MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406177751 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.22719

North American river otter habitat suitability and human–wildlife coexistence on Protection Island, British Columbia, Canada

2025· article· en· W4406177751 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Caroline L. Lesage, Angela Kross, Sarah E. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsOtterWildlifeHabitatGeographyFisheryWildlife conservationEcologyWildlife managementEnvironmental protectionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Land use change and urban sprawl increase the likelihood of encounters between humans and wildlife. North American river otters (Lontra canadensis) coexist (and also conflict) with humans in many places, including on Protection Island, British Columbia, Canada. River otters are sensitive to, yet also inhabit, environments with relatively high levels of anthropogenic disturbance. From June to November 2022, we investigated the effect of anthropogenic factors on river otter use of space and behavior. We modeled the relative importance of anthropogenic (e.g., distance to buildings and roads, level of human use of docks), environmental (e.g., land cover type), and topographic (elevation) variables for habitat suitability in wild river otters on Protection Island using maximum entropy (MaxEnt) species distribution models, from 660 occurrence points collected. We conducted 178 behavioral scan samples (containing 594 observations) from direct‐observation video and motion‐triggered trail camera video to evaluate behavioral differences associated with the use of an anthropogenic habitat feature, docks (a potential attractant), and land. We found that the most suitable areas for river otters in this study were near docks (at all levels of human use), near water or wetlands (within ~25 m of the water), and had intermediate densities of driftwood. Further, our findings indicated that human activities generally did not impede otter use of space — river otters and humans were able to coexist in this semi‐urban context. Behaviors on docks differed from behaviors on land, and river otters used docks more than would be expected by chance overall, and specifically overnight, and used docks for individual and social activities. Our case study suggests that anthropogenic and environmental factors are key habitat suitability predictors for river otters, and that in populations habituated to human presence, docks may act as a habitat attractant. This case can inform conservation and management practices for river otters, other flagship species, and the ecosystems they inhabit, enhancing human–wildlife coexistence in anthropogenic landscapes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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