ArticleAnimal biotelemetry2025
A behavioural approach to key area identification in seabirds for threat mitigation and spatial management.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.