Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35949259›Full record

ArticleConservation physiology2022

Key questions in marine mammal bioenergetics.

Elizabeth A McHuron, Stephanie Adamczak, John P Y Arnould, Erin Ashe, Cormac Booth, W Don Bowen, Fredrik Christiansen, Magda Chudzinska, Daniel P Costa, Andreas Fahlman and 14 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Closing the air gap: the use of drones for studying wildlife ecophysiology.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors at 12 institutions in 6 countries.

Elizabeth A McHuronCooperative Institute for Climate, Ocean, and Ecosystem Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Stephanie AdamczakEcology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA.
John P Y ArnouldSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia.
Erin AsheOceans Initiative, Seattle, WA, 98102, USA.
Cormac BoothSMRU Consulting, Scottish Oceans Institute, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews KY16 8LB, UK.
W Don BowenBiology Department, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada.
Fredrik ChristiansenAarhus Institute of Advanced Studies, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Magda ChudzinskaSMRU Consulting, Scottish Oceans Institute, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews KY16 8LB, UK.
Daniel P CostaEcology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA.
Andreas FahlmanFundación Oceanogràfic de la Comunitat Valenciana, 46005 Valencia, Spain.
Nicholas A FarmerNOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, FL, 33701, USA.
Sarah M E FortuneDepartment of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada.
Cara A GallagherPlant Ecology and Nature Conservation, University of Potsdam, 14476 Potsdam, Germany.
Kelly A KeenEcology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA.
Peter T MadsenZoophysiology, Department of Biology, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Clive R McMahonIMOS Animal Tagging, Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Mosman, NSW 2088, Australia.
Jacob Nabe-NielsenDepartment of Ecoscience, Aarhus University, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark.
Dawn P NorenConservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA, 98112, USA.
Shawn R NorenInstitute of Marine Science, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, 95060, USA.
Enrico PirottaCentre for Research into Ecological and Environmental Modelling, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews KY16 9LZ, UK.
David A S RosenInstitute for Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1ZA, Canada.
Cassie N SpeakmanSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia.
Stella Villegas-AmtmannEcology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA.
Rob WilliamsOceans Initiative, Seattle, WA, 98102, USA.
University of California, Santa Cruz · USUniversity of St Andrews · GBAarhus University · DKDalhousie University · CADeakin University · AUAarhus School of Architecture · DKCooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences · USNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration · USNOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional OfficeSydney Institute of Marine Science · AUUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Potsdam · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bioenergetic approaches are increasingly used to understand how marine mammal populations could be affected by a changing and disturbed aquatic environment. There remain considerable gaps in our knowledge of marine mammal bioenergetics, which hinder the application of bioenergetic studies to inform policy decisions. We conducted a priority-setting exercise to identify high-priority unanswered questions in marine mammal bioenergetics, with an emphasis on questions relevant to conservation and management. Electronic communication and a virtual workshop were used to solicit and collate potential research questions from the marine mammal bioenergetic community. From a final list of 39 questions, 11 were identified as 'key' questions because they received votes from at least 50% of survey participants. Key questions included those related to energy intake (prey landscapes, exposure to human activities) and expenditure (field metabolic rate, exposure to human activities, lactation, time-activity budgets), energy allocation priorities, metrics of body condition and relationships with survival and reproductive success and extrapolation of data from one species to another. Existing tools to address key questions include labelled water, animal-borne sensors, mark-resight data from long-term research programs, environmental DNA and unmanned vehicles. Further validation of existing approaches and development of new methodologies are needed to comprehensively address some key questions, particularly for cetaceans. The identification of these key questions can provide a guiding framework to set research priorities, which ultimately may yield more accurate information to inform policies and better conserve marine mammal populations.

Identifiers

PMID35949259
PMCPMC9358695
OpenAlexW4290700078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.