Modeling and mapping isotopic patterns in the Northwest Atlantic derived from loggerhead sea turtles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stable isotope analysis can be used to infer geospatial linkages of highly migratory species. Identifying foraging grounds of marine organisms from their isotopic signatures is becoming de rigueur as it has been with terrestrial organisms. Sea turtles are being increasingly studied using a combination of satellite telemetry and stable isotope analysis; these studies along with those from other charismatic, highly vagile, and widely distributed species (e.g., tuna, billfish, sharks, dolphins, whales) have the potential to yield large datasets to develop methodologies to decipher migratory pathways in the marine realm. We collected tissue samples (epidermis and red blood cells) for carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) stable isotope analysis from 214 individual loggerheads (Caretta caretta) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean (NWA). We used discriminant function analysis (DFA) to examine how well δ13C and δ15N classify loggerhead foraging areas. The DFA model was derived from isotopic signatures of 58 loggerheads equipped with satellite tags to identify foraging locations. We assessed model accuracy with the remaining 156 untracked loggerheads that were captured at their foraging locations. The DFA model correctly identified the foraging ground of 93.0% of individuals with a probability greater than 66.7%. The results of the external validation (1) confirm that assignment models based on tracked loggerheads in the NWA are robust and (2) provide the first independent evidence supporting the use of these models for migratory marine organisms. Additionally, we used these data to generate loggerhead‐specific δ13C and δ15N isoscapes, the first for a predator in the Atlantic Ocean. We found a latitudinal trend of δ13C values with higher values in the southern region (20–25 °N) and a more complex pattern with δ15N, with intermediate latitudes (30–35 °N) near large coastal estuaries having higher δ15N‐enrichment. These results indicate that this method with further refinement may provide a viable, more spatially‐explicit option for identifying loggerhead foraging grounds.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".