Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41180349›Full record

ArticleAnimal biotelemetry2025

A behavioural approach to key area identification in seabirds for threat mitigation and spatial management.

Hannah Wood, Emma J Tebbs, Robin Freeman, Mark Bolton, Ian R Cleasby, Francis Daunt, Jonathan A Green, Mark A Newell, Stephen F Newton, Ellie Owen and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal biotelemetry, 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. 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

12 authors.

Hannah WoodDepartment of Geography, King's College London, Bush House, North East Wing, 40 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4BG UK.ORCID 0009-0007-2152-7310
Emma J TebbsDepartment of Geography, King's College London, Bush House, North East Wing, 40 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4BG UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0575-1236
Robin FreemanInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, London, NW1 4RY UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0560-8942
Mark BoltonRSPB Centre for Conservation Science, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5605-687X
Ian R CleasbyRSPB Centre for Conservation Science, North Scotland Regional Office, Inverness, IV2 3BW UK.
Francis DauntUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0QB UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4638-3388
Jonathan A GreenSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GP UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8692-0163
Mark A NewellUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0QB UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8875-2642
Stephen F NewtonBirdWatch Ireland, 20D Bullford Business Campus, Kilcoole, County Wicklow, A63 RW83 Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-6195-3858
Ellie OwenNational Trust for Scotland, Balnain House, 40 Huntly Street, Inverness, IV3 5HR UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2073-2420
Alice M TrevailEnvironment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6459-5213
Catharine HorswillInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, London, NW1 4RY UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1795-0753

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Identifying key areas of animal distribution using individual movement data is fundamental for conservation planning, threat mitigation, and spatial management. Methodologies which define these areas based on measures of high density and abundance may overlook spatial heterogeneity in behaviour-specific distributions. This is particularly relevant for behaviours that occur at lower densities but are associated with increased exposure to specific environmental threats. We used a dataset of 566 GPS tracked individuals and 14 colonies of a vulnerable species of seabird, the black-legged kittiwake ( Results: We found that individual-level kernel density estimates based on core areas of all movement data fail to adequately capture the core distribution of transiting, a widespread and dispersed behaviour. Moreover, population-level estimates of key areas derived from transiting behaviour are significantly larger than those identified using all tracking data, suggesting that conventional methods likely underestimate exposure to threats encountered during transit. Conversely, key areas for resting and foraging behaviour are more spatially constrained than those derived from all movement data, implying that behaviour-specific analyses may improve the precision of conservation planning. Both individual and population-level key area estimates based on larger utilisation distributions (i.e. 75% and 95%) better capture the distribution of transiting behaviour as these larger distributions probabilistically encompass a greater fraction of observed movement trajectories. Conclusion: These results highlight the importance of labelling movement data by behavioural state to enhance the utility of GPS data for conservation applications. By incorporating behavioural state differentiation into spatial analyses, threat exposure assessments can be refined to focus conservation resources more effectively. Furthermore, this approach has direct implications for environmental impact assessments, particularly in the context of expanding marine industries such as offshore renewable energy developments. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40317-025-00427-z.

Indexed as

Animal distributionBiotelemetryConservation planningHidden Markov modelKernel density estimates

Identifiers

PMID41180349
PMCPMC12576929

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.