melissa S. Soldevilla, Brian C. Balmer, Samuel Chavez, Danielle Cholewiak, Diane Claridge, Ruth Y. Ewing, Kristi L. Fazioli, Dagmar Fertl, Erin Fougeres, Damon P. Gannon, Lance Garrison, James R. Gilbert, Antoinette M. Gorgone, Aleta A. Hohn, Stacey Horstman, Beth Josephson, Robert D. Kenney, Jérémy J. Kiszka, Katherine Maze-Foley, Wayne E. McFee, Keith D. Mullin, Kimberly T. Murray, Daniel E. Pendleton, Jooke Robbins, Jason J. Roberts, Grisel Rodríguez Ferrer, Errol I. Ronje, Patricia E. Rosel, Todd Speakman, Joy E. Stanistreet, Tara S. Stevens, Megan Stolen, Reny B. Tyson, Nicole L. Vollmer, Randall S. Wells, Heidi R. Whitehead, Amy Whitt

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersCooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies, University of MiamiOffice of ScienceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Marine Fisheries ServiceUniversity of Miami
KeywordsMarine mammalClimate changeVulnerability assessmentVulnerability (computing)MammalGeographyEnvironmental scienceOceanographyEcologyFisheryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change and climate variability are affecting marine mammal species and these impacts are projected to continue in the coming decades. Vulnerability assessments provide a framework for evaluating climate impacts over a broad range of species using currently available information. We conducted a trait-based climate vulnerability assessment using expert elicitation for 108 marine mammal stocks and stock groups in the western North Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. Our approach combined the exposure (projected change in environmental conditions) and sensitivity (ability to tolerate and adapt to changing conditions) of marine mammal stocks to estimate vulnerability to climate change, and categorize stocks with a vulnerability index. The climate vulnerability score was very high for 44% (n = 47) of these stocks, high for 29% (n = 31), moderate for 20% (n = 22), and low for 7% (n = 8). The majority of stocks (n = 78; 72%) scored very high exposure, whereas 24% (n = 26) scored high, and 4% (n = 4) scored moderate. The sensitivity score was very high for 33% (n = 36) of these stocks, high for 18% (n = 19), moderate for 34% (n = 37), and low for 15% (n = 16). Vulnerability results were summarized for stocks in five taxonomic groups: pinnipeds (n = 4; 25% high, 75% moderate), mysticetes (n = 7; 29% very high, 57% high, 14% moderate), ziphiids (n = 8; 13% very high, 50% high, 38% moderate), delphinids (n = 84; 52% very high, 23% high, 15% moderate, 10% low), and other odontocetes (n = 5; 60% high, 40% moderate). Factors including temperature, ocean pH, and dissolved oxygen were the primary drivers of high climate exposure, with effects mediated through prey and habitat parameters. We quantified sources of uncertainty by bootstrapping vulnerability scores, conducting leave-one-out analyses of individual attributes and individual scorers, and through scoring data quality for each attribute. These results provide information for researchers, managers, and the public on marine mammal responses to climate change to enhance the development of more effective marine mammal management, restoration, and conservation activities that address current and future environmental variation and biological responses due to climate change.

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)0.003
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 score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations28
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→