MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391176787 · doi:10.3354/meps14532

Southern Ocean humpback whale trophic ecology. I. Combining multiple stable isotope methods elucidates diet, trophic position and foraging areas

2024· article· en· W4391176787 on OpenAlexaff
SJ Bury, KJ Peters, Katie St John Glew, Clive N. Trueman, MB Wunder, MRD Cobain, Natalie Schmitt, David Donnelly, Sarah Magozzi, Kylie Owen, J. C. S. Brown, Pablo C. Escobar‐Flores, Rochelle Constantine, RL O’Driscoll, Michael C. Double, Nicholas J. Gales, Simon Childerhouse, MH Pinkerton

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Ecology Progress Series · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKrillTrophic levelSouthern HemisphereFisheryBiologyAntarctic krillBaleenOceanographyEcologySeabirdRockfishPlanktonHumpback whaleTemperate climateWhalePredationFish <Actinopterygii>Geology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Southern Ocean humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae are capital breeders, breeding in the warm tropics/subtropics in the winter and migrating to nutrient-rich Antarctic feeding grounds in the summer. The classic feeding model is for the species to fast while migrating and breeding, surviving on blubber energy stores. Whilst northern hemisphere humpback whales are generalists, southern hemisphere counterparts are perceived as krill specialists, but for many populations, uncertainties remain regarding their diet and preferred feeding locations. This study used bulk and compound-specific stable isotope analyses and isoscape-based feeding location assignments to assess the diet, trophic ecology and likely feeding areas of humpback whales sampled in the Ross Sea region and around the Balleny Islands. Sampled whales had a mixed diet of plankton, krill and fish, similar to the diet of northern hemisphere humpback whales. Proportions of fish consumed varied but were often high (2-60%), thus challenging the widely held paradigm of Southern Ocean humpback whales being exclusive krill feeders. These whales had lower 15 N values and trophic position estimates than their northern hemisphere counterparts, likely due to lower Southern Ocean baseline 15 N surface water values and a lower percentage consumption of fish, respectively. Most whales fed in the Ross Sea shelf/slope and Balleny Islands high-productivity regions, but some isotopically distinct whales (mostly males) fed at higher trophic levels either around the Balleny Islands and frontal upwelling areas to the north, or en route to Antarctica in temperate waters off southern Australia and New Zealand. These results support other observations of humpback whales feeding during migration, highlighting the species’ dietary plasticity, which may increase their foraging and breeding success and provide them with greater resilience to anthropogenically mediated ecological change. This study highlights the importance of combining in situ field data with regional-scale isoscapes to reliably assess trophic structure and animal feeding locations, and to better inform ecosystem conservation and management of marine protected areas.

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)0.000
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Ecology Progress SeriesSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207