MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942737938 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2018-0289

A molecular approach to identifying the relationship between resource use and availability in Eurasian otters (<i>Lutra</i><i> lutra</i>)

2019· article· en· W2942737938 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeong‐Soo Gim, Hyo Gyeom Kim, Phil Cowan, Gea‐Jae Joo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsLutraOtterBiologyFisheryPredationForagingCarnivoreEcologyFaunaMustelidaePredatory fishZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In South Korea, the Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra (Linnaeus, 1758)), a semi-aquatic carnivore, is found mainly in lower order streams that tend to have a low abundance of preferred prey fish species. To investigate the relationship between resource use and availability, we used DNA barcoding to identify otter diet items in 24 otter spraints (faeces) from 16 sites along the Nakdong River basin from 4 to 6 June 2014. At these sites fish availability was assessed using scoop nets and casting nets. Fish formed the bulk of otter diet, which included also frogs, mammals, and reptiles. By DNA barcoding (success rate: 72.38%), we identified 79 prey items from 105 bone remains. The diet comprised mostly fish, but frogs, mammals, and reptiles were also identified. The fish fauna and otter diet composition differed significantly. Across the study sites, members of the Cyprinidae dominated in netted samples, but occurred less frequently in otter diet. Because most Cyprinidae are fast swimmers, otters also fed on benthic fishes and frogs, suggesting limited foraging flexibility in otters and specialization on more slowly moving prey.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207