MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136070266 · doi:10.2193/2005-697

Unveiling the Limitations of Scat Surveys to Monitor Social Species: A Case Study on River Otters

2007· article· en· W2136070266 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Daniel Gallant, Liette Vasseur, Céline H. Bérubé

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityUniversité de Moncton
FundersParks Canada
KeywordsOtterAbundance (ecology)EcologyGeographyPopulationTransectMustelidaeRiparian zoneNational parkHabitatEnvironmental scienceBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: We examined the relationship between the production of sites with feces (i.e., latrines) and river otter ( Lontra canadensis ) abundance to determine whether scat surveys were adequate for monitoring relative population size for species leaving activity signs in a clumped distribution on the landscape. We conducted winter riparian transects to simultaneously monitor otter abundance via snow tracks and latrine sites along the rivers of Kouchibouguac National Park and surrounding area in New Brunswick, Canada. Our data showed that latrine abundance poorly reflected otter abundance for given stretches of rivers because the relationship was nonlinear and reached a plateau. The number of latrine sites was not related to the time period since last snowfall, which indicated that otters repetitively defecated at the same sites. Individual otters and groups did not produce activity signs over larger distances as a function of time, which indicated that they tend to stay in their home ranges in winter. We discuss why scat survey protocols based on determining presence—absence of a species at predetermined search sites may poorly reflect population size, as well as population fluctuations in time. Caution is advised when interpreting data from such surveys for species for which feces or other activity signs surveyed play a role in intraspecific communication and tend to be in a clumped distribution on the landscape.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations42
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207