A comparative analysis of life-history features and adaptive strategies of Arctic and subarctic seal species—who will win the climate change challenge?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding and predicting species range shifts is crucial for conservation amid global warming. This study analyzes life-history traits of four seal species (ringed ( Pusa hispida (Schreber, 1775)), bearded ( Erignathus barbatus (Erxleben, 1777)), harp ( Pagophilus groenlandicus (Erxleben, 1777)), and harbour ( Phoca vitulina Linnaeus, 1758) seals) in the Canadian Arctic using data from Inuit subsistence harvests. Bearded seals are largest, followed by harp seals, harbour seals, and ringed seals. Seasonal blubber depth patterns show minimal variation in bearded seals, whereas harbour and ringed seals accumulate fat in open-water seasons and use it during ice-covered seasons. Endemic Arctic seals (ringed and bearded) exhibit greater longevity and determinate body growth, reaching maximum size by 5 years, while harbour and harp seals grow indeterminately, physically maturing around 10–15 years. Age of maturation varies, with ringed and harbour seals being more sensitive to environmental fluctuations. Most bearded seals reproduce successfully each year, while ringed seals exhibit more variability in their annual reproductive success. Analysis of isoprenoid lipids in liver tissue indicates that ringed and bearded seals rely on ice-algal production, whereas harp and harbour seals depend on open-water phytoplankton production. Bearded seals appear more specialized and potentially face less competition, while harp seals may adapt better to changing habitats. Despite expected range shifts to higher latitudes, all species exhibit trade-offs, complicating predictions for the evolving Arctic environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".