Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40936416›Full record

ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2025

Incorporating fine-scale behaviors into habitat suitability modeling: A case study for sea turtles.

Jenna L Hounslow, Sabrina Fossette, Arnold van Rooijen, Anton D Tucker, Scott D Whiting, Adrian C Gleiss

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Incorporating fine-scale behaviors into habitat suitability modeling: A case study for sea turtles.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jenna L HounslowCentre for Sustainable Aquatic Ecosystems, Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6750-9085
Sabrina FossetteBiodiversity and Conservation Science, Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Kensington, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8580-9084
Arnold van RooijenUWA Oceans Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5013-2592
Anton D Tucker *Biodiversity and Conservation Science, Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Kensington, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2318-7819
Scott D WhitingBiodiversity and Conservation Science, Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Kensington, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3339-9559
Adrian C GleissCentre for Sustainable Aquatic Ecosystems, Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9960-2858

Funding

Australian GovernmentDepartment of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions 18841Ecological Society of Australia 20447
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Habitat suitability models (HSMs) are popular statistical tools used to inform decision-making for conservation planning, using species location data to characterize species-environment relationships and identify important habitats. Suitable habitats may vary according to behavior-specific resource requirements (e.g., foraging, resting), yet HSMs generally ignore behavior because obtaining spatially explicit behavioral data from wild animals is challenging. As such, suitable habitats may be incorrectly identified, and processes determining habitat selection may be misinterpreted. Despite offering unprecedented behavioral insight, contemporary multi-sensor biologgers remain underutilized in this context. We incorporated behavior into HSMs using biologging data collected from adult flatback turtles Natator depressus (n = 42) at a macrotidal study site in Western Australia and subsequently identified and characterized suitable habitat for key in-water behaviors. Foraging and resting locations derived from high-resolution motion sensor data (e.g., accelerometer, magnetometer) coupled with animal-borne video and GPS data were combined with 10 environmental features (i.e., bathymetry, aspect, slope, terrain ruggedness, distance from the coast and currents from a bespoke hydrodynamic model of the study site). A series of random forest HSMs were implemented for each behavior, accounting for temporal variation in habitat use. Bathymetry, distance from the coast, and currents best determined both foraging and resting suitability, with observed differences in habitat selection between behaviors. Overall, spatiotemporal patterns of most suitable foraging and resting habitat were similar, with shallow (10-15 m deep) nearshore (5-10 km from the coast) waters most suitable for both behaviors; however, habitats nearest to the coast (<5 km) were more suitable for foraging than resting. Overall, for foraging and resting, as water level increased turtles selected increasingly nearshore habitats where current speed was low and more variable direction. Overlap between most suitable habitats and current spatial zoning at the study site varied both seasonally and with water level, likely reflecting strong tidal influence on distribution and hence highlighting considerable opportunity for dynamic management. Our approach facilitates mechanistic insight into habitat selection and is generalizable across behaviors, taxa, and study systems, advancing the application of biologging tools to enhance the utility of HSMs and providing crucial context for decision-makers in threatened species management.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalEcosystemModels, BiologicalTurtlesAnimalsWestern Australiaanimal‐borne videobiologgingconservation planningflatback turtlemacrotidal embaymentmarine turtlespatial managementsupervised machine learning

Identifiers

PMID40936416
PMCPMC12426729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.