Tracking animal movements via collaborative acoustic telemetry networks: Multiscale habitat use, phenology, and management insights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estuaries support diverse fish and invertebrate communities, including resident species that rely on estuarine habitats year-round and transient migratory species. The unique movement patterns of these animals connect habitats within and far beyond the estuary and are integrally linked to fisheries management objectives. With a focus on Chesapeake Bay, this study leveraged data from collaborative acoustic telemetry networks in the northwest Atlantic to assess habitat use and phenology of movements for seven species of fish (cownose rays, dusky sharks, smooth dogfish, alewife, striped bass, common carp, and blue catfish) and one invertebrate (horseshoe crabs). A total of 288 acoustically tagged individuals were detected >3.2 million times (6,743 to 2,095,717 detections per species) on receivers across ~20.5 degrees of latitude spanning the North American Atlantic seaboard from Florida, USA, to New Brunswick, Canada. Common metrics of movement and phenology grouped these species as resident (common carp, blue catfish, horseshoe crabs), primarily resident in estuaries (juvenile striped bass), and coastal migrant (cownose rays, dusky sharks, smooth dogfish, alewife); maximum distance traveled varied by three orders of magnitude among these species. Further analysis of phenology for coastal migrants elucidated the timing and duration of these species' use of Chesapeake Bay. Collectively, movements linked habitats within Chesapeake Bay and connected the estuary to coastal ecosystems both to the north (e.g., alewife) and south (e.g., cownose rays), creating networks of fisheries management jurisdictions that varied in complexity and identified opportunities for enhancement to current management or co-management of some species. Our results elucidate the importance of estuaries to species with diverse movement behaviors, identify scales and pathways of habitat connectivity via animal movements, and highlight the utility of collaborative acoustic telemetry networks for quantifying movements relevant to both ecological research and fisheries management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".