Predicting Seabird Foraging Habitat for Conservation Planning in Atlantic Canada: Integrating Telemetry and Survey Data Across Thousands of Colonies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conservation of mobile organisms is difficult in the absence of detailed information about movement and habitat use. While the miniaturization of tracking devices has eased the collection of such information, it remains logistically and financially difficult to track a wide range of species across a large geographic scale. Predictive distribution models can be used to fill this gap by integrating both telemetry and census data to construct distribution maps and inform conservation goals and planning. We used tracking data from 520 individuals of 14 seabird species in Atlantic Canada to first compare foraging range and distance to shorelines among species across colonies, and then developed tree-based machine-learning models to predict foraging distributions for more than 5000 breeding sites distributed along more than 5000 km of shoreline. Despite large variability in foraging ranges among species, tracking data revealed clusters of species using similar foraging habitats (e.g., nearshore vs. offshore foragers), and within species, foraging range was highly colony-specific. Even with this variability, distance from the nesting colony was an important predictor of distribution for nearly all species, while distance from coastlines and bathymetry (slope and ruggedness) were additional important predictors for some species. Overall, we demonstrated the utility of tree-based machine-learning approach when modeling tracking data to predict distributions at un-sampled colonies. Although tracking and colony data have some shortcomings (e.g., fewer data for some species), where results need to be interpreted with care in some cases, applying methods for modeling breeding season distributions of seabirds allows for broader-scale conservation assessment. The modeled distributions can be used in decisions about planning for offshore recreation and commercial activities and to inform conservation planning at regional scales.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".