What are the Metabolic Rates of Marine Mammals and What Factors Impact this Value: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past several decades, scientists have constructed bioenergetic models for marine mammals to assess potential population-level consequences following exposure to a disturbance, stressor, or environmental change, such as under the Population Consequences of Disturbance (pCOD) framework. The animal's metabolic rate (rate of energy expenditure) is a cornerstone for these models, yet the cryptic lifestyles of marine mammals, particularly cetaceans, have limited our ability to quantify basal (BMR) and field (FMR) metabolic rates using accepted 'gold standard' approaches (indirect calorimeter via oxygen consumption and doubly labeled water, respectively). Thus, alternate methods have been used to quantify marine mammal metabolic rates, such as extrapolating from known allometric relationships (e.g. Kleiber's mouse to elephant curve) and developing predictive relationships between energy expenditure and physiological or behavioral variables. To understand our current knowledge of marine mammal metabolic rates, we conducted a literature review (1900-2023) to quantify the magnitude and variation of metabolic rates across marine mammal groups. A compilation of data from studies using 'gold standard' methods revealed that BMR and FMR of different marine mammal species ranges from 0.2 to 3.6 and 1.1 to 6.1 x Kleiber, respectively. Mean BMR and FMR varied across taxa; for both measures odontocete levels were intermediate to higher values for otariids and lower values of phocids. Moreover, multiple intrinsic (e.g. age, sex, reproduction, molt, individual) and extrinsic (e.g. food availability, water temperature, season) factors, as well as individual behaviors (e.g. animal at water's surface or submerged, activity level, dive effort and at-sea behaviors) impact the magnitude of these rates. This review provides scientists and managers with a range of reliable metabolic rates for several marine mammal groups as well as an understanding of the factors that influence metabolism to improve the discernment for inputs into future bioenergetic models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".