MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387272069 · doi:10.1093/conphys/coad077

What are the Metabolic Rates of Marine Mammals and What Factors Impact this Value: A review

2023· review· en· W4387272069 on OpenAlexaff
Shawn R. Noren, David A. S. Rosen

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Physiology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersOffice of Naval Research
KeywordsBiologyMarine mammalBasal metabolic rateEcologyMammalPopulationBioenergeticsAllometryMetabolic rateDoubly labeled waterZoologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation PhysiologySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207