MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402402046 · doi:10.1111/gcb.17490

Males miss and females forgo: Auditory masking from vessel noise impairs foraging efficiency and success in killer whales

2024· article· en· W4402402046 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer B. Tennessen, Marla M. Holt, Brianna Wright, M. Bradley Hanson, Candice K. Emmons, Deborah A. Giles, J Hogan, Sheila J. Thornton, Volker B. Deecke

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaOffice of ScienceUniversity of British ColumbiaNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNorthwest Fisheries Science CenterUniversity of Cumbria
KeywordsForagingHuman echolocationPredationMarine ecosystemOddsNoise (video)BiologyEcologyMasking (illustration)WhaleMarine mammalFisheryEnvironmental scienceEcosystemComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding how the environment mediates an organism's ability to meet basic survival requirements is a fundamental goal of ecology. Vessel noise is a global threat to marine ecosystems and is increasing in intensity and spatiotemporal extent due to growth in shipping coupled with physical changes to ocean soundscapes from ocean warming and acidification. Odontocetes rely on biosonar to forage, yet determining the consequences of vessel noise on foraging has been limited by the challenges of observing underwater foraging outcomes and measuring noise levels received by individuals. To address these challenges, we leveraged a unique acoustic and movement dataset from 25 animal-borne biologging tags temporarily attached to individuals from two populations of fish-eating killer whales (Orcinus orca) in highly transited coastal waters to (1) test for the effects of vessel noise on foraging behaviors-searching (slow-click echolocation), pursuit (buzzes), and capture and (2) investigate the mechanism of interference. For every 1 dB increase in maximum noise level, there was a 4% increase in the odds of searching for prey by both sexes, a 58% decrease in the odds of pursuit by females and a 12.5% decrease in the odds of prey capture by both sexes. Moreover, all but one deep (≥75 m) foraging attempt with noise ≥110 dB re 1 μPa (15-45 kHz band; n = 6 dives by n = 4 whales) resulted in failed prey capture. These responses are consistent with an auditory masking mechanism. Our findings demonstrate the effects of vessel noise across multiple phases of odontocete foraging, underscoring the importance of managing anthropogenic inputs into soundscapes to achieve conservation objectives for acoustically sensitive species. While the timescales for recovering depleted prey species may span decades, these findings suggest that complementary actions to reduce ocean noise in the short term offer a critical pathway for recovering odontocete foraging opportunities.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.284
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

Citations27
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Change BiologySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207