Global Marine Flyways Identified for Long‐Distance Migrating Seabirds From Tracking Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim To identify the broad‐scale oceanic migration routes (‘marine flyways’) used by multiple pelagic, long‐distance migratory seabirds based on a global compilation of tracking data. Location Global. Time Period 1989–2023. Major Taxa Studied Seabirds (Families: Phaethontidae, Hydrobatidae, Diomedeidae, Procellariidae, Laridae and Stercorariidae). Methods We collated a comprehensive global tracking dataset that included the migratory routes of 48 pelagic and long‐distance migrating seabird species across the Atlantic, Indian, Pacific and Southern Oceans. We grouped individuals that followed similar routes, independent of species or timings of migration, using a dynamic time warping clustering approach. We visualised the routes of each cluster using a line density analysis and used knowledge of seabird spatial ecology to combine the clusters to identify the broad‐scale flyways followed by most pelagic migratory seabirds tracked to‐date at an ocean‐basin scale. Results Six marine flyways were identified across the world's oceans: the Atlantic Ocean Flyway, North Indian Ocean Flyway, East Indian Ocean Flyway, West Pacific Ocean Flyway, Pacific Ocean Flyway and Southern Ocean Flyway. Generally, the flyways were used bidirectionally, and individuals either followed sections of a flyway, a complete flyway, or their movements linked two or more flyways. Transhemispheric figure‐of‐eight routes in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and a circumnavigation flyway in the Southern Ocean correspond with major wind ‐ driven ocean currents. Main Conclusions The marine flyways identified demonstrate that pelagic seabirds have similar and repeatable migration routes across ocean‐basin scales. Our study highlights the need to account for connectivity in seabird conservation and provides a framework for international cooperation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".