River otters (Lontra canadensis) “trapped” in a coastal environment contaminated with persistent organic pollutants: Demographic and physiological consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Productive coastal and estuarine habitats can be degraded by contaminants including persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as PCBs, dioxins, and organochlorine insecticides to the extent of official designation as contaminated sites. Top-predatory wildlife may continue to use such sites as the habitat often appears suitable, and thus bioaccumulate POPs and other contaminants with potential consequences on their health and fitness. Victoria and Esquimalt harbours are located on southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia (BC) and are federally designated contaminated sites due mainly to past heavy industrial activities, such as from shipyards and sawmills. We collected scat samples from river otters (Lontra canadensis) throughout an annual cycle, and combined chemical analysis with DNA genotyping to examine whether the harbour areas constituted a contaminant-induced ecological trap for otters. We confirmed spatial habitat use by radio telemetry of a subsample of otters. Fifteen percent of otter scat contained PCB concentrations exceeding levels considered to have adverse effects on the reproduction of mink (Neovison vison), and there were significant positive correlations between concentrations of PCBs and of thyroid (T3) and sex (progesterone) hormones in fecal samples. Radio telemetry data revealed that otters did not show directional movement away from the harbours, indicating their inability to recognize the contaminated site as a degraded habitat. However, analysis and modeling of the DNA genotyping data provided no evidence that the harbour otters formed a sink population and therefore were in an ecological trap. Despite the highly POP-contaminated habitat, river otters did not appear to be adversely impacted at the population level. Our study demonstrates the value of combining chemical and biological technologies with ecological theory to investigate practical conservation problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".