Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 14;15(8):e0236631. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236631

Citizen science for predicting spatio-temporal patterns in seabird abundance during migration

Beatriz Martín 1,*,#, Alejandro Onrubia 1,#, Julio González-Arias 2,‡, Juan A Vicente-Vírseda 2,‡
Editor: Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva3
PMCID: PMC7428152  PMID: 32797051

Abstract

Pelagic seabirds are elusive species which are difficult to observe, thus determining their spatial distribution during the migration period is a difficult task. Here we undertook the first long-term study on the distribution of migrating shearwaters from data gathered within the framework of citizen science projects. Specifically, we collected daily abundance (only abundance given presence) of Balearic shearwaters from 2005 to 2017 from the online databases Trektellen and eBird. We applied machine-learning techniques, specifically Random Forest regression models, to predict shearwater abundance during migration using 15 environmental predictors. We built separated models for pre-breeding and post-breeding migration. When evaluated for the total data sample, the models explained more than 52% of the variation in shearwater abundance. The models also showed good ability to predict shearwater distributions for both migration periods (correlation between observed and predicted abundance was about 70%). However, relative variable importance and variation among the models built with different training data subsamples differed between migration periods. Our results showed that data gathered in citizen science initiatives together with recently available high-resolution satellite imagery, can be successfully applied to describe the migratory spatio-temporal patterns of seabird species accurately. We show that a predictive modelling approach may offer a powerful and cost-effective tool for the long-term monitoring of the migratory patterns in sensitive marine species, as well as to identify at sea areas relevant for their protection. Modelling approaches can also be essential tools to detect the impacts of climate and other global changes in this and other species within the range of the training data.

Introduction

Many seabirds are upper trophic level consumers that can be used as indicators of the status and change of pelagic ecosystems [1]. Seabirds are also relevant species from a conservation perspective. They are one of the most threatened groups of marine vertebrates, partly because they are highly mobile. Migratory seabirds are particularly susceptible to a large number of stressors, given the variety of habitats they use throughout their year-cycle [2]. Studies on migration and at sea distribution of pelagic seabirds have received significant attention in recent years, but there is still a gap in the knowledge on migration and at sea distribution in many of these species [3]. As other migratory species, seabirds may stopover during the journey, although the exact location of these intermediate steps is frequently unknown [4]. Stopovers are key sites and conditions experienced by seabirds in this areas can affect individual survival undermining the population size [3]. Therefore, conservation efforts should address not only wintering and breeding grounds, but the en-route locations during migration [5].

However, pelagic seabirds are elusive species which are difficult to observe, thus determining their spatial distribution during the migration period is a difficult task [4, 6]. Ringing recoveries and ocean sightings are useful for identifying very general movement patterns, but they are not enough to determine stopover areas, which are of main importance for understanding the migratory patterns as well as to inform conservation planning at sea [7, 8]. The continuous technical development of electronic devices for tracking animal movements (such as geolocators, GPSs, and PTT devices) have contributed to the knowledge on the at-sea distribution of many seabird species [9, 10]. However, even with good sample sizes, tracking data may not represent the full species migratory range due to the variety of migratory strategies at colony- and individual levels [7, 8, 11]. Therefore, important stopover areas and foraging grounds for a given species may not be identified. This is particularly true for long-lived species, such as many seabirds, which have a great capacity to alter migratory behavior in response to environmental variability [7] and in relation to specific individual traits such as age, sex or breeding colony [12, 13]. Consequently, electronic devices, even providing very detailed information on individual seabird’s movements, have a limited ability to improve our understanding of the adaptation of migration strategies to deal with a changing environment at both population and species levels [14, 15]. In contrast, census methods do not allow to detect birds when they use areas out of human sight, but they can provide a valuable overall picture despite the missing information on the age and the colony where the bird breeds.

In this sense, the active public involvement in scientific research (i.e., citizen science) has become a key source of high-quality data for scientists and policymakers [16]. Among others, citizen science projects have enabled researchers to obtain a comprehensive picture of habitat use in many different species [17, 18]. These citizen science projects provide millions of species observations each year [19, 20]. But there are concerns regarding the scientific use of citizen science data [21]. For instance, data collected by volunteers is assumed to be less accurate than data collected professionally, although the few studies that compare the precision of volunteer and professional data did not conclusively show this fact [22]. However, it seems clear that, without proper standardized survey protocols and volunteer training, volunteer data may be highly variable in terms of precision (e.g., errors in species identification or biases in count estimates, uneven sampling effort, both in terms of temporal and spatial coverage, among others). In contrast to these caveats, as compared with the detailed data gathered from electronic devices, the massive datasets from citizen science projects have the advantage of offering low-cost information on long-term temporal and large spatial extents from many different individuals belonging to several populations (e.g., [23]). Prominent electronic citizen science data bases in terms of number of users include eBird [24] and Trektellen [25]. These two biodiversity-related citizen science projects gather records of birds provided by professional and amateur ornithologists around the world. Although eBird is a common data source used by scientist all over the world, Trektellen datasets, specifically addressing migratory bird counts, have remained unexploited by the scientific community to the best of our knowledge.

The Balearic shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus) only breeds from February to June in the Balearic Islands (Spain) and it is considered as critically endangered [26]. Balearic shearwaters spend about one quarter of the year on migration [13]. To date, the existing scientific knowledge on the Balearic shearwater migration is based on two studies using geolocation archival tags conducted on colonies located in the same archipielago: (i) 26 individuals from the large breeding colony in Mallorca (ca. 200 breeding pairs), tracked between 2010–2011 [13], data (ii) on 16 individuals breeding in Eivissa Island (with 310 pairs estimated) monitored during 2011–2012 [15]. Additional surveys using ship transects along the coast of the western Iberian Peninsula from 2004 to 2009 [27], and land- and boat-based surveys in 2007–2010 [14] have also provided partial information on the at-sea distribution of this species during the non-breeding season (July-January). Yet, these studies showed that areas used by shearwaters may change from year to year in relation to interannual variability in the environmental conditions [13, 14], as well as among different breeding colonies [15]. Moreover, with an estimated global population of over 25,000 individuals, according to counts at sea [28], unused areas not detected in these studies may be relevant for other Balearic shearwater populations [29].

During migration, Balearic shearwaters occur in relatively shallow, coastal waters along the shoreline, allowing their observation from land-based sites [28, 30]. Therefore, citizen science projects recording Balearic shearwaters from the coast may provide useful records for the monitoring of this species along its migratory route, completing the partial picture offered by geolocators [13, 15] and vessel surveys [14, 27]. Together with citizen science projects, there is an increasing availability of large-scale environmental data (e.g., satellite imagery), which can be used to predict species distributions over large areas.

Modelling techniques based on these datasets can be used to predict the distribution of the Balearic shearwaters along the coast to identify the most likely marine habitats used during migration, both over time and across space [31]. In contrast to models predicting animal occurrence (such as Species Distribution Models -SDMs-; [32]) studies trying to model estimates of relative abundance have been much less common (but see [27]), even when data are acquired through systematic surveys. Moreover, approaches modelling abundance given only presence have received little attention in Ecological Modelling [33].

We undertook a multi-year study of the spatio-temporal patterns in Balearic shearwater abundance (specifically abundance given only presence) during migration using data gathered within eBird [24] and Trektellen [25]. Particularly, we aimed to: (1) determine general regional environmental predictors driving spatial use during migration, (2) assess whether these variables differ between pre-breeding (September to December) and post-breeding migration and moult (May-August), and (3) determine possible trends in the migratory spatial patterns by identifying latitudinal changes along the migration route in relation to environmental variables.

Materials and methods

Study species

The Baleraric shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus) is included as ‘Critically Endangered’ on the IUCN Red List [26] and it is also considered as threatened bird for the European Union (i.e., rare or vulnerable bird species as listed in Annex I of the E.U. Bird Directive). Most of the population of Balearic shearwater leaves the Mediterranean each year after breeding [13] and mostly remains in the Atlantic during the non-breeding season [34]. At sea, it usually occurs in productive shelf areas related to oceanographic frontal systems [15, 27, 35]. During migration, Balearic shearwaters tend to fly very close to the shoreline [28], with an average off-shore distance of about 1,190 m at the Strait of Gibraltar [36]. Fluctuations in Balearic shearwater migration, both seasonally and inter-annually, seem to be related to changes in food resources [14, 37]. Balearic shearwater’s diet includes small pelagic but also demersal fish, frequently obtained from trawling discards. The species can eventually feed on plankton and macrozooplankton, specifically krill [38, 39].

The extent of the study area (Fig 1) covers the whole distribution range of the Balearic shearwater throughout the year [26].

Fig 1. Balearic shearwater observations.

Fig 1

Spatial distribution of observations of Balearic shearwaters considered in the analysis. a) pre-breeding migration (n = 7,492); b) post-breeding migration (n = 4,690). Period 2005–2017. Symbols are proportional to the total number of sightings in each spatial location. Orange: breeding range, blue: non-breeding distribution; areas darker in colour: common presence, areas lighter in colour: scarce presence; from [34].

Model variables

Abundance of shearwaters

Daily abundance of the species was recorded from 1964 to 2018, both as opportunistic sighting records and within systematic effort-based surveys (i.e., with an standardized duration of the sampling effort) obtained from the online databases Trektellen [25] and eBird [40]. Only records attributed to Balearic shearwaters were analysed. Balearic shearwater generates much attention both from amateur and expert ornithologists thus, it is usually well-known species and correctly identified when sighted. Due to the opportunistic nature of some of these data, we needed powerful modelling techniques to obtain robust results (see below). Although it was possible to differentiate opportunistic and systematic surveys within the dataset, we opted for keeping all records for our analysis in order to test the robustness of the modelling approach in case our methods will be extended to other species for which this information is not available. Since some records contained in Trektellen database may be also included in eBird, based on date and spatial location, we avoid duplicated observations between databases. From Trektellen database, according to the migratory range of the study species, we specifically obtained observations from 123 sighting points in France, Portugal, Spain and UK, from 2005 to 2018, counting 7,619 different observations and totaling 378,112 birds. Regarding eBird records, there are not fixed sighting points, although we obtained data on 258,730 birds observed in 8,244 different records from 1964 to 2018. However, to ensure the maximum seasonal representation of the dataset to be analysed (see S1 Fig in S1 File), from this total sample of birds, we only modelled data collected during the migration period from 2005 to 2017 (see Results). We defined migratory periods based on the known phenology of the Balearic shearwater. Specifically, we considered ‘post-breeding migration’, the northward migration of birds leaving the Mediterranean and molt, between May 1st—August 30th, and ‘pre-breeding migration’, corresponding to the southward migration of birds from the Atlantic and returning to the breeding areas in the Mediterranean, from September to December [41, 42]. Birds at their breeding grounds in the Balearic Islands (i.e., birds observed at land) were removed from the data sample.

Response variable and environmental predictors

Our response variable was Balearic shearwater abundance (i.e., only abundance given presence thus, absence of abundance -i.e., zeros- was not considered in the analysis) [33], expressed as the number of birds sighted on a given date at a given latitude / longitude, during migration. Shearwater abundance was modelled using 15 environmental predictors (Table 1, see S1 File) that have been previously described to be related with the spatial distribution at sea of this and other seabird species [4, 14, 27, 39–44].

Table 1. Description of environmental predictors.
Name Description unit Source Period
batim bathymetry meters EMODnet (European Marine Observation and Data Network) 2012
fish fishing intensity number of vessels JRC Data Catalogue; “Automatic Identification System” (AIS) 2014–2015
tmmean mean temperature ° K NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis dataset (NOAA ESRL Physical Sciences Division) 1964–2018
tmstd standard deviation of mean temperature ° K NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis dataset (NOAA ESRL Physical Sciences Division) 1964–2018
uwmean mean wind speed (u-wind: east-west direction) m/s NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis dataset (NOAA ESRL Physical Sciences Division) 1964–2018
uwstd standard deviation of mean wind speed (u-wind: east-west direction) m/s NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis dataset (NOAA ESRL Physical Sciences Division) 1964–2018
vwmean mean wind speed (v-wind: north-south direction) m/s NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis dataset (NOAA ESRL Physical Sciences Division) 1964–2018
vwstd standard deviation of mean wind speed (v-wind: north-south direction) m/s NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis dataset (NOAA ESRL Physical Sciences Division) 1964–2018
clorof chlorophyll concentration mg m-3 JRC Data Catalogue; MERIS 2004–2017
NAO NAO index - Climate Prediction Center (US National Weather Service, NOAA) 1950–2018
moon daily fraction of the moon illuminated at midnight % U.S Naval Observatory & Astronomical Applications Department 2005–2018

In addition to the previous environmental variables, as discrete variables predicting shearwater abundance we also considered spatial coordinates (longitude and latitude), as well as date (i.e., julian date) and year of the observation for explicitly modelling seasonal and interannual variation in shearwater abundance, respectively. Fluctuations in seabird abundance during migration are closely related to changes in food resources (see Supplementary Methods in S1 File). However, photoperiodic cues and/or endogenous rhythms may also modulate seabird breeding and migration periods [43]. Therefore, apart from food availability, migration decisions in Balearic shearwaters might be partially dictated by daylength and/or an internal rhythm making the bird instinctively moving into the west-north, as long as the post-breeding season progresses, and then into the south-east during the pre-breeding period. In this sense, date, longitude and latitude variables allow us to include in the models the endogenous rhythm of the bird. In addition, longitude and latitude can be indirect proxies of the effects that variable wintering sites, length of the route and en-route environmental conditions may pose to different migrant shearwaters. Finally, due to potential differences in the rates of change of the environmental predictors across space, interactions between predictors and “latitude” and longitude, and between “year” and “latitude”, may allow to quantify both the spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the migratory responses.

Statistical analysis

To avoid collinearity, from the total set of environmental predictors the correlation between pairs of variables (i.e., Pearson correlation coefficient) was assessed (see Supplementary results in the S1 File).

We applied machine-learning techniques to predict shearwater abundance, specifically Random Forest regression models. This choice was based on a previous assessment of eight different modelling techniques carried out on the same dataset [44]. Specifically, Generalized Additive Models (GAM), Classification and Regression Trees (CART), Bootstrap Aggregation (bagged CART), Extreme Gradient Boosting, Stochastic Gradient Boosting, K Nearest Neighbours (KNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Multilayer perceptron Neural Network (MLP). Comparisons among modelling techniques were based on the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE; the average difference between the observed known values of the outcome and the predicted value by the model), and on the amount of variation explained (R2), measured as the mean-squared error, divided by the variance of the original observations [45]):

R2=1-∑i(yi-yi^)2∑i(yi-yi-)2

RMSE and R2 values were derived from a cross-validation procedure after randomly splitting the abundance data into training and test data (setting aside 20% of the data for testing the models). Although the differences between models were not always statistically significant at a Bonferroni corrected p-level, the assessment of all these modelling techniques showed that Random Forest performed better in terms of RMSE [46], R2 and in terms of the correlation between observed and predicted abundance. Therefore, we used packages caret [47] and randomForest [48] in R [49] to build Random Forest models in the present study. We built separated models for pre-breeding and post-breeding migration. As usual in count data, abundance of shearwaters followed a Poisson distribution [50]. Although there is a lack of assumptions in the distribution of the data in Random Forest models, when we use an approach based on decision trees such as this where data partitioning is applied, we can obtain better results if we model a dependent variable homogenously distributed, because the model dispersion increases as long as the variable increases. Therefore, prior to build our models, we log-transformed (i.e., natural log) the abundance data. This transformation increased the variance explained by the models (from 38% to 52.55% during pre-breeding, and from 30.79% to 52.89% in the case of the post-breeding best-fit models; see Results). All the random forest trees were built using the total set of predictors described in Table 1.

Any random forest model apply bagging (i.e., bootstrap aggregating) to sub-sample the data that are used for training, thus each new tree is fit from a bootstrap sample of the training observations zi = (xi,yi). We assessed the performance of our models based on the accuracy of predictions derived from the Out- of-bag (OOB) error [46]. The OOB error is the average error for each zi calculated using predictions from the trees that do not contain zi in their respective bootstrap sample [51]. This allows the model to be fit and validated whilst being trained, thus no additional cross-validation was required. On the other hand, Random Forest has hyperparameters that must be tuned to avoid overfitting. To determine the parameter values offering the best fit, we specified a set of tuning values to be tested during the calibration of the models. Specifically, we applied a grid search method, thus we evaluated the model over different combinations of parameters included in the grid (values ranging between 1–15, at one-unit intervals). When bagging the number of samples and hence the number of trees is also a parameter to be selected. The optimal number of trees in the models was determined from a range between 100 and 500 trees in such a way that the algorithm increases the number of trees on run after run until the accuracy does not significantly improve. To identify the model with the optimal parameter combination and number of trees (i.e., offering the best fit) we compared the RMSE values of the models [46]. As an additional assessment of the models, we quantified the amount of variation explained (R2), as a measure of how well out-of-bag predictions explained the target variance. The differences in RMSE and R2 between pre-breeding and post-breeding models were measured as the lagged and iterated differences over the model resamples in the bagging procedure.

To evaluate how well the models were able to predict the test set outcomes, we randomly split the abundance data into training and test data subsets by setting aside 20% of the data for testing the models [52]. Additional models were then calibrated on the training data and then evaluated on the test data. Specifically, we quantified to what extent the abundance in test data agreed with the model predicted abundance by means of the Pearson correlation coefficient.

Relative importance of the variables used for predicting shearwater abundance was assessed by means of the number of trees where the variable was included and the minimal depth of the variable in the tree (package randomForestExplainer in R). Minimal depth allows to determine variable importance by the position of the variables in the decision trees in such a way that the importance of the variable is based on the decision tree structure. In this way, variables that tend to split close to the root node of a tree should have more importance in prediction [53]. Relative importance, as well as total variance explained, were derived from models built with the total dataset (both training and testing).

As an example of the potential marine areas that can be identified from the models, we predicted shearwater abundance across the study area on the fifteenth of the month, from May to December, based on the environmental conditions during 2017.

Results

An exploratory analysis of the data (see S1 Fig in S1 File) showed that observations of Balearic shearwaters contained in the databases preceding the year 2005 and collected during 2018 were insufficient to model daily patterns during the migration periods. After the removal of data recorded before 2005 and after 2017, 7,492 and 4,690 observations (i.e., rows in the data matrix) remained for the pre-breeding and post-breeding migration periods, with a total of 233,863 birds during pre-breeding and 151,782 during post-breeding, respectively. These observations covered the entire non-breeding range of the species (Fig 1).

After inspection of collinearity (i.e., significant Pearson correlation coefficient between pairs of variables), we did not find highly correlated variables (r<0.3 for the total set of environmental predictors in Table 1; see S2 Fig in S1 File), thus all the predictors considered in the initial set were kept for model selection.

According to the results derived from the bagging procedure, there was substantial variation among models built with different training data subsamples (measured as 95% confidence interval) in terms of RMSE and R2, particularly during the post-breeding migration (Fig 2). The estimates of the differences between pre-breeding and post-breeding models (i.e., lagged and iterated differences over the model resamples), even though small, show that the accuracy (RMSE) of the pre-breeding model was 3% significantly larger compared with the post-breeding model (Bonferroni’s p-value adjustment < 0.01; p-value for H0: difference = 0). Contrastingly, differences in the variance explained (R2) between the pre-breeding and the post-breeding migration models were not statistically significant (Bonferroni’s p-value adjustment = 0.7314). Predictive ability was substantially high during the post-breeding period, when the correlation between observed and predicted abundance was 0.71, as well as in the pre-breeding model, where the correspondence between observed and predicted values was 0.68. Models built with the total dataset for both pre-breeding and post-breeding migration explained around 53% of the variation in shearwater abundance (computed from bootstrap resampling with 25 repetitions).

Fig 2. Model comparison.

Fig 2

Comparison of resamples (bagging) between pre- (RF pre) and post-breeding (RF post) models. RMSE: Root Mean Squared Error; Rsquared: % variance explained. Mean and Confidence Interval (95%).

Variable importance differed between migration periods (Fig 3), with a larger importance of chlorophyll concentration during the post-breeding migration. Bathymetry showed a moderate contribution to the abundance of shearwaters during both migration movements. If there was no interannual variability in the spatial patterns of shearwater abundance, then the “year” predictor should have a minor importance in the models. However, interannual variability (i.e., effect of “year”) was relevant during pre-breeding and post-breeding migration. In relation to weather predictors, temperature and wind were variables significantly affecting the abundance of shearwaters during both migration periods. In contrast, lunar cycle and NAO index hardly contributed to the abundance patterns described in the models.

Fig 3. Relative importance of the variables.

Fig 3

Relative variable importance (in terms of number of trees and minimum depth) in the random forest models predicting Balearic shearwater abundance. a) pre-breeding migration; b) post-breeding migration. times_a_root: total number of trees in which the variable is used for splitting the root node. mean_minimal_depth: mean minimal depth. Ten top variables are highlighted in blue. The size of points reflects the number of nodes split on the variable.

According to the predicted abundance of shearwaters for different values of year and latitude, the number of migrating shearwaters appeared to be larger at higher latitudes in recent years, although there was no clear trend over the study period (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Interactions between variables.

Fig 4

Predicted abundance of shearwaters (pedictions in the natural logarithmic scale) for different values of year and latitude. (a) pre-breeding; (b) post-breeding migration models.

Spatial predictions derived from pre- and post-breeding models (Fig 5) showed how abundance of shearwaters decreases at sea locations in the Mediterranean from May to August and then it gradually increases again from September to December. Overall, according to the models, Balearic Shearwaters use slightly different regions during their northward (May–August, post-breeding) and southward migration (September–December, pre-breeding).

Fig 5. Predicted abundance of Balearic shearwater across its distribution range during migration.

Fig 5

Back-transformed predictions. Colour gradient indicates the percentage of the maximum predicted abundance across the study area on the fifteenth of the month, from May to December (May-August: post-breeding; September-December: pre-breeding), from environmental conditions (see Table 1) occurred in year 2017.

Discussion

Here we undertook the first long-term study on the spatio-temporal patterns of migrating Balearic shearwaters from data gathered within the framework of citizen science projects. Our results showed that data obtained in initiatives such as Trektellen and eBird, together with large-scale open datasets (NCEP/NCAR, AIS, NOAA, among others), can be successfully applied to describe the migratory distribution and abundance of seabird species accurately. Although these large volumes of data maybe hard to analyze and interpret, and relevant interpretations may be limited in scope, accurate information on the distribution of species during the entire annual cycle can be derived from these datasets, even for populations of long-distance migratory bird species [24].

Presence-only SDMs (Species Distribution Models) are based on the relationship between species presence and environmental conditions, predicting the environmental suitability for a particular species, but not its actual distribution. This leads to weak relationships between predicted presence and the relative abundance of the species [54]. In contrast the above-mentioned approaches, models based on abundance given only presence have received little attention in species distribution research [33]. Previous research found Balearic shearwater abundance to be extremely difficult to predict from and abundance-absence model, and it failed to provide reliable predictions on the spatial distribution of shearwater numbers [27]. In contrast to this earlier modelling attempt based on ship transect data, our models based on abundance given only presence of shearwaters provided strongly correlated predictions with the observed abundances and explained a significant proportion of the variance existing in the numbers of migrating shearwaters.

In any research, the value of the derived knowledge directly relies on the quality of the data used. Direct observations of birds collected by volunteers are a cost-effective source of data that have been previously applied to develop spatial distribution maps of seabirds [55]. Nevertheless, observations of migratory movements collected from coastal land-based observatories have been claimed to be fragmentary and biased thus, they have been frequently considered to be deficient in determining migratory patterns [30]. In recent years, however, the new Big Data approach has led to an increased interest in gathering massive quantities of datasets frequently shared over the Internet. As other Big Data, observations derived from citizen initiatives frequently exhibit noise affecting their quality [56]. To deal with such a large amount of data and its characteristic noise, machine learning techniques (i.e., the application of computational methods underlying experience-based decision making; [57], as those applied in our study, offer an efficient tool, bringing new opportunities to take advantage of these massive data [58]. In contrast to alternative approaches such as the use of tracking data [12, 13, 29] or vessel surveys [14, 27], these massive datasets provide with low-cost information on long-term temporal and large spatial extents. This allows to identify spatio-temporal patterns from many different individuals belonging to several populations (e.g., [23]), as well as to quantify their seasonal and interannual variation in the long-term. Contrastingly, citizen science data have one main drawnback which is low data quality, due to low accuracy and precision, insufficient sample sizes as well as insufficient temporal and spatial representation [22]. However, the members of a community of citizen scientist have frequently training and expertise, thus they can be considered as “expert amateurs”. Thanks to the expertise and high level of interest in the topic of this citizen scientists makes that the identification of the study objects is similar between experts and citizen scientists. This is particularly the case for eBird and Trektellen participants, who must be familiar with, or at least interested on bird identification and, frequently have as good or even better identification skills as professional ornithologists [59]. In addition, thanks to the large number of participants in these citizen science projects, our results show the high level of temporal and spatial representation of these datasets.

Our predictions should be taken rather as an illustration than as an exact calculation, since they are based on a single snapshot on the fifteenth of the month in a particular year. However, they support the validity of our models results, showing that the spatial predictions obtained are consistent with previous findings on important marine areas for shearwaters identified from tracking data and vessel surveys [13, 14, 27]. Although we are analysing no behavioural data, to some extent, we can infer feeding and transiting areas from variable interactions (see S4–S6 Figs in S1 File). For instance, locations with high abundance level, tailwinds, and low chlorophyll concentration can be interpreted as locations with high flux of birds, in contrast to locations with high-moderate abundance, no winds or moderate winds and high chlorophyll concentration levels. Feeding or transiting, the predictions obtained supported that Alboran Sea is an important area for migrating shearwaters [60], particularly during post-breeding migration. Similarly, Gulf of Cadiz also showed high predicted abundance of shearwaters [61], especially during the pre-breeding movement. Our results also suggested that Atlantic coast of Portugal and France are migratory, stopover and/or moulting sites for Balearic shearwaters both during pre and post-breeding migration. Similarly, the post-breeding model showed that Western English Channel is an important area for Balearic shearwaters mainly during August, whereas high abundance of shearwaters is predicted along the Algerian/Tunisian coastline in November. Furthermore, model predictions support previous research, which shows that a variable fraction of the total Balearic shearwater population, mainly adult birds, appeared to remain in the Mediterranean all year round [62].

But the major accomplishment of our modelling approach is the high temporal resolution that we achieved with our models and the possibility of deriving daily spatial predictions that take into consideration the spatio-temporal heterogeneity in migration patterns for specific time frames. In this sense, most of the studies predicting animal spatial patterns have been focused on the stationary distribution in more or less temporally invariable environments (but see [63, 64]). In contrast, marine environment is highly dynamic and its conditions in a particular location are ever changing [65]. New available global data from satellite imagery are frequently provided at high spatial and temporal resolutions, offering an excellent opportunity to model highly mobile migratory species by informing on the heterogeneity at different spatio-temporal scales affecting the en-route habitat use [17]. This high-resolution information allows modelling daily or even hourly conditions at specific locations, such as in our study. We show that these data, together with observations of birds collected in citizen science projects, can be used to identify conservation concerns and targets at regional levels related to environmental changes such as global warming or fisheries, among others, that are difficult to track using traditional approaches.

Differences between pre- and post-breeding migration

In addition, we show that predictive models based on citizen science data not only provide accurate predictions but they contribute to a better understanding of the factors modulating the migratory periods and to identify the seasonal and interannual variability existing in the at sea locations during migration. Among others, fluctuations in migration abundance are usually related to changes in food resources [37]. Differences in chlorophyll-a concentration and bathymetry of the at sea distribution of Balearic shearwaters between the two migration movements suggest that birds leaving the Mediterranean target shallower waters where productivity is higher, whereas shearwaters returning to the breeding grounds appear to be less conditioned on food availability. In this way, the distribution of the shearwater abundance during the pre-breeding period depends more on static predictors such as spatial location (i.e., longitude and latitude) and bathymetry, whereas during the post-breeding it is more dependent on higher spatially and temporally variable predictors such as food availability (i.e., chlorophyll). Most likely, this is because, after breeding, migrating birds need to replenish energy reserves, thus they will select key stopover locations along the trip where maximize their refueling opportunities [66]. This stronger link between shearwater abundance and food availability likely lead to the relatively larger variability (in terms of statistical significance) observed in the spatio-temporal patterns of shearwaters during post-breeding compared to the pre-breeding migration.

Trends in abundance related to changes in fisheries and/or in climate affecting the Balearic shearwater distribution can be inspected from a range of latitude and year values over the study period. Although there is no a straightforward pattern over the study period, it seems that the abundance of the Balearic shearwater has increased in northern latitudes in recent years. These results are consistent with the northward shift in the spatial range of Balearic shearwaters along northwest European coasts that has been found in previous studies [37, 67, 68], apparently not directly related to climate change but meditated by recent changes in prey fish and discard availability [14].

Predictive models for delimiting marine protected areas

Understanding the spatial distribution of seabirds at sea is crucial for the protection of these species and their habitats [1]. However, whereas the terrestrial breeding areas where seabirds occur are usually well known, a gap still exists in the identification of protected areas at sea (e.g., Natura 2000 network; [69]. Identification of marine protected areas for seabirds and other highly mobile marine species is a difficult task [70] because their movements at sea and the spatio-temporal variability associated remain largely unknown [29]. In this sense, a number of more or less successful approaches have been developed to identify marine Important Bird and biodiversity Areas (IBAs), which are important foraging, migrating or wintering sites for seabirds [71]. Our model predictions can be useful for delimiting important areas for the conservation of the Balearic shearwater. Specifically, mapping model average and/or accumulate predictions over seasons and/or particular interannual time frames can provide useful information on migratory routes and stopover sites, as well as on the seasonal and interannual variability in such factors and patterns.

Caveats regarding data availability and predictive ability

According to our results, the predictive ability of the models describing Balearic shearwater abundance patterns (particularly during post- breeding migration when according to the RMSE values the variability in accuracy of the predicted abundance is larger) is subjected to the dataset used in the model calibration. Balearic shearwater is a rare but a charismatic species which generates high interest among birdwatchers. This fact, and its mostly coastal spatial distribution, facilitate an abundant and correctly identified record of this species from land-based sites throughout its annual cycle and across its non-breeding range. In contrast, models built for other species less well-known and/or more difficult to observe could not offer as good results as those here shown for Balearic shearwaters. However, according to our results and considering the increasing amount of data collected by volunteers in the framework of citizen science initiatives all over the world, these datasets should be taken into consideration when studying highly mobile animals.

Conclusions

We show that data gathered in citizen science initiatives together with recently available high-resolution satellite imagery may offer a powerful and cost-effective tool for the long-term spatial monitoring of the migratory patterns in sensitive marine species. Due to cost and logistic constraints, long-term monitoring of seabirds is scarce [72]. In addition, seabird behavior at sea is complex, with high variability in the locations mainly driven by spatial and temporal changes in food availability affecting the size and the shape of the areas used. As an alternative to more traditional approaches [73], modelling techniques can provide a comprehensive picture, both spatially and temporally, of the migratory patterns at the population level that can be complementary to the detailed information at individual level obtained from tracking data. Similar machine learning techniques as those applied in this study, may contribute to extract information from other existing and future datasets collected by volunteers and inform marine spatial planning at regional spatial scales for multiple species. Modelling approaches can also become key tools to detect the impacts of climate and other global changes in the at sea distribution of this and other marine species within the range of the training data. In this sense, other seabird and sensitive vertebrate marine taxa of conservation concern such as sea turtles [74] and marine mammals [75] could also benefit from our approach.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

This study is part of a research project (“Environmental factors determining the interannual variation in the migration of Balearic and Scopoli’s shearwaters in the Mediterranean”, 2018–2019) which form part of the Annual Programme of Grants of the Instituto de Estudios Ceutíes (IEC, Autonomous City of Ceuta, Spain), years 2018–2019. We would like to thank the editor and three anonymous referees for providing us with comments and suggestions which really helped to improve the manuscript.

Regarding the data used in this study, Trektellen is a public database of migration / seawatch counts and ringing results (https://www.trektellen.nl/). In addition, terms of use of eBird database [40] have been cleared (https://www.ala.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Terms_of_Use.v3.pdf). All the environmental predictors used in the present study are freely available from the websites of the different data sources indicated in Table 1 as well as from Trektellen website. Data sourced by eBird can be obtained after registration and request at https://ebird.org/.

Data Availability

Regarding the data used in this study, Trektellen is a public database of migration / seawatch counts and ringing results (https://www.trektellen.nl/). Trektellen database can be accessed searching by location, date and particular species using the website tools. All the environmental predictors used in the present study are freely available from the websites of the different data sources indicated in Table 1, as well as from Trektellen website. Data sourced by eBird can be obtained after registration and request at https://ebird.org/. For further information, please see https://ebird.org/science/download-ebird-data-products.

Funding Statement

This study is part of a research project (“Environmental factors determining the interannual variation in the migration of Balearic and Scopoli’s shearwaters in the Mediterranean”, 2018-2019) which has been partly financed by the Annual Programme of Grants of the Instituto de Estudios Ceutíes (IEC, Autonomous City of Ceuta, Spain), years 2018-2019. All the funding and sources of support (whether external or internal to our organization) received during this study have been reported and there was no additional external funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.Zacharias MA, Roff JC. Use of focal species in marine conservation and management: a review and critique. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 2001;11: 59–76. 10.1002/aqc.429 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lascelles B, Notarbartolo di Sciara G, Agardy T, Cuttelod A, Eckert S, Glowka L, et al. Migratory marine species: Their status, threats and conservation management needs. Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 2014;24: 111–127. 10.1002/aqc.2512 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Felis J, Adams J, Hodum P, Carle R, Colodro V. Eastern Pacific migration strategies of pink-footed shearwaters Ardenna creatopus: implications for fisheries interactions and international conservation. Endangered Species Research. 2019;39 10.3354/esr00969 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dias MP, Granadeiro JP, Catry P. Do Seabirds Differ from Other Migrants in Their Travel Arrangements? On Route Strategies of Cory’s Shearwater during Its Trans-Equatorial Journey. PLOS ONE. 2012;7: e49376 10.1371/journal.pone.0049376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Guilford T, Meade J, Willis J, Phillips RA, Boyle D, Roberts S, et al. Migration and stopover in a small pelagic seabird, the Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus: insights from machine learning. Proceedings Biological sciences. 2009;276: 1215–1223. 10.1098/rspb.2008.1577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Walker RH, Robinson RA, Leech DI, Moss D, Kew AJ, Barber LJ, et al. Bird ringing and nest recording in Britain and Ireland in 2013. Ringing & Migration. 2014;29: 90–150. 10.1080/03078698.2014.995529 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Weimerskirch H, Delord K, Guitteaud A, Phillips RA, Pinet P. Extreme variation in migration strategies between and within wandering albatross populations during their sabbatical year, and their fitness consequences. Scientific Reports. 2015;5: 8853 10.1038/srep08853 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Martín B, Onrubia A, Ferrer M. Effects of climate change on the migratory behavior of the common buzzard Buteo buteo. Clim Res. 2014;60: 187–197. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hedd A, Pollet IL, Mauck RA, Burke CM, Mallory ML, McFarlane Tranquilla LA, et al. Foraging areas, offshore habitat use, and colony overlap by incubating Leach’s storm-petrels Oceanodroma leucorhoa in the Northwest Atlantic. PLOS ONE. 2018;13: e0194389 10.1371/journal.pone.0194389 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ramos R, Carlile N, Madeiros J, Ramírez I, Paiva VH, Dinis HA, et al. It is the time for oceanic seabirds: Tracking year-round distribution of gadfly petrels across the Atlantic Ocean. Diversity and Distributions. 2017;23: 794–805. 10.1111/ddi.12569 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Scholer MN, Martín B, Ferrer M, Onrubia A, Bechard MJ, Kaltenecker GS, et al. Variable shifts in the autumn migration phenology of soaring birds in southern Spain. Ardea. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Afán I, Navarro J, Grémillet D, Coll M, Forero M. Maiden voyage into death: are fisheries affecting seabird juvenile survival during the first days at-sea? Royal Society Open Science. 31 January 2019. 6: 181151 10.1098/rsos.181151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Guilford T, Wynn R, McMinn M, Rodríguez A, Fayet A, Maurice L, et al. Geolocators reveal migration and pre-breeding behaviour of the critically endangered balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: 1–8. 10.1371/journal.pone.0033753 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Jones A, Wynn RB, Yésou P, Thébault L, Collins P, Suberg L, et al. Using integrated land- and boat-based surveys to inform conservation of the Critically Endangered Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus in northeast Atlantic waters. Endangered Species Research. 2014;25. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pérez-Roda A, Delord K, Boué A, Arcos JM, García D, Micol T, et al. Identifying Important Atlantic Areas for the conservation of Balearic shearwaters: Spatial overlap with conservation areas. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 2017;141: 285–293. 10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.11.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Strasser B, Baudry J, Mahr D, Sanchez G, Tancoigne E. “Citizen Science”? Rethinking Science and Public Participation. Science & Technology Studies. 2019;32: 52–76. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pocock M, Chandler M, Bonney R, Thornhill I, Albin A, August T, et al. A Vision for Global Biodiversity Monitoring With Citizen Science. Advances in Ecological Research. 2018. 10.1016/bs.aecr.2018.06.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Coxen CL, Frey JK, Carleton SA, Collins DP. Species distribution models for a migratory bird based on citizen science and satellite tracking data. Global Ecology and Conservation. 2017;11: 298–311. 10.1016/j.gecco.2017.08.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chandler M, See L, Copas K, Bonde AMZ, López BC, Danielsen F, et al. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biological Conservation. 2017;213: 280–294. 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kelling S, Gerbracht J, Fink D, Lagoze C, Wong W, Yu J, et al. A Human/Computer Learning Network to Improve Biodiversity Conservation and Research. AI Magazine. 2013;34: 10–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Vermeiren P, Munoz C, Zimmer M, Sheaves M. Hierarchical toolbox: Ensuring scientific accuracy of citizen science for tropical coastal ecosystems. Ecological Indicators. 2016;66: 242–250. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lewandowski E, Specht H. Influence of volunteer and project characteristics on data quality of biological surveys. Conservation Biology. 2015;29: 713–723. 10.1111/cobi.12481 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gouraguine A, Moranta J, Ruiz-Frau A, Hinz H, Reñones O, Ferse SCA, et al. Citizen science in data and resource-limited areas: A tool to detect long-term ecosystem changes. PLOS ONE. 2019;14: e0210007 10.1371/journal.pone.0210007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kelling S, Johnston A, Fink D, Ruiz-Gutierrez V, Bonney R, Bonn A, et al. Finding the signal in the Noise of Citizen Science Observations. bioRxiv. 2018; 326314 10.1101/326314 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Troost G. Trektellen. 2017.
  • 26.BirdLife International. Puffinus mauretanicus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22728432A132658315. 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22728432A132658315.en. Downloaded on 15 March 2019; 2018. [DOI]
  • 27.Oppel S, Meirinho A, Ramírez I, Gardner B, O’Connell AF, Miller PI, et al. Comparison of five modelling techniques to predict the spatial distribution and abundance of seabirds. Biological Conservation. 2012;156: 94–104. 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Arroyo GM, Mateos-Rodríguez M, Muñoz AR, De la Cruz A, Cuenca D, Onrubia A. New population estimates of a critically endangered species, the Balearic Shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus, based on coastal migration counts. Bird Conservation International. 2014;26: 87–99. 10.1017/S095927091400032X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Meier RE, Wynn RB, Votier SC, McMinn Grivé M, Rodríguez A, Maurice L, et al. Consistent foraging areas and commuting corridors of the critically endangered Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus in the northwestern Mediterranean. Biological Conservation. 2015;190: 87–97. 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Martín B, Onrubia A, Ferrer M. Endemic shearwaters are increasing in the Mediterranean in relation to factors that are closely related to human activities. Global Ecology and Conservation. 2019;in press: e00740. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Guisan A C Edwards T, Hastie T. Generalized Linear and Generalized Additive Models in Studies of Species Distributions: Setting the Scene. Ecological Modelling. 2002;157: 89–100. 10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00204-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Schmitt S, Pouteau R, Justeau-Allaire D, Deboissieu F, Birnbaum P. SSDM: an R package to predict distribution of species richness and composition based on stacked species distribution models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2017. 10.1111/2041-210X.12841 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pearce JL, Boyce MS. Modelling distribution and abundance with presence-only data. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2006;43: 405–412. 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01112.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Arcos J. International species action plan for the Balearic shearwater, Puffinus mauretanicus. 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Louzao M, Hyrenbach KD, Arcos JM, Abelló P, de Sola LG, Oro D. Oceanographic habitat of an endangered Mediterranean Procellariiform: implications for marine protected areas. Ecological Applications. 2006;16: 1683–1695. 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1683:ohoaem]2.0.co;2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mateos M, Arroyo GM. Ocean surface winds drive local-scale movements within long-distance migrations of seabirds. Marine Biology. 2011;158: 329–339. 10.1007/s00227-010-1561-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wynn RB, Josey S, Martin A, Johns D, Yésou P. Climate-driven range expansion of a critically endangered top predator in northeast Atlantic waters. Biology Letters. 2007;3: 529–532. 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Arcos J, Oro D. Significance of fisheries discards for a threatened Mediterranean seabird, the Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2002;239: 209–220. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Louzao M, García D, Rodríguez B, Abelló P. Evidence of krill in diet of Balearic Shearwaters Puffinus mauretanicus. Marine Ornithology. 2015;43: 49–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.eBird. eBird Basic Dataset. Version: EB_relNov-2017. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 2017.
  • 41.Mourino J, Arcos F, Salvadores R, Sandoval A, Vidal C. Status of the Balearic shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus) on the Galician coast (NW Iberian Peninsula). Scientia Marina. 2003;67: 135–142. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Yésou P. Recent changes in the summer distribution of the Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus off western France. 2003;67: 143–148. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Marshall AJ, Serventy DL. Experimental Demonstration of an Internal Rhythm of Reproduction in a Trans-Equatorial Migrant (The Short-Tailed Shearwater Puffinus Tenuirostris). Nature. 1959;184: 1704–1705. 10.1038/1841704a0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Martín B, González-Arias J, Vicente-Vírseda JA. Big Data para el estudio de la migración de especies amenazadas. Empiria. under review. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Seber GAF, Lee AJ. Linear Regression Analysis. 2nd Edition Wiley; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gareth J, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. An Introduction to Statistical Learning. Springer; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kuhn M. Building Predictive Models in R Using the caret Package. Journal of Statistical Software. 2008;28: 1–26. 10.18637/jss.v028.i0527774042 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Liaw A, Wiener M. Classification and Regression by randomForest. R news. 2002;2: 18–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.R Development Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Hilbe JM. Modeling Count Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. 10.1017/CBO9781139236065 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. 2nd ed Springer; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Araújo MB, Thuiller W, Pearson RG. Climate warming and the decline of amphibians and reptiles in Europe. Journal of Biogeography. 2006;33: 1712–1728. 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01482.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ishwaran H, Kogalur U, Gorodeski E, Minn A, Lauer M. randomForestExplainer: Explaining and Visualizing Random Forests in Terms of Variable Importance. 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Gomes VHF, IJff SD, Raes N, Amaral IL, Salomão RP, de Souza Coelho L, et al. Species Distribution Modelling: Contrasting presence-only models with plot abundance data. Scientific Reports. 2018;8: 1003 10.1038/s41598-017-18927-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Ward EJ, Marshall KN, Ross T, Sedgley A, Hass T, Pearson SF, et al. Using citizen-science data to identify local hotspots of seabird occurrence. Gandini P, editor. PeerJ. 2015;3: e704 10.7717/peerj.704 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.García-Gil D, Luengo J, García S, Herrera F. Enabling Smart Data: Noise filtering in Big Data classification. Information Sciences. 2019;479: 135–152. 10.1016/j.ins.2018.12.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Schain M. Machine Learning Algorithms and Robustness. Universitat Tel-Aviv; 2015. https://books.google.es/books?id=dWTRnQAACAAJ [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Martínez–Álvarez F, Morales–Esteban A. Big data and natural disasters: New approaches for spatial and temporal massive data analysis. Computers & Geosciences. 2019;129: 38–39. 10.1016/j.cageo.2019.04.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Lukyanenko R, Wiersma Y, Parsons J. Emerging Problems of Data Quality in Citizen Science. Conservation Biology. 2016;30: 447–449. 10.1111/cobi.12706 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA. Status of Seabirds in the AlboranSea. By J.M.Arcos. Draftinternal report for the purposes of the Mediterranean Regional Workshop to Facilitate the Description of Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas, Malaga, Spain, 7–11 April 2014. 2014.
  • 61.Arroyo GM, de la Cruz A, Delgado D. How adequately are the critically endangered Balearic Shearwaters protected by the Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for seabirds? A case study in the Gulf of Cadiz. Global Ecology and Conservation. 2020;21: e00861 10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00861 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Ruiz A, Martí R. La Pardela Balear. Madrid, Spain: SEO/BirdLife-Conselleria de Medi Ambient del Govern de les Illes Balears; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Martín B, Alonso JC, Martín CA, Palacín C, Magaña M, Alonso JA. Influence of spatial heterogeneity and temporal variability in habitat selection: A case study on a great bustard metapopulation. Ecological Modelling. 2012;228: 39–48. 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.12.024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Zurell D, Jeltsch F, Dormann CF, Schröder B. Static species distribution models in dynamically changing systems: How good can predictions really be? Ecography. 2009;32: 733–744. 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05810.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Tsikliras AC, Licandro P, Pardalou A, McQuinn IH, Gröger JP, Alheit J. Synchronization of Mediterranean pelagic fish populations with the North Atlantic climate variability. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 2019;159: 143–151. 10.1016/j.dsr2.2018.07.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.McKnight A, Allyn A, Duffy D, Irons D. ‘Stepping stone’ pattern in Pacific Arctic tern migration reveals the importance of upwelling areas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2013;491: 253–264. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Luczak C, Beaugrand G, Jaffré M, Lenoir S. Climate change impact on Balearic shearwater through a trophic cascade. Biology Letters. 2011;7: 702–705. 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Votier SC, Bearhop S, Attrill MJ, Oro D. Is climate change the most likely driver of range expansion for a critically endangered top predator in northeast Atlantic waters? Biology Letters. 2008;4: 204–205. 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0558 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.European Commission. Report from the Comission to the European Parliament and the Council on the progress in establishing marine protected areas (as required by Article 21 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC). 2015.
  • 70.Ronconi R, Lascelles B, Longham GM, Reid JB, Oro D. The role of seabirds in Marine Protected Area identification, delineation, and monitoring: Introduction and synthesis. Biological Conservation. 2012;156: 1–4. 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.02.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Soanes LM, Bright JA, Angel LP, Arnould JPY, Bolton M, Berlincourt M, et al. Defining marine important bird areas: Testing the foraging radius approach. Biological Conservation. 2016;196: 69–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Becker P, Chapdelaine G. Further development of seabird monitoring In: Tasker M, Furness R, editors. Seabirds Monitors of the Marine Environment ICES Cooperative Research Report. Copenhagen, Denmark: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea No. 258; 2003. pp. 52–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Arcos JM. Important areas for the conservation of seabirds in Spain. Sociedad Española de Ornitología (SEO-BirdLife).; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Casale P, C. Broderick A, Antonio Camiñas J, Cardona L, Carreras C, Demetropoulos A, et al. Mediterranean sea turtles: current knowledge and priorities for conservation and research. Endangered Species Research. 2018;36: 229–267. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Gonzalvo J, Valls M, Cardona L, Aguilar A. Factors determining the interactions between bottom trawlers off the Balearic Archipelago (western Mediterranean Sea). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 2008;36: 47–52. 10.1016/j.jembe.2008.08.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

David Hyrenbach

8 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-29580

Citizen science and machine learning for predicting spatio-temporal patterns in seabird migration

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Martin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

i apologize for the long handling time, but securing reviewers proved very difficult.  Because I was only able to secure one review, I did another review of the ms, and I concluded that it needed substantial revisions before it could be published.  I forward an annotated version with inserted comments, edits, and questions.  In particular, I urge the authors to:

1) revise the introduction to remove redundancies / and focus focus on the main goals.

2) revise the introduction and discussion to ensure the limitations of citizen science data are acknowledged\\. currently, the ms highlights the limitations of tracking and vessel-based surveys, but there are many similar limitations to citizen science data: uncertainty of identification, uncertainty of counts, uneven coverage and lack of systematic effort, and lack of knowledge of the colony provenance of the birds sighted at sea.

3) revise the methods section (and augment with supplementary tables) to provide readers with a sense of how the sighting / fishery / environmental datasets were cleaned / processed. in particular, address the uncertainties associated with the species identifications, and explicitly explain how the fishery data were subsetted by sector / fishery / target.

4) furthermore, please provide evidence that the authors had cleared the terms of use of these publicly available sighting data, and are thus able to publish these datasets.  moreover, explicitly state how many records / birds were included in each dataset, for the pre and post breeding migration. finally, explicitly state whether "zero" counts were included, if standardized surveys (or sightings of other species were reported, but no Balearic Shearwatyer sightings were reported).

5) the methods also need to be strengthened, since the ms refers to several exploratory analyses (daily abundances used to censor the study period and co-linearity of explanatory variables), but no results are provided. I urge the authors to provide supplementary tables with these results, so the readers can evaluate what was done.

6) the results also need to be strengthened, to ensure tests are clearly reported and evaluated. in particular, please use the comments added to the ms to address the comparison of the model R-squared values, and the correlations or modeled / observed abundances. finally, please justify the small number of iterations used (25) and the use of means +-/ 95% CI for some of the estimated parameters, rather than medians (25% - 75%).

7) The discussion and conclusions were clear and concise, but they are difficult to evaluate , given the paucity of details in the methods / results.  Finally, I urge the authors to carefully consider how they identify "key" areas, and to consider that they are only using counts; there are no behavioral data (eg., feeding versus transiting).  Namely, would a high flux area (e.g., Gibraltar Strait) with lower counts be more sensitive to impacts than a foraging area with higher counts but lower flux? 

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 22 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

David Hyrenbach, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

'This study is part of a research project (“Environmental factors determining the interannual variation in the migration of Balearic and Scopoli’s shearwaters in the Mediterranean”, 2018-2019) which has been partly financed by the Annual Programme of Grants of the Instituto de Estudios Ceutíes (IEC, Autonomous City of Ceuta, Spain), years 2018-2019.'

a. Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

b. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, authors present a novel work to evaluate whether data from a long-term monitoring programme carried out by volunteers, i.e., a citizen science project, can be used to assess bird migratory patterns. They focused on an endangered seabird species endemic to the Mediterranean Sea that migrates to the Atlantic out of the breeding period. Authors relied on supervised machine learning technics to predict bird abundance, building up the models from data gathered at a network of bird census stations. Specifically, they used random forest regression models to evaluate the usefulness of citizen science data in predicting spatial and temporal abundance based on a set of predictors, including many satellite-derived features, reaching an accuracy of about 70%. Authors concluded that combining long-term citizen science with predictive modelling can be a reliable tool to assist long-term monitoring of sensitive species, to identify important areas and/or to detect trends.

The paper is well structured. The study is accurate and provides an interesting approach. As general comments, the major strength of this study relies on the source data used. Trektellen is an online database recording opportunistic seabird counts carried out by volunteers across Europe. Despite its potential, very few papers have made use of this long-term database. As a counterpart, there are also some weaknesses in the work that should be amended for publication. My main concern in this regard is that authors tend to overstate along the manuscript the importance of random forest (RF) to predict spatial and temporal abundance. RF is a really powerful algorithm (I personally really love it) based on an ensemble of decision trees, but its use is not new in the context of species distribution/abundance modelling (e.g. Oppel et al. (2012) Comparison of five modelling techniques to predict the spatial distribution and abundance of seabirds. Biological Conservation, 156, 94-104). In fact, recent approaches for species distribution modelling tend to build up a final output based on an ensemble of several algorithms (a.k.a. Ensemble Ecological Niche Models), including RF among them. See the “ssdm” package in R for details (Schmitt et al. (2017) ssdm: An r package to predict distribution of species richness and composition based on stacked species distribution models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 8(12), 1795-1803; and also, e.g., Pereira et al. (2018) Using a multi-model ensemble forecasting approach to identify key marine protected areas for seabirds in the Portuguese coast. Ocean & Coastal Management, 153, 98-107.). Apart from that, a major weakness of RF, just as in decision trees, is that they cannot extrapolate outside the range of the training data, and therefore great care must be taken when these algorithms are used to predict trends in the long-term, as those expected in the context of climate change. For these reasons, I think authors should attenuate the importance of using this machine learning algorithm in the paper, beginning with removing it from the title.

Below I will refer to specific section and lines to provide comment:

Title

As I have already commented, I would recommend changing the title, omitting reference to machine learning on it.

Abstract:

There is a lack of introduction. Please include at least one or two sentences about the general framework before stating what you did address.

Introduction:

In general, I think the introduction needs a bit of work. Some sentences are not explained well enough.

The first paragraph is not very cohesive.

L49: Should be rephrased. Although I understand what authors mean, these concepts could be explained in a clearer way.

L52-53: I would say seabirds are threatened because they are exposed to multiple threats -most of them related to human activities- as they cross and use multiple habitats year-round, not because they are subjected to many different environmental conditions (to which they are -or should be- adapted). Please rephrase.

L53: I do not understand why you use “however”. I understand that phrase is taking about something completely different from the previous ones.

L54: Reference 3 does not support what is said.

L60: Reference 7 is about passerines. You should provide more references regarding the importance of stop-overs in species of marine or coastal habits.

L62-66. I do not agree with what is stated here. Determining the spatial distribution of seabirds during the migration period is a difficult task because birds they are generally located beyond the reach of the human eye. It is not obvious to me what you mean when saying “surveys of birds are usually limited to specific subsets of the total of the total migratory route”.L64: your statement is false for seabirds. Ring recoveries are not useful for identifying general movement patterns in seabirds, not only stop-over areas.

L68: accelerometers are not intended to track animal movements but behaviour, so they do not contribute to know at-sea distribution of seabirds.

L69: I do not agree. Light-level geolocators are the most extensively used devices to track migratory movements of seabirds, and the cost is not a general problem with them. Indeed, geolocators have the advantages of lilted weight, low price and animal-welfare, easy attachment, so high sample sizes are affordable. The real problem is what you explain in the next phrase. Even good sample sizes could be unrepresentative of seabird colony size (Soanes et al. (2013) How many seabirds do we need to track to define home‐range area? Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(3), 671-679; Thaxter, et al. (2017) Sample size required to characterize area use of tracked seabirds. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 81(6), 1098-1109).

L75: references are in wrong format. Moreover, both references do not refer to seabirds, even though you are already focused on seabirds since the first paragraph. Please use more appropriate references (i.e. regarding seabirds).

L76: format of references is wrong.

L77-78: Electronic devices are intended to provide individual tracking and thus get information at individual level. Taking this in mind, they can allow indeed long-term monitoring, and individuals of different species have already been tracked for more than a decade. In the case of seabirds and geolocators, devices can also be replaced annually, so as long as individuals are alive and can be recaptured, long term tracking can be carried out. Last, a major advantage of individual tracking is the fact that you know individual origin (i.e. colony, population). So, the weakness you state for tracking devices is inconsistent. Moreover, the weakness you argue about electronic devices also applied to census surveys, as birds counted at coastal points or vessel surveys are of unknown origin, and even species identification could be difficult for some species (as Balearic and Mediterranean shearwater). Instead of looking for weakness of tracking methods, you should highlight the strength of census methods (e.g. take an overview picture despite unknowing ages or colonies of origin). You should also comment a major weakness of census method for seabirds, which is the impossibility to count birds when they use areas out of the human sight during wintering or migration.

L84-91: I think here you did well in relating the strength of citizen science projects- I would suggest you to combine these lines with the previous paragraph, once removed/resolved the issues I said before. May this reference is also of interest for citation: Coxen, C. L., Frey, J. K., Carleton, S. A., & Collins, D. P. (2017) Species distribution models for a migratory bird based on citizen science and satellite tracking data. Global ecology and conservation, 11, 298-311. Last, you should introduce Trektellen here and comment if some other paper has use this datasource before, as I see this is a really good point of your paper.

L92-96: These lines may be in a different paragraph and be complemented with information about techniques for species distribution modelling. As I already said, many algorithms are available to model and predict species distribution and abundance, and some methods even integrated multiple algorithm. Thus, there is room here to give readers a bit introduction about this issue. I would include information on satellite-derived features as second part in the paragraph, as such features are the predictors used in the models.

L100: there is a typo after “shearwaters”.

L108-109: Please provide a reference. Which unused areas?

L114: replace “useful data” by “useful source of data”

L116: replace “these datasets” by “citizen science data”

L118: “most likely pelagic habitats”. This is inconsistent. You said in L112 the species occurs mainly in shallow coastal waters. Also, observation from coast only frequently allow to count birds in coastal waters. So identify pelagic habitats used during migration seems unfeasible.

L120: I believe the aim was to evaluate the performance, not to determine it

L121: replace “seabirds” by “Balearic shearwaters”.

L122: remove “of these and other species”. Also, you could include at the end something like “and discuss the potential of citizen science data for seabird conservation”.

L134-136: I suggest you include this in the next section.

L147: Ref. 32 is related to a different species, remove it.

L148: you should cite this paper, as one of the first describing environmental features to predict the presence of Balearic shearwaters: Louzao, M.et al. (2006) Oceanographic habitat of an endangered Mediterranean procellariiform: implications for marine protected areas. Ecological applications, 16(5), 1683-1695.

L33: this reference is from a symposium in 1993. Please, try to provide more appropriate references. Lot of really good work has been done in the last 20 years with Balearic shearwaters, even addressing the specific question you mention in L10-151. Just two examples:

• Jones, A. R., Wynn, R. B., Yésou, P., Thébault, L., Collins, P., Suberg, L., ... & Brereton, T. M. (2014). Using integrated land-and boat-based surveys to inform conservation of the Critically Endangered Balearic shearwater. Endangered Species Research, 25(1), 1-18.

• Wynn, R. B., Josey, S. A., Martin, A. P., Johns, D. G., & Yésou, P. (2007). Climate-driven range expansion of a critically endangered top predator in northeast Atlantic waters. Biology Letters, 3(5), 529-532.

L151: replace “pelagic and demersal” by “pelagic but also demersal”.

L151: You start the phrase referring to Balearic shearwater’s diet. I guess where you say “but it also feeds” are referring to the species, not the diet. Let’s say: “Balearic shearwater’s diet includes small pelagic but also demersal fish, frequently obtained from trawling discards. The species can eventually feed on plankton and macrozooplankton, specifically krill”.

Material & Methods.

L166: I recommend changing “observatories” by sighting points for clarity.

L171-172: May 1st – August 30th.

L179: Ref. 39 appears two times

L187: I find necessary to provide also a reference on shearwaters, at least a closely related species. Dias, M. P., Granadeiro, J. P., & Catry, P. (2012). Do seabirds differ from other migrants in their travel arrangements? On route strategies of Cory’s shearwater during its trans-equatorial journey. PLoS One, 7(11), e49376.

L187: you say “fluctuations in migration are closely related to changes in food resource”. What are you referring to? Do you mean bird abundance during migration? Do you mean fluctuations in areas used (location) during migration? Do you mean fluctuations in dates? Please clarify.

L192-193. I find this phrase unnecessary, and the reference provided not appropriate. Papers on seabird research usually indicate. I would suggest rephrasing to something like “We used chlorophyll concentration (Chla, measured in mg.m-3) as a proxy of marine productivity [ref]. We download satellite-based monthly products at 4 km spatial resolution for 2003-2017 period”. Ref. is Wakefield, E. D., Phillips, R. A., & Matthiopoulos, J. (2009). Quantifying habitat use and preferences of pelagic seabirds using individual movement data: a review. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 391, 165-182.

L195-198: This is an important methodological issue. I am going to use this moment to comment my concern about the unbalance in temporal representativity of predictors. You only use/have two years of fishing vessels distribution…I wonder how the unevenly representativity of predictor can affect Random Forest accuracy and predictions….

L202: I find necessary to cite at the end of the phrase “…modulating migratory behaviour” the reference: González-Solís, J., Felicísimo, A., Fox, J. W., Afanasyev, V., Kolbeinsson, Y., & Muñoz, J. (2009). Influence of sea surface winds on shearwater migration detours. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 391, 221-230.

L203: First reference in incorrect format, and also I find this reference no proper here. But again you have many to pick up one:

• Catry, P., Dias, M. P., Phillips, R. A., & Granadeiro, J. P. (2011). Different means to the same end: long-distance migrant seabirds from two colonies differ in behaviour, despite common wintering grounds. PLoS One, 6(10), e26079.

• Dias, M. P., Granadeiro, J. P., & Catry, P. (2013). Individual variability in the migratory path and stopovers of a long-distance pelagic migrant. Animal Behaviour, 86(2), 359-364.

• Dias, M. P., Granadeiro, J. P., & Catry, P. (2012). Do seabirds differ from other migrants in their travel arrangements? On route strategies of Cory’s shearwater during its trans-equatorial journey. PLoS One, 7(11), e49376.

But you can also cite this one that found out quite different results with regard to what you were saying:

• Dell’Ariccia, G., Benhamou, S., Dias, M. P., Granadeiro, J. P., Sudre, J., Catry, P., & Bonadonna, F. (2018). Flexible migratory choices of Cory’s shearwaters are not driven by shifts in prevailing air currents. Scientific reports, 8(1), 3376.

L203: Update [29] in Bibliography as this paper is already published.

I find that text in pages 10-11 could be reduced and summarize drastically to ease reading….Yo may included details in Supplementary Material. I think you give too much details about predictors used but could be omitted simply citing references were each predictor has been used before.

Regarding Table 1:

Indicate in the “Total” row that it is the response/target variable.

Batim: remove year

Since the work is based on citizen science, I would expect to find “day of the week” in the table of predictors, as volunteers usually go birding on weekend. Another important detail to me is that first paragraph of Results section should be moved to Material and Methods, as an exploratory analysis is part of methods and drives your next methodological steps. Idem for second paragraph in Results.

Another point to highlight in this point is that you do not show any data regarding sampling effort of the citizen science project. The consistency in these projects is key for data quality and even though RF can deal with this issue, it would be informative to see a plot with sampling effort (for example days of observation) at the 123 observatories over time.

Statistical analysis

I recommend starting this section clearly indicating the structure of your data matrix, i.e. clearly defining whether each row is an observatory point, a session (i.e. specific day) from an observatory point, or whatever.

L60: I would recommend citing references already published. If it is not possible, at least provide some extended explanation to understand your choice without the need to find a not yet published paper.

L243: It is not clear to me why you log-transformed the abundance data. Please clarify it.

L246-256: You should provide more details about tuning parameters of RF. Please clearly state the total sample size in the data matrix used as input in the models (number of rows, number of columns), the number of trees you grew up, the number of predictors you used for each tree, and the number of samples you select in each tree. It is not clear if you are using cross-validation, please try to clarify your explanations in L253.

L249: You refer RMSE without defining its meaning before. Please do explain briefly to the readers why you used Root Men Square Error for parameter tuning.

I would expected to see the confusion matrix (predicted vs observed) to generally evaluate accuracy of RF models. Could you include it?

L257: A bit confusing...May be rephrase: “Relative importance of the variables used for predicting shearwater abundance…”

Regarding Variable Importance, considering most readers of this paper will be ecologists from outside computing science, I would recommend to use a metric (and plots) easier to follow and understand. Ranking variables with the Gini Index or Mean Decrease Accuracy and showing a barplot illustrating the ranking would be much more understandable than plots provided by randomForestExplainer. In my opinion, when predictors overlap in the ranking the visualization provided by this R package is not so effective, as shown in figures 3a and 3b.

Results

As I said before, I think the first and the second paragraph of Results section should be moved to Material and Methods, as an exploratory analysis is part of methods and drives your next methodological steps.

L276-277: The way this sentence is written is somehow confusing, as you only run two models (pre & post-breeding migration), but from the text it seems as you run a lot. As building a RF model implies using different training data subsample, I recommend removing this from the sentences “among the models built with different training data subsamples”.

L308-310. This result could be due to a temporal bias in sampling effort from observatories. You should show, at least, the number of days of observation per Latitude and Year to support this result.

Fig. 5, figure caption: I think it is more properly as: “Predictions of Balearic shearwater spatial distribution and abundance during migration”

Discussion

L349-352: I understand Big Data is trending topic…But this paper is really far from using Big Data, so I recommend to avoid the use of this term.

L358: My suggestion: “allow to identify general spatio-temporal patterns as data come from different individuals belonging to several populations”.

You should discuss in this part the weakness of data coming from volunteering programmes, such as temporal gaps, uneven sampling effort in space and time, etc. particularly in L353 where you indicate “its characteristic noise” but do not explain anything more.

L361-365: This phrase is too long, 5 lines…. Please rephrase or split it.

L368: RF are not good to forecast out of the range of input data, so future projections based on this could be unreliable… depending on input data. Moreover, I think this issue (I mean future projections) is out of the scope of this paper.

L371: ref [74] is about ducks. I would say there are more appropriates references to cite here related with seabirds.

L379: format of references incorrect.

L382: Be consistent with therm used. Replace volunteer data by scitizen science data.

L393: what do you mean to “larger variability observed”? which result support this?

L395-397: This phrase is not clear. Please rephrase it.

L422: this is related to some clarifications needed that I mentioned before.

L433-448. I found Conclusions section clear and nice

Bibliography:

There are typos spread over the section.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Balearic_shearwater_migration_eBird_sep19_PLOSONE_kdh.docx

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 14;15(8):e0236631. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236631.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Feb 2020

22nd February 2020

PONE-D-19-29580

Citizen science and machine learning for predicting spatio-temporal patterns in seabird migration

David Hyrenbach, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hyrenbach,

We sincerely thank you for allowing us to resubmit our paper. Following your instructions, we resubmit the manuscript titled “Citizen science and machine learning for predicting spatio-temporal patterns in seabird migration” (PONE-D-19-29580), now retitled “Citizen science for predicting spatio-temporal patterns in seabird abundance during migration”, after fully addressing all the concerns raised by you and the reviewer.

Changes done throughout the text have been recorded, via track-changes, in a document enclosed with this re-submission. Please find below the detailed explanation of the modifications we have made in response to the concerns raised. A copy of the document with the track changes feature turned off is also attached. Lines indicated below and within the document with the track changes feature turned on, referred to the document with the track changes feature turned off.

We hope that you will find this revised version suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

Yours faithfully,

Beatriz Martín on behalf of all the authors

PONE-D-19-29580

Citizen science and machine learning for predicting spatio-temporal patterns in seabird migration

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Martin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

i apologize for the long handling time, but securing reviewers proved very difficult. Because I was only able to secure one review, I did another review of the ms, and I concluded that it needed substantial revisions before it could be published. I forward an annotated version with inserted comments, edits, and questions. In particular, I urge the authors to:

1) revise the introduction to remove redundancies / and focus focus on the main goals.

Authors: Done. See changes made throughout the Introduction section.

2) revise the introduction and discussion to ensure the limitations of citizen science data are acknowledged\\. currently, the ms highlights the limitations of tracking and vessel-based surveys, but there are many similar limitations to citizen science data: uncertainty of identification, uncertainty of counts, uneven coverage and lack of systematic effort, and lack of knowledge of the colony provenance of the birds sighted at sea.

Authors: Done. See changes made in the Introduction and Discussion sections.

3) revise the methods section (and augment with supplementary tables) to provide readers with a sense of how the sighting / fishery / environmental datasets were cleaned / processed. in particular, address the uncertainties associated with the species identifications, and explicitly explain how the fishery data were subsetted by sector / fishery / target.

Authors: New figures have been added both in Methods (see new Figure 1) and in a new Supplementary Material section (Figures S1, S2 and S3), showing the temporal and spatial representation of the data, as well as the count effort distribution over the days of the week (as requested by the reviewer#1, see answer to comments below regarding this issue). In addition, the results of the collinearity assessment are also now reported in the Supplementary Material. Balearic shearwater generates much attention both from amateur and expert ornithologists thus it is usually well-known species and correctly identified when sighted. However, we cannot totally exclude species identification errors among the different sources of variation associated with citizen science data. The previous is now stated in the text (see lines 167-170). Regarding the data on fisheries, JRC provides a detailed map of high intensity fisheries areas in 2014-2015 in Europe from tracking data of fishing vessels. The map allows to identify which are the areas where they fish more frequently. Vessel tracking data was derived from the open source Automatic Identification System (AIS), allowing to analyse the relation between fishing communities and fishing areas at high spatial resolution across Europe. Data used to build the map consist of 150 million positions from European fishing vessels above 15 m in length. This map was created to be used by scientist and experts for fisheries management and fisheries research both from an environmental and a socio-economic perspective. We have now clarified all that in the text.

4) furthermore, please provide evidence that the authors had cleared the terms of use of these publicly available sighting data, and are thus able to publish these datasets. moreover, explicitly state how many records / birds were included in each dataset, for the pre and post breeding migration. finally, explicitly state whether "zero" counts were included, if standardized surveys (or sightings of other species were reported, but no Balearic Shearwatyer sightings were reported).

Authors: Terms of use of eBird database have been cleared (https://www.ala.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Terms_of_Use.v3.pdf). Trektellen is a public database of migration / seawatch counts and ringing results (see additions into the Acknowledge section). On the other hand, only records attributed to Balearic shearwaters were analysed. Both systematic and opportunistic data were analysed. Although it was possible to differentiate opportunistic and systematic surveys within the dataset, we opted for keeping all records for our analysis in order to test the robustness of the modelling approach in case our methods will be extended to other species for which this information is not available. This has now clarified in the text (see lines 171-174). In addition, we modelled species abundance with only abundance-given-presence (Pearce & Boyce 2006), thus zeros were not included in the data matrix (see lines 192-193). On the other hand, after the removal of data recorded before 2005 and after 2017, 7,492 and 4,690 observations (i.e., rows in the data matrix) remained for the pre-breeding and post-breeding migration periods, respectively. Number of records (as well as number of birds) considered in the analysis after removal are reported in the Results section (see lines 266-272).

5) the methods also need to be strengthened, since the ms refers to several exploratory analyses (daily abundances used to censor the study period and co-linearity of explanatory variables), but no results are provided. I urge the authors to provide supplementary tables with these results, so the readers can evaluate what was done.

Authors: Please see changes made throughout the Methods section as well as the new Supplementary Material attached to the manuscript including new figures reporting these issues.

6) the results also need to be strengthened, to ensure tests are clearly reported and evaluated. in particular, please use the comments added to the ms to address the comparison of the model R-squared values, and the correlations or modeled / observed abundances. finally, please justify the small number of iterations used (25) and the use of means +-/ 95% CI for some of the estimated parameters, rather than medians (25% - 75%).

Authors: We have followed the recommendations made throughout the document and we have clarified the comparisons and the tests performed (please see answers to comments embedded in the manuscript with track changes on). Regarding iterations and 95% CI, as it is stated in the Methods section, any random forest model apply bagging (i.e., bootstrap aggregating) to sub-sample the data that are used for training, thus each new tree is fit from a bootstrap sample of the training observations zi=(xi,yi). Therefore, using 25 repetitions of this bootstrap resampling actually means a lot of different trees to be built. Large data samples tend to approximate the normal distribution thus we think that the use of 95% CI is correct.

7) The discussion and conclusions were clear and concise, but they are difficult to evaluate , given the paucity of details in the methods / results. Finally, I urge the authors to carefully consider how they identify "key" areas, and to consider that they are only using counts; there are no behavioral data (eg., feeding versus transiting). Namely, would a high flux area (e.g., Gibraltar Strait) with lower counts be more sensitive to impacts than a foraging area with higher counts but lower flux?

Authors: Details have added in Methods and Results section following the recommendations of both the editor and the reviewer. Regarding the key areas, although we are analysing no behavioural data, to some extent, we can infer feeding and transiting areas from variable interactions. For instance, locations with tailwinds, high abundance level and low chlorophyll concentration can be interpreted as locations with high flux of birds, in contrast to locations with moderate abundance, no winds or moderate winds and high chlorophyll concentration levels. We have added the previous information in the new version of the manuscript (see lines 388-392). In addition, for the sake of clarity, we have moved the content related to this issue contained at the end of the Results section into the Discussion section, because we actually were discussing our results in relation to previous findings (see lines 392-399).

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 22 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

David Hyrenbach, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

'This study is part of a research project (“Environmental factors determining the interannual variation in the migration of Balearic and Scopoli’s shearwaters in the Mediterranean”, 2018-2019) which has been partly financed by the Annual Programme of Grants of the Instituto de Estudios Ceutíes (IEC, Autonomous City of Ceuta, Spain), years 2018-2019.'

a. Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

b. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Authors: Done.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, authors present a novel work to evaluate whether data from a long-term monitoring programme carried out by volunteers, i.e., a citizen science project, can be used to assess bird migratory patterns. They focused on an endangered seabird species endemic to the Mediterranean Sea that migrates to the Atlantic out of the breeding period. Authors relied on supervised machine learning technics to predict bird abundance, building up the models from data gathered at a network of bird census stations. Specifically, they used random forest regression models to evaluate the usefulness of citizen science data in predicting spatial and temporal abundance based on a set of predictors, including many satellite-derived features, reaching an accuracy of about 70%. Authors concluded that combining long-term citizen science with predictive modelling can be a reliable tool to assist long-term monitoring of sensitive species, to identify important areas and/or to detect trends.

The paper is well structured. The study is accurate and provides an interesting approach. As general comments, the major strength of this study relies on the source data used. Trektellen is an online database recording opportunistic seabird counts carried out by volunteers across Europe. Despite its potential, very few papers have made use of this long-term database. As a counterpart, there are also some weaknesses in the work that should be amended for publication. My main concern in this regard is that authors tend to overstate along the manuscript the importance of random forest (RF) to predict spatial and temporal abundance. RF is a really powerful algorithm (I personally really love it) based on an ensemble of decision trees, but its use is not new in the context of species distribution/abundance modelling (e.g. Oppel et al. (2012) Comparison of five modelling techniques to predict the spatial distribution and abundance of seabirds. Biological Conservation, 156, 94-104). In fact, recent approaches for species distribution modelling tend to build up a final output based on an ensemble of several algorithms (a.k.a. Ensemble Ecological Niche Models), including RF among them. See the “ssdm” package in R for details (Schmitt et al. (2017) ssdm: An r package to predict distribution of species richness and composition based on stacked species distribution models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 8(12), 1795-1803; and also, e.g., Pereira et al. (2018) Using a multi-model ensemble forecasting approach to identify key marine protected areas for seabirds in the Portuguese coast. Ocean & Coastal Management, 153, 98-107.).

Authors: We thanks the reviewer for the mentioned publications in relation to the subject of our study. In fact, Oppel et al. (2012) was cited and discussed in our manuscript (see lines 108, 345-351). However, this previous research found Balearic shearwater abundance to be extremely difficult to predict and it failed to provide reliable predictions on the spatial distribution of shearwater numbers. Moreover, their predictions were based on abundance and absence data. In contrast to this earlier modelling attempt based on ship transect data, our models, based on abundance given presence, provided strongly correlated predictions with the observed abundances and explained a significant proportion of the variance existing in the numbers of migrating shearwaters.

In relation to the other studies mentioned by the reviewer (Schmitt et al. 2017; Pereira et al. 2018), we are afraid that we cannot applied the above-mentioned approaches (based on ecological niche modelling and Individual Species Distribution Models -SDM-) because in our study, we are not modelling occurrence but abundance (i.e., count data of Balearic shearwaters). In addition, presence-only SDMs models are based on correlations between species presence and environmental conditions, predicting the environmental suitability for a species, and not their realized distribution, leading to weak relationships between predicted presence and relative abundance (Gomes et al. 2018). By modelling abundance instead of occurrence, we can obtain predictions on real abundance that can provide more relevant information to delineate marine protected areas. In relation to models predicting animal occurrence, few studies have tried to model estimates of relative abundance, even when data are acquired through systematic surveys. In addition, modelling only abundance-given-presence approaches as that in our study have been a rare approach in ecological modelling (Pearce and Boyce 2006). All this further discussion has been included in the Discussion section of the manuscript (lines 343-351). In addition, we have clarified our approach both in the Introduction and Methods section. We have also changed the title of the manuscript, replacing the reference to the “Random Forest” analysis and highlighting the fact that we model abundance data.

Reviewer #1: Apart from that, a major weakness of RF, just as in decision trees, is that they cannot extrapolate outside the range of the training data, and therefore great care must be taken when these algorithms are used to predict trends in the long-term, as those expected in the context of climate change. For these reasons, I think authors should attenuate the importance of using this machine learning algorithm in the paper, beginning with removing it from the title.

Authors: We agree with the reviewer#1 that Random forest, like other machine learning algorithms, are quite unreliable when extrapolating outside the range of the predictors’ values provided for training. We have removed mentions to future projections (see line 398 and lines 446) and added the specific validity of these models for understanding environmental changes within the range of the training data (see line 476). However, even with this limitation, as it is stated in the text, “trends in abundance related to changes in fisheries and/or in climate affecting the Balearic shearwater distribution can be inspected from a range of latitude and year values over the study period” (see lines 426-429).

Reviewer#1: Below I will refer to specific section and lines to provide comment:

As I have already commented, I would recommend changing the title, omitting reference to machine learning on it.

Authors: The title has been changed according to the answers given to the reviewer#1 comments above. Following the reviewer suggestion, we have removed “random forest” mention but we have highlighted the use of abundance data.

Reviewer: Abstract:

There is a lack of introduction. Please include at least one or two sentences about the general framework before stating what you did address.

Authors: Done. Please see lines 29-30.

Reviewer: Introduction:

In general, I think the introduction needs a bit of work. Some sentences are not explained well enough. The first paragraph is not very cohesive.

Authors: We have now re-written the Introduction section.

Reviewer: L49: Should be rephrased. Although I understand what authors mean, these concepts could be explained in a clearer way.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: L52-53: I would say seabirds are threatened because they are exposed to multiple threats -most of them related to human activities- as they cross and use multiple habitats year-round, not because they are subjected to many different environmental conditions (to which they are -or should be- adapted). Please rephrase.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: L53: I do not understand why you use “however”. I understand that phrase is taking about something completely different from the previous ones.

Authors: This sentence has been now totally re-phrased.

Reviewer: L54: Reference 3 does not support what is said.

Authors: This reference was removed and replaced by Felis et al. 2019.

Reviewer: L60: Reference 7 is about passerines. You should provide more references regarding the importance of stop-overs in species of marine or coastal habits.

Authors: Done. We have removed this citation and we have replaced it by a new one on seabirds. Please see new citation (Felis et al. 2019). In addition, we have also replaced other citations by specific seabird references (see line 61, Guilford et al. 2009).

Reviewer: L62-66. I do not agree with what is stated here. Determining the spatial distribution of seabirds during the migration period is a difficult task because birds they are generally located beyond the reach of the human eye. It is not obvious to me what you mean when saying “surveys of birds are usually limited to specific subsets of the total of the total migratory route”.

Authors: We agree with the reviewer and we have re-phrased the sentence accordingly.

Reviewer: L64: your statement is false for seabirds. Ring recoveries are not useful for identifying general movement patterns in seabirds, not only stop-over areas.

Authors: We disagree with the reviewer. Traditional studies based on ringing recoveries or ocean sightings have proved valuable for identifying very general movement patterns, but fail to discriminate important localities at sea (please see the citation originally provided -Walker et al. 2013- and also Guilford et al. 2009, which is now also cited in the text).

Reviewer: L68: accelerometers are not intended to track animal movements but behaviour, so they do not contribute to know at-sea distribution of seabirds.

Authors: We agree with the reviewer thus we have removed this mention in the new version of text.

Reviewer: L69: I do not agree. Light-level geolocators are the most extensively used devices to track migratory movements of seabirds, and the cost is not a general problem with them. Indeed, geolocators have the advantages of lilted weight, low price and animal-welfare, easy attachment, so high sample sizes are affordable. The real problem is what you explain in the next phrase. Even good sample sizes could be unrepresentative of seabird colony size (Soanes et al. (2013) How many seabirds do we need to track to define home‐range area? Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(3), 671-679; Thaxter, et al. (2017) Sample size required to characterize area use of tracked seabirds. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 81(6), 1098-1109).

Authors: We agree with the reviewer thus we have re-phrased the sentence accordingly. In addition, both citations indicated by the reviewer have been included in the new version of the text.

Reviewer: L75: references are in wrong format. Moreover, both references do not refer to seabirds, even though you are already focused on seabirds since the first paragraph. Please use more appropriate references (i.e. regarding seabirds).

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: L76: format of references is wrong.

Authors: The format has been now corrected.

Reviewer: L77-78: Electronic devices are intended to provide individual tracking and thus get information at individual level. Taking this in mind, they can allow indeed long-term monitoring, and individuals of different species have already been tracked for more than a decade. In the case of seabirds and geolocators, devices can also be replaced annually, so as long as individuals are alive and can be recaptured, long term tracking can be carried out. Last, a major advantage of individual tracking is the fact that you know individual origin (i.e. colony, population). So, the weakness you state for tracking devices is inconsistent. Moreover, the weakness you argue about electronic devices also applied to census surveys, as birds counted at coastal points or vessel surveys are of unknown origin, and even species identification could be difficult for some species (as Balearic and Mediterranean shearwater). Instead of looking for weakness of tracking methods, you should highlight the strength of census methods (e.g. take an overview picture despite unknowing ages or colonies of origin). You should also comment a major weakness of census method for seabirds, which is the impossibility to count birds when they use areas out of the human sight during wintering or migration.

Authors: Done, please see lines 77-79.

Reviewer: L84-91: I think here you did well in relating the strength of citizen science projects- I would suggest you to combine these lines with the previous paragraph, once removed/resolved the issues I said before. May this reference is also of interest for citation: Coxen, C. L., Frey, J. K., Carleton, S. A., & Collins, D. P. (2017) Species distribution models for a migratory bird based on citizen science and satellite tracking data. Global ecology and conservation, 11, 298-311. Last, you should introduce Trektellen here and comment if some other paper has use this datasource before, as I see this is a really good point of your paper.

Authors: We have followed all the suggestions made by the reviewer in this specific comment.

Reviewer: L92-96: These lines may be in a different paragraph and be complemented with information about techniques for species distribution modelling. As I already said, many algorithms are available to model and predict species distribution and abundance, and some methods even integrated multiple algorithm. Thus, there is room here to give readers a bit introduction about this issue. I would include information on satellite-derived features as second part in the paragraph, as such features are the predictors used in the models.

Authors: We have included additional information on modelling techniques and on the relevance of our modelling approach both in the Introduction and in the Discussion sections. However, for the sake of clarity, we have kept this information after the information on satellite-derived features. See lines 125-131 and also answers to comments above.

Reviewer: L100: there is a typo after “shearwaters”.

Authors: The comma has now been removed.

Reviewer: L108-109: Please provide a reference. Which unused areas?

Done. We referred to unused areas non-detected in the previous studies. See Meier et al. 2015 which is now cited in the text.

Reviewer: L114: replace “useful data” by “useful source of data”

Following the other reviewer suggestion, “other useful data” have been replaced by “other records”.

Reviewer: L116: replace “these datasets” by “citizen science data”

Authors: This sentence has been rephrased following the other reviewer suggestions, thus “these datasets” has now been removed.

Reviewer: L118: “most likely pelagic habitats”. This is inconsistent. You said in L112 the species occurs mainly in shallow coastal waters. Also, observation from coast only frequently allow to count birds in coastal waters. So identify pelagic habitats used during migration seems unfeasible.

Authors: “pelagic” has been replaced by “marine”.

Reviewer: L120: I believe the aim was to evaluate the performance, not to determine it

Authors: We agree with the reviewer observation, thus “determine” has been replaced by “evaluate”.

Reviewer: L121: replace “seabirds” by “Balearic shearwaters”.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: L122: remove “of these and other species”. Also, you could include at the end something like “and discuss the potential of citizen science data for seabird conservation”.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: L134-136: I suggest you include this in the next section.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: L147: Ref. 32 is related to a different species, remove it.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: L148: you should cite this paper, as one of the first describing environmental features to predict the presence of Balearic shearwaters: Louzao, M.et al. (2006) Oceanographic habitat of an endangered Mediterranean procellariiform: implications for marine protected areas. Ecological applications, 16(5), 1683-1695.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: L33: this reference is from a symposium in 1993. Please, try to provide more appropriate references. Lot of really good work has been done in the last 20 years with Balearic shearwaters, even addressing the specific question you mention in L10-151. Just two examples:

• Jones, A. R., Wynn, R. B., Yésou, P., Thébault, L., Collins, P., Suberg, L., ... & Brereton, T. M. (2014). Using integrated land-and boat-based surveys to inform conservation of the Critically Endangered Balearic shearwater. Endangered Species Research, 25(1), 1-18.

• Wynn, R. B., Josey, S. A., Martin, A. P., Johns, D. G., & Yésou, P. (2007). Climate-driven range expansion of a critically endangered top predator in northeast Atlantic waters. Biology Letters, 3(5), 529-532.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: L151: replace “pelagic and demersal” by “pelagic but also demersal”.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: L151: You start the phrase referring to Balearic shearwater’s diet. I guess where you say “but it also feeds” are referring to the species, not the diet. Let’s say: “Balearic shearwater’s diet includes small pelagic but also demersal fish, frequently obtained from trawling discards. The species can eventually feed on plankton and macrozooplankton, specifically krill”.

Authors: Done.

Material & Methods.

Reviewer:L166: I recommend changing “observatories” by sighting points for clarity.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer:L171-172: May 1st – August 30th.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer:L179: Ref. 39 appears two times

Authors: We have removed the duplication.

Reviewer:L187: I find necessary to provide also a reference on shearwaters, at least a closely related species. Dias, M. P., Granadeiro, J. P., & Catry, P. (2012). Do seabirds differ from other migrants in their travel arrangements? On route strategies of Cory’s shearwater during its trans-equatorial journey. PLoS One, 7(11), e49376.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer:L187: you say “fluctuations in migration are closely related to changes in food resource”. What are you referring to? Do you mean bird abundance during migration? Do you mean fluctuations in areas used (location) during migration? Do you mean fluctuations in dates? Please clarify.

Authors: We referred to bird abundance during migration. This has now been clarified in the new version of the text.

Reviewer:L192-193. I find this phrase unnecessary, and the reference provided not appropriate. Papers on seabird research usually indicate. I would suggest rephrasing to something like “We used chlorophyll concentration (Chla, measured in mg.m-3) as a proxy of marine productivity [ref]. We download satellite-based monthly products at 4 km spatial resolution for 2003-2017 period”. Ref. is Wakefield, E. D., Phillips, R. A., & Matthiopoulos, J. (2009). Quantifying habitat use and preferences of pelagic seabirds using individual movement data: a review. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 391, 165-182.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer:L195-198: This is an important methodological issue. I am going to use this moment to comment my concern about the unbalance in temporal representativity of predictors. You only use/have two years of fishing vessels distribution…I wonder how the unevenly representativity of predictor can affect Random Forest accuracy and predictions….

Authors: Discard availability may influence the at-sea distribution of shearwaters. As a proxy of food availability (both discards and fishes) we used information on fisheries. This information was inferred from the distribution of fishing vessels between 2014 and 2015, sourced by the JRC Data Catalogue. This product identifies which are the areas where fishing is more frequent. Vessel tracking data was derived from the Automatic Identification System (AIS), an open source data allowing to analyse the relation between fishing communities and fishing areas at high spatial resolution across Europe. Specifically, data used to build the map consist of 150 million positions from European fishing vessels above 15 m in length. In spite of its limited temporal coverage, the main strength of this dataset is its fine spatial resolution. This proxy on food availability in spatial terms, however, is complemented in our analysis with the high temporal resolution in marine productivity provided by chlorophyll concentration.

Reviewer:L202: I find necessary to cite at the end of the phrase “…modulating migratory behaviour” the reference: González-Solís, J., Felicísimo, A., Fox, J. W., Afanasyev, V., Kolbeinsson, Y., & Muñoz, J. (2009). Influence of sea surface winds on shearwater migration detours. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 391, 221-230.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer:L203: First reference in incorrect format, and also I find this reference no proper here. But again you have many to pick up one:

• Catry, P., Dias, M. P., Phillips, R. A., & Granadeiro, J. P. (2011). Different means to the same end: long-distance migrant seabirds from two colonies differ in behaviour, despite common wintering grounds. PLoS One, 6(10), e26079.

• Dias, M. P., Granadeiro, J. P., & Catry, P. (2013). Individual variability in the migratory path and stopovers of a long-distance pelagic migrant. Animal Behaviour, 86(2), 359-364.

• Dias, M. P., Granadeiro, J. P., & Catry, P. (2012). Do seabirds differ from other migrants in their travel arrangements? On route strategies of Cory’s shearwater during its trans-equatorial journey. PLoS One, 7(11), e49376.

But you can also cite this one that found out quite different results with regard to what you were saying:

• Dell’Ariccia, G., Benhamou, S., Dias, M. P., Granadeiro, J. P., Sudre, J., Catry, P., & Bonadonna, F. (2018). Flexible migratory choices of Cory’s shearwaters are not driven by shifts in prevailing air currents. Scientific reports, 8(1), 3376.

Authors: We have added two of the citations suggested by the reviewer supporting our statement as well as the one showing opposite results.

Reviewer:L203: Update [29] in Bibliography as this paper is already published.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: I find that text in pages 10-11 could be reduced and summarize drastically to ease reading….Yo may included details in Supplementary Material. I think you give too much details about predictors used but could be omitted simply citing references were each predictor has been used before.

Authors: Done. See the new Supplementary Material section (specifically, the Supplementary Methods section).

Reviewer: Regarding Table 1:

Indicate in the “Total” row that it is the response/target variable.

Authors: Following the editor suggestion, response variable has been removed from Table 1 in the present version of the manuscript.

Reviewer: Batim: remove year

Authors: Done. See also the other non-environmental predictors removed according to suggestions made by the editor.

Reviewer: Since the work is based on citizen science, I would expect to find “day of the week” in the table of predictors, as volunteers usually go birding on weekend.

Authors: Day of the week should not affect the magnitude of the response variable (abundance of shearwaters) thus we think it should not be included as an additional predictor of shearwater abundance. However, we agree with the reviewer that it could affect the temporal representation of the data. In this sense, we have added a new Figure (see Figure S2 in the Supplementary Material) showing that the datasets considered in our study contain a sufficient sample of observations in different days over the week.

Reviewer: Another important detail to me is that first paragraph of Results section should be moved to Material and Methods, as an exploratory analysis is part of methods and drives your next methodological steps. Idem for second paragraph in Results.

Authors: We disagree with the reviewer and we think that even if exploratory analysis, these are preliminary results that must be included in the Results section thus we have kept the structure of this section as it was.

Reviewer: Another point to highlight in this point is that you do not show any data regarding sampling effort of the citizen science project. The consistency in these projects is key for data quality and even though RF can deal with this issue, it would be informative to see a plot with sampling effort (for example days of observation) at the 123 observatories over time.

Authors: As our response variable are daily counts, number of records reported in the Results section is actually the total number of sampling days considered in the analysis. Total number of birds sighted during this sampling days is also reported in the Results section (see also answers to the editor comments above). In addition, regarding the sampling effort over time, we now provide the records conducted in different months over the study period considered in our research, as well as in different days of the week (see Figure S1 and S2 in the Supplementary Material; see also answers to comments above).

Statistical analysis

Reviewer: I recommend starting this section clearly indicating the structure of your data matrix, i.e. clearly defining whether each row is an observatory point, a session (i.e. specific day) from an observatory point, or whatever.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: L60: I would recommend citing references already published. If it is not possible, at least provide some extended explanation to understand your choice without the need to find a not yet published paper.

Authors: Unfortunately, the manuscript cited is still under review thus we cannot provide the reference to a published paper. However, following the suggestion of the reviewer, we have provided an extended explanation of the results obtain in the mentioned research. Please, see lines 216-233.

Reviewer: L243: It is not clear to me why you log-transformed the abundance data. Please clarify it.

Authors: As it is stated in the text, abundance of shearwaters are count data that follow a Poisson distribution. Prior to build our models we log-transformed the abundance data in order to improve the accuracy of the estimated effects reducing the potential bias and increasing the predictive power of the model. We have included this clarification in the new version of the manuscript.

Reviewer: L246-256: You should provide more details about tuning parameters of RF. Please clearly state the total sample size in the data matrix used as input in the models (number of rows, number of columns), the number of trees you grew up, the number of predictors you used for each tree, and the number of samples you select in each tree. It is not clear if you are using cross-validation, please try to clarify your explanations in L253.

Authors: Sample size of the shearwater observations (i.e., rows in the data matrix) is provided in the Results section (see lines 278-282). As in any usual regression analysis, the number of columns in the data matrix matched the number of predictors (see Table 1). All the trees were built using the total set of predictors described in Table 1. We assessed the performance of the models based on the Out- of-bag (OOB) error. The random forest model was trained using bootstrap aggregation, where each new tree was fit from a bootstrap sample of the training observations zi=(xi,yi). The OOB error is the average error for each zi calculated using predictions from the trees that do not contain zi in their respective bootstrap sample (Hastie et al. 2009). This allows the model to be fit and validated whilst being trained, thus no additional cross-validation was required. Number of trees assessed ranged between 100 and 500. For tuning the parameters of the model, we applied a grid search method, thus we evaluated the model over different combinations of parameters included in the grid (values ranging between 1-15 at one unit intervals for mtry parameter).

For the sake of clarity, we have re-written this section and all this explanations and the above-mentioned citation have been now included in the Methods section.

T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani and J. Friedman, “The Elements of Statistical Learning 2nd: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction”, p592-593, Springer, 2009.

Reviewer: L249: You refer RMSE without defining its meaning before. Please do explain briefly to the readers why you used Root Men Square Error for parameter tuning.

I would expected to see the confusion matrix (predicted vs observed) to generally evaluate accuracy of RF models. Could you include it?

Authors: RMSE (Root Mean Square Error) is the average difference between the observed known values of the outcome and the predicted value by the model. It is not solely a measure for parameter tuning but, on the whole, a usual measure used for assessing the accuracy of random forest regression models. The lower the RMSE value, the better the model. Further clarifications regarding this issue have been now included in the Methods section.

Regarding confussion matrix, we cannot provide it because we are modelling abundance (i.e., count data; see new lines added: 192-193), thus we are not calibrating random forest classification trees (models where the response variable is binary) but random forest regression trees (models where the response variable is continuous). Therefore, as it is stated in the text, we inferred the correspondence between observed and predicted values from RMSE.

Reviewer: L257: A bit confusing...May be rephrase: “Relative importance of the variables used for predicting shearwater abundance…”

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: Regarding Variable Importance, considering most readers of this paper will be ecologists from outside computing science, I would recommend to use a metric (and plots) easier to follow and understand. Ranking variables with the Gini Index or Mean Decrease Accuracy and showing a barplot illustrating the ranking would be much more understandable than plots provided by randomForestExplainer. In my opinion, when predictors overlap in the ranking the visualization provided by this R package is not so effective, as shown in figures 3a and 3b.

Authors: As we explained above, we are modelling random forest regression trees, thus we cannot apply the measures suggested by the reviewer, since Gini Inces and Mean Decrease Accuracy are measures of node impurity in classification Random Forest. In addition, these ranks rely on the choice of a performance measure, although measures of prediction performance are not unique. To solve this, Ishwaran et al. (2010) developed a method called minimal depth (MD) that simply determines variable importance by the position of the variables in the decision trees and thus, is only based on the decision tree structures. The idea is that, variables that tend to split close to the root node should have more importance in prediction. We think that our approach, even more complex, provides a better understanding of the relative variable importance and, therefore, it should be kept, since it is not only a matter of plotting but a matter of the way we quantified the variable importance.

Results

Reviewer: As I said before, I think the first and the second paragraph of Results section should be moved to Material and Methods, as an exploratory analysis is part of methods and drives your next methodological steps.

Authors: See comment above. In our experience (as researchers writing papers and as reviewers of scientific publications) even if they are exploratory, all analysis conducted are expected in the Results section, since the Methods section is only a description of the procedures that were applied to obtained the results. Therefore, we decided to keep the structure of this section as it was.

Reviewer: L276-277: The way this sentence is written is somehow confusing, as you only run two models (pre & post-breeding migration), but from the text it seems as you run a lot. As building a RF model implies using different training data subsample, I recommend removing this from the sentences “among the models built with different training data subsamples”.

Authors: In fact, as it was stated in the text, any random forest model is trained using bootstrap aggregation, where each new tree is fit from a bootstrap sample of the training observations (i.e., bagging procedure). Therefore, when calibrating a random forest model, we are actually running multiple iterative trees. Therefore, we can derive errors (and confidence intervals) from the different trees calibrated (see also answer to the comments above).

Reviewer: L308-310. This result could be due to a temporal bias in sampling effort from observatories. You should show, at least, the number of days of observation per Latitude and Year to support this result.

Fig. 5, figure caption: I think it is more properly as: “Predictions of Balearic shearwater spatial distribution and abundance during migration”

Authors: Since the study period is 13 years (2005-2017) and the study area contains 40,337 spatial cell units at the modelled resolution, it is not feasible to easily show together annual sightings per location and year, neither in a map nor in a table. However, the proper spatial representativeness of the data used in this study is now reported in Figure 1 as graduated symbols representing the number of sightings (see also comments of the editor) per location and migration period (pre-breeding and post-breeding). In addition, sightings per year and month are reported in Figure S1 in the Supplementary Material.

Regarding the Fig. 5 caption, we have mostly followed the suggestion made by the reviewer#1 and it is now as following: “Predictions of Balearic shearwater spatial distribution of abundance during migration”.

Discussion

Reviewer: L349-352: I understand Big Data is trending topic…But this paper is really far from using Big Data, so I recommend to avoid the use of this term.

Authors: In spite of the relatively reduce data set finally analysed (about thousands of shearwater records), open data sources managed during the analysis and later predictions conducted in our research (mostly NCEP reanalysis -weather predictors) contain more than 1,250,447 rows, thus we think it is worthy of being mentioned as “Big Data”.

Reviewer: L358: My suggestion: “allow to identify general spatio-temporal patterns as data come from different individuals belonging to several populations”.

You should discuss in this part the weakness of data coming from volunteering programmes, such as temporal gaps, uneven sampling effort in space and time, etc. particularly in L353 where you indicate “its characteristic noise” but do not explain anything more.

Authors: We have followed the suggestion made by the reviewer and the text has been changed accordingly. In addition, we have also discussed about the weakness of citizen science data and we have added a few citations to support our discussion.

Reviewer: L361-365: This phrase is too long, 5 lines…. Please rephrase or split it.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: L368: RF are not good to forecast out of the range of input data, so future projections based on this could be unreliable… depending on input data. Moreover, I think this issue (I mean future projections) is out of the scope of this paper.

Authors: We agree with the reviewer and we have removed any mention to future projections derived from the models.

Reviewer: L371: ref [74] is about ducks. I would say there are more appropriates references to cite here related with seabirds.

Authors: We have followed the suggestion made by the reviewer and the original citation has been replaced by a more suitable one (Tsikliras et al. 2019).

Reviewer: L379: format of references incorrect.

Authors: The citation was misplaced thus we have removed it in the new version of the manuscript.

Reviewer: L382: Be consistent with therm used. Replace volunteer data by scitizen science data.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: L393: what do you mean to “larger variability observed”? which result support this?

Authors: We referred to the wider confidence intervals in the model accuracy measures. This has now been clarified in the text.

Reviewer: L395-397: This phrase is not clear. Please rephrase it.

Authors: Done.

Reviewer: L422: this is related to some clarifications needed that I mentioned before.

Authors: We meant “when variability in accuracy of the predicticted abundance is larger”. This has now been clarified in the text. See also comment above.

Reviewer: L433-448. I found Conclusions section clear and nice

Authors: Thank you!

Bibliography:

Reviewer: There are typos spread over the section.

Authors: We have corrected the typos throughout this section.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Remove my information/details). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions.

Attachment

Submitted filename: answer_to_reviewers_PONE_Feb2020.docx

Decision Letter 1

Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva

23 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-29580R1

Citizen science for predicting spatio-temporal patterns in seabird abundance during migration

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Martin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 07 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I congratulate the authors for changes accounted over the manuscript, which is now much easier to follow, readable and understandable than the previous version. In my opinion they resolved successfully most of the comments done in the first submission. Nevertheless I have some comments on this new version. Despite most of them are minor comments, I really do think authors should amend them to improve the manuscript for publication.

My comments are detailed below. Line numbers correspond to those of the version with “Tracking changes” activated.

L36: I suggest "Random Forest regression models"

L54: ecosystemS, “s” in plural.

L65: have been received (remove “been”)

L74: I suggest replace “limit” by other word such as “undermine”, “affect”.

L90: I suggest: species migratory range due to the variety of migratory strategies at colony- and individual levels.

L98: replace “Therefore” by other term to avoid starting in the same way than previous sentence, it would make reading more fluid.

L98-99: I suggest: even providing very detailed information on INDIVIDUAL SEABIRDS’ movements, have a limited ability…

L101: My suggestion: Census methods, in contrast, can provide a VALUABLE overall picture, even though they do not allow to detect birds when they use areas out of human sight.

L106-131. Just another suggestion to ease reading. You used “however” and “in this sense” repeatedly to start sentences. May be you can replace some of them for readability.

L130: as you say “almost unexploited” I would expect to see at least one reference using Trektellen. If there are no publications, it may be better to say “have remained unexploited by the scientific community to the best of our knowledge” or something similar.

L143: Replace “geolocator archival tags” by “geolocation archival tags”, which is the correct form.

L167: may provide a useful records (delete “a”)

L178-179: the correct name does not include “Individual”, just “Species Distribution models”.

L263: How many sighting points from eBird?

L275: Why “Environmental” with capital letter?

L277: I suggest to put a comma before “thus” to ease reading. This advice also applies to many other "thus" along the manuscript.

L288: Caption of Table 1. For consistency you should say “Description of environmental predictors.”.

L393: Classification and Regression TreeS, add “s”.

L414-417: Honestly, to the best of my knowledge there is no need to apply any kind of transformation on the response variable to run Random Forest models. Conversely to GLMM and other parametric methods, random forest do not have any kind of assumption about distribution of data or residuals, so that count data adjust to a Poisson distribution is irrelevant here. The same about the predictive power of the model, it will not change because of transforming the response variable. A different thing is to transform predictors applying standardization, but that is different and is not what was done here. To make sure about my previous knowledge, I did a little research trying to find support to your statement, with no luck. May be I am wrong, so I sincerely encourage the authors to provide a reference supporting that transforming the response variable improves accuracy and increases predictive power of Random Forest models. If you do not find such support, I think the log transformation could be simply justified to improve interpretability of data -which (to me) should be enough-, but not to improve accuracy and predictive power of Random Forest.

L515: Regarding Fig. 4. Please (1) indicate in legend that values are in ln, or back transform them to the actual scale, (2) change year to factor so in the X axis years do not appear with decimal digits.

L532: Caption of Figure 5. I think “spatial distribution of abundance” can be confusing for readers. My suggestion to the entire caption to ease readability: “Predicted abundance of Balearic shearwater across its distribution range during migration. Colour gradient indicates the percentage of the maximum predicted abundance across the study area on the fifteenth of the month, from May to December, from environmental conditions (see Table 1) occurred in year 2017."

L553: “Our results showed (…) successfully applied to describe the migratory distribution (AND ABUNDANCE?) of seabird species accurately.”

L579: increaseD, add "d"

L587-596: “In contrast…(…) in the long-term.” Phrase too long, more than five lines…hard to read. Please split it.

L636-637: “For instance, locations with tailwinds, high abundance level and low chlorophyll concentration”, reorder, as in the next sentence, to: For instance, locations with high abundance level, tailwinds, and low chlorophyll concentration”.

L650: “But the major achievement of our modelling attempt is the high temporal resolution that we achieved with our models”. May be better to rephrase this phrase to avoid tongue twisters….for instance substituting “achievement” by accomplishment, and “modelling attempt” by analysis (in fact, as you already performed the modelling, it is no longer an attempt, isn’t it?).

L676: “the two migration movements”. I suggest to change this by “the two migratory periods” for clarity, and for consistency (see your lines 266-267).

L711: In relation to successful approaches developed to identify marine Important Bird Areas, instead of reference [69] I find much more appropriate and relevant to cite the work developed by SEO/BirdLife, a fortiori, in a work regarding Balearic Shearwater. Either the working-example paper https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320711004745 or the book Arcos, J. M. (2009). Áreas importantes para la conservación de las aves marinas en España: Important areas for the conservation of seabirds in Spain. Sociedad Española de Ornitologia (SEO/BirdLife).

Reviewer #2: First of all, I’d like to congratulate the authors for the study. The study, definitely, is interesting and relevant as it is aiming at (1) a better understanding of the migration pathways of a highly threatened seabird species whose general knowledge present several gaps, and (2) deal with citizen-science large data banks. Such data banks are very useful and studies that aids in a better understanding of how to analytically deal with citizen science in order to provide biologically and ecologically sound information are always welcome. I have no doubt that this study deserves attention and have potential to make an important contribution on those two topics I mentioned above. Therefore, I did a careful reading of the manuscript and checked with attention the critics of the previous reviewers and the authors’ response. I know the reviewing process can be daunting sometimes, particularly when a first round of reviews have already been done, and then a new reviewer comes in and makes further critics that haven’t been there before. Unfortunately, I think that is going to be my role here. In my view, the main fragilities of this study are: the details of the analytical approach need to be better presented; presentation of results needs to be reviewed, several results would be better presented if figures were made differently and/or a different set of statistical outputs of the RF models were used; and, finally the most critical issue, I ask authors to reconsider using Lat and Long as factors in the modelling, based on figure 3, both Lat and Long are the variables that explained most of models’ power of prediction – what is the consequence of that to the findings? If authors think the use of LatLong is justified, they should explain it carefully in methods and discuss it more deeply. But for me, it is clear on Fig3 that LatLong reduced considerably the importance of the environmental variables and the model is mostly predicting spatial occurrences than habitat use. Below a list of the detailed comments that authors should address.

I ask patience for the authors and hope they understand the comments and critics aims for improving the final manuscript. Have a good review, looking forward to read the reviewed version!

L52 – Seabirds instead of “marine birds”

L54 – I suggest deleting “migrate” from this sentence. Start next sentence with something like “migratory seabirds are particularly susceptible to a large number of stressors given the variety of habitats they use throughout their year-cycle…”

L60- Suggest rephrasing to “Stopovers are key sites; conditions experienced by seabirds in stopover can affect individual survival throughout migration and drive population dynamics” or some similar idea.

L76 – “and in relation to specific individual traits” this is a bit “loose” within the sentence. I suggest you describe which are those individual traits, or delete this part of the sentence. For instance, in the start of the sentence “This is particularly true for long-lived seabirds with a defined set of traits such as….. which have a great capacity… “

L96 – Rephrase “Prominent electronic citizen science data banks includes eBird and trekellen xxxx, two biodiversity…”. Additionaly, why they are prominent? Cited studies compared them with other databanks? Maybe more popular, commonly used, or else…?

L104 - Birdlife factsheet indicates several parameters explaining why this shearwater is critically endangered and why actions to improve knowledge on population trends are urgent, but I did not find any reference to the species being one of the most threatened species of seabirds. Maybe rephrase emphasizing that information from [26] allows placing this species as one of the most threatened seabirds in the world, as possibly it is.

L151. Is it possible to plot the position of known breeding colonies of the species?

Line 170. This is key: correctly identified when sighted. Some seabirds at sea are very difficult to distinguish; therefore the use of data from citizen science for study difficult-to-identify species should be careful. I hope that it is acknowledged in the discussion.

L183. Data from 2005 to 2017 was used because it is the most representative period in terms of sampling. 2018 was excluded because it does not have a homogeneous sampling throughout the year. Mention it here.

L191. It seems you used year and geographical position as factors in your model (by seeing figure 3). It is not described in methods how those variables entered the model. I would not recommend using Lat and Long as factors in this case, and I really think it doesn’t help your study at all (if it does, please provide an explanation). Lat and Long are not environmental variables used by the birds, and given that both were the most influencing variables in the model, it is likely the models outputs are predicting the occurrences rather than the relation between abundance and environment. Don’t you agree? If this is true, the model should be run again without lat and long as factors. You could, a posteriori, use a probability of occurrence based on latlong to filter the predictions like Hindell et al. (2020; DOI 10.1038/s41586-020-2126-y) did.

L193. In practical terms, zero was suppressed, right?

L197 – “For a detailed description of the set of predictors included in the models, please see the Supplementary Material.” Instead of this, you could add in line 195 “…predictors (Table 1, Supp. Material).” The references in the supplemental material are the same from the main text? Shouldn’t sup. material have its own reference list?

L211. Where exactly in results? Reference to supp. material.

L212-221. I didn’t understand this section. You applied a single machine-learning based technique (random forest), right? You start the sentence saying it in plural. Then you presented a series of models and an equation, apparently presented in three studies [43,44,45]. If this is true, this paragraph could be simplified to saying that among a handful of techniques, RF was identified as one of the most accurate in at least three studies based on comparison of RMSE. The reader can check then the studies that you cited.

L242 – 248.

This is not clear and needs further explaining. You used bootstrap to calibrate the model, the algorithm stopped when the best “solution” was reached? That’s why you have a variable number of combinations (1-15)? It is also usual to run a fixed number of trees and check the increase in accuracy, and a posteriori, select the trees that produced increasing accuracy without substantial overfit. That’s why you had a variable number of trees between 100 to 500? I imagine you used 500 threes for all the possible variable combinations and used the approach I described to select the best solutions, the minimum number of trees required to achieve that was 100. Is it right? Or I completely misunderstood?

The RMSE is calculated over the OOB-error? It did not seem that you did it. In my opinion, a plot showing OOB vs RMSE (or AUC, or other…) over all iteration trees could provide such information and justify why there is a variable number of trees used in the final and averaged abundance output (I briefly checked the packages you used, there are some ways of doing that: http://topepo.github.io/caret/model-training-and-tuning.html). If this is not what you did and I misunderstood, please provide alternative explanations.

L272. Order of the figures was quite confusing… figure 1 was the last in the PDF… putting the legends with the figures instead of merging it in the text would facilitate reviewing. I hope authors consider it in further revisions or submissions.

L273. You said in methods that you removed correlated variables, and in the end, you used all variables because no variable was correlated. Change it in methods.

L277. Figure 2 points out a small variability on power of prediction based on R2 values, more or less between 0.49 and 0.53, and slightly more accurate predictions during RFPost, as mean error was lower. It is not clear to me how it indicated substantial variation among models. Please explain. Further information is also required: are those results from all the iterated trees?

L279-281. Please explain what lagged-iterated differences mean and how they were calculated. Is this a lag between iterations or annual variability? Check next comment.

L299. Year entered as a factor? Or models were run separately for each year? Methods were not clear on how annual variability was used in the models. If year entered as factor in the analysis, how did you deal with fisheries time-coverage being different then the species data? You probably used fishing as a fixed non-dynamic variable. How you justify that?

L306. What is minimum depth? It is crucial to understand figure 3. An alternative way (more straightforward, in my opinion) of analyzing variable contribution is to plot the change in accuracy when the variable is absent from the model. Seems that Caret package has a standard function to do that: ‘varImp’.

L312. Not sure whether figure 4 contributes to the overall results. It could be placed on the suppl. Material. How annual variability was used in the model is not clear either.

L325. You said in methods you used two periods of migration, instead you present here eight different periods. Can you group information for only those two period? More detailed results could be placed in the Supp Material and in the main text a general figure highlighting the detected stop-overs on the two different periods. Breeding and non-breeding known areas in the figure also would be very useful.

L325. Figure suggests part of the population remains in the Mediterranean year-round. Is that true or it is a product of the modelling?

L348-351. It is important to highlight that boosted regression trees methods such as the used here can artificially inflate accuracy with increasing iterations, therefore the need to evaluate how fit and accuracy varies with iterations. It is possible to have increasing accuracy and loss of fit to the point that the model starts predicting the response itself (occurrence or abundance) disregarding the factors, therefore one should use this in order to select the optimum number of iterations to be used in the final model outputs. This is not clear in methods, and this is not discussed either.

L386-390. Nowhere in your results there are estimated response curves. So please cite a reference to this statement.

L389. It would be very useful to place in the map the sites you mention here, such as Alboran Sea or Gulf of Cadiz in figure 1, so readers not familiar with this region of the globe can be spatially situated.

L392-394. I thought results indicated differences on migratory routes between periods. Did I misunderstand?

L397. Yet, how temporal variability was used in the model is not clear.

L417. Again, without estimated response curves, I don’t think it is possible to reach such conclusion. A variable having high importance in the modelling doesn’t mean the birds had higher abundance in the higher values of the variable, this is particularly true using a model as RF that does not necessarily assumes linearity.

L423. How variability in accuracy (that was not as large as the authors claimed) was led by the link with food availability? It is not clear. Needs better explanation.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Lucas Krüger

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 14;15(8):e0236631. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236631.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


1 Jun 2020

1st June 2020

PONE-D-19-29580R1

Citizen science for predicting spatio-temporal patterns in seabird abundance during migration

Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Rodrigues,

We sincerely thank you for allowing us to resubmit our paper. Following your instructions, we resubmit the manuscript titled “Citizen science for predicting spatio-temporal patterns in seabird abundance during migration” (PONE-D-19-29580R1), after fully addressing all the concerns raised by the reviewers.

Changes done throughout the text have been recorded, via track-changes, in a document enclosed with this re-submission. Please find below the detailed explanation of the modifications we have made in response to the concerns raised. A copy of the document with the track changes feature turned off is also attached. Lines indicated below referred to the document with the track changes feature turned on.

We hope that you will find this revised version suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

Yours faithfully,

Beatriz Martín on behalf of all the authors

PONE-D-19-29580R1

Citizen science for predicting spatio-temporal patterns in seabird abundance during migration

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Martin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 07 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Authors: All the environmental predictors used in the present study are freely available from the websites of the different data sources indicated in Table 1. Moreover, the abundance of shearwater analysed in this study can be obtained after request from eBird (https://ebird.org/). This information is now explicitly indicated in the Acknowledgements section.

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I congratulate the authors for changes accounted over the manuscript, which is now much easier to follow, readable and understandable than the previous version. In my opinion they resolved successfully most of the comments done in the first submission. Nevertheless I have some comments on this new version. Despite most of them are minor comments, I really do think authors should amend them to improve the manuscript for publication.

My comments are detailed below. Line numbers correspond to those of the version with “Tracking changes” activated.

L36: I suggest "Random Forest regression models"

Authors: Done.

L54: ecosystemS, “s” in plural.

Authors: Done.

L65: have been received (remove “been”)

Authors: Done.

L74: I suggest replace “limit” by other word such as “undermine”, “affect”.

Authors: Done.

L90: I suggest: species migratory range due to the variety of migratory strategies at colony- and individual levels.

Authors: Done.

L98: replace “Therefore” by other term to avoid starting in the same way than previous sentence, it would make reading more fluid.

Authors: Done.

L98-99: I suggest: even providing very detailed information on INDIVIDUAL SEABIRDS’ movements, have a limited ability…

Authors: Done.

L101: My suggestion: Census methods, in contrast, can provide a VALUABLE overall picture, even though they do not allow to detect birds when they use areas out of human sight.

Authors: This was a correction made by other reviewer in the previous reviewing round. What we mean here is that census data do not allow to identify the colony or the age of the individuals. We have slightly changed the sentence in order to clarify it for the reader. Please see line 82.

L106-131. Just another suggestion to ease reading. You used “however” and “in this sense” repeatedly to start sentences. May be you can replace some of them for readability.

Authors: Done.

L130: as you say “almost unexploited” I would expect to see at least one reference using Trektellen. If there are no publications, it may be better to say “have remained unexploited by the scientific community to the best of our knowledge” or something similar.

Authors: Done.

L143: Replace “geolocator archival tags” by “geolocation archival tags”, which is the correct form.

Authors: Done.

L167: may provide a useful records (delete “a”)

Authors: Done.

L178-179: the correct name does not include “Individual”, just “Species Distribution models”.

Authors: Done.

L263: How many sighting points from eBird?

Authors: Sighting points are not fixed in eBird observations so the number of observations is the number of sighting points. We have now clarified this point (see line 183).

L275: Why “Environmental” with capital letter?

Authors: Done.

L277: I suggest to put a comma before “thus” to ease reading. This advice also applies to many other "thus" along the manuscript.

Authors: Done. We have changed this throughout the manuscript.

L288: Caption of Table 1. For consistency you should say “Description of environmental predictors.”.

Authors: Done.

L393: Classification and Regression TreeS, add “s”.

Authors: Done.

L414-417: Honestly, to the best of my knowledge there is no need to apply any kind of transformation on the response variable to run Random Forest models. Conversely to GLMM and other parametric methods, random forest do not have any kind of assumption about distribution of data or residuals, so that count data adjust to a Poisson distribution is irrelevant here. The same about the predictive power of the model, it will not change because of transforming the response variable. A different thing is to transform predictors applying standardization, but that is different and is not what was done here. To make sure about my previous knowledge, I did a little research trying to find support to your statement, with no luck. May be I am wrong, so I sincerely encourage the authors to provide a reference supporting that transforming the response variable improves accuracy and increases predictive power of Random Forest models. If you do not find such support, I think the log transformation could be simply justified to improve interpretability of data -which (to me) should be enough-, but not to improve accuracy and predictive power of Random Forest.

Authors: The reviewer is right in relation to the lack of assumptions in the distribution of the data in Random Forest models. However, when we use an approach based on decision trees such as Random forest where data partitioning is applied, we can obtain better results if we work with a dependent variable homogenously distributed, because the dispersion increases as long as the variable increases. We cannot provide a reference but we have provided our own results (see lines 255-263).

L515: Regarding Fig. 4. Please (1) indicate in legend that values are in ln, or back transform them to the actual scale, (2) change year to factor so in the X axis years do not appear with decimal digits.

Authors: Done. We have also clarified the scale of the reported predictions in the legend of Figure 5 and Figures S4-S6 in the Supplementary material.

L532: Caption of Figure 5. I think “spatial distribution of abundance” can be confusing for readers. My suggestion to the entire caption to ease readability: “Predicted abundance of Balearic shearwater across its distribution range during migration. Colour gradient indicates the percentage of the maximum predicted abundance across the study area on the fifteenth of the month, from May to December, from environmental conditions (see Table 1) occurred in year 2017."

Authors: We have accepted the suggestion made by the reviewer. Please see the new Figure legend.

L553: “Our results showed (…) successfully applied to describe the migratory distribution (AND ABUNDANCE?) of seabird species accurately.”

Authors: Done.

L579: increaseD, add "d"

Authors: Done.

L587-596: “In contrast…(…) in the long-term.” Phrase too long, more than five lines…hard to read. Please split it.

Authors: Done.

L636-637: “For instance, locations with tailwinds, high abundance level and low chlorophyll concentration”, reorder, as in the next sentence, to: For instance, locations with high abundance level, tailwinds, and low chlorophyll concentration”.

Authors: Done.

L650: “But the major achievement of our modelling attempt is the high temporal resolution that we achieved with our models”. May be better to rephrase this phrase to avoid tongue twisters….for instance substituting “achievement” by accomplishment, and “modelling attempt” by analysis (in fact, as you already performed the modelling, it is no longer an attempt, isn’t it?).

Authors: Done.

L676: “the two migration movements”. I suggest to change this by “the two migratory periods” for clarity, and for consistency (see your lines 266-267).

Authors: Done.

L711: In relation to successful approaches developed to identify marine Important Bird Areas, instead of reference [69] I find much more appropriate and relevant to cite the work developed by SEO/BirdLife, a fortiori, in a work regarding Balearic Shearwater. Either the working-example paper https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320711004745 or the book Arcos, J. M. (2009). Áreas importantes para la conservación de las aves marinas en España: Important areas for the conservation of seabirds in Spain. Sociedad Española de Ornitologia (SEO/BirdLife).

Authors: Done.

Reviewer #2: First of all, I’d like to congratulate the authors for the study. The study, definitely, is interesting and relevant as it is aiming at (1) a better understanding of the migration pathways of a highly threatened seabird species whose general knowledge present several gaps, and (2) deal with citizen-science large data banks. Such data banks are very useful and studies that aids in a better understanding of how to analytically deal with citizen science in order to provide biologically and ecologically sound information are always welcome. I have no doubt that this study deserves attention and have potential to make an important contribution on those two topics I mentioned above. Therefore, I did a careful reading of the manuscript and checked with attention the critics of the previous reviewers and the authors’ response. I know the reviewing process can be daunting sometimes, particularly when a first round of reviews have already been done, and then a new reviewer comes in and makes further critics that haven’t been there before. Unfortunately, I think that is going to be my role here. In my view, the main fragilities of this study are: the details of the analytical approach need to be better presented; presentation of results needs to be reviewed, several results would be better presented if figures were made differently and/or a different set of statistical outputs of the RF models were used; and, finally the most critical issue, I ask authors to reconsider using Lat and Long as factors in the modelling, based on figure 3, both Lat and Long are the variables that explained most of models’ power of prediction – what is the consequence of that to the findings? If authors think the use of LatLong is justified, they should explain it carefully in methods and discuss it more deeply. But for me, it is clear on Fig3 that LatLong reduced considerably the importance of the environmental variables and the model is mostly predicting spatial occurrences than habitat use. Below a list of the detailed comments that authors should address.

I ask patience for the authors and hope they understand the comments and critics aims for improving the final manuscript. Have a good review, looking forward to read the reviewed version!

Authors: We have followed the suggestions and the recommendations made by the reviewer in relation to the Methods and Results presented in the study, please see comments below. Regarding the longitude and latitude as predictors because, we must have in mind that we are not predicting the static distribution of the shearwaters as a particular time snapshot, but their occurrence along the migration period. Apart from environmental cues such as food availability, migratory birds can more or less rely on photoperiodic cues and/or endogenous rhythms to initiate their migration. Longitude, latitude and date variables allow us to include in the models the endogenous rhythm of the bird. As we can see from the variable importance in the models, whereas food availability seems to be a more important triger of post-breeding migration, the internal rhythm of the bird appears to be more important during the pre-breeding period. For further details, please see comment below and new lines 210-228.

L52 – Seabirds instead of “marine birds”

Authors: Done.

L54 – I suggest deleting “migrate” from this sentence. Start next sentence with something like “migratory seabirds are particularly susceptible to a large number of stressors given the variety of habitats they use throughout their year-cycle…”

Authors: Done.

L60- Suggest rephrasing to “Stopovers are key sites; conditions experienced by seabirds in stopover can affect individual survival throughout migration and drive population dynamics” or some similar idea.

Authors: We have mostly followed the reviewer suggestion. However, since conditions in stopovers may affect survival beyond the migratory journey due to carry-over effects, we have slightly changed the re-phrasing (see lines 61-64). See also the correction made by the reviewer #1 above.

L76 – “and in relation to specific individual traits” this is a bit “loose” within the sentence. I suggest you describe which are those individual traits, or delete this part of the sentence. For instance, in the start of the sentence “This is particularly true for long-lived seabirds with a defined set of traits such as….. which have a great capacity… “

Authors: By “traits” we meant sex, age, breeding colony. This has now explicitly written in the text.

L96 – Rephrase “Prominent electronic citizen science data banks includes eBird and trekellen xxxx, two biodiversity…”. Additionaly, why they are prominent? Cited studies compared them with other databanks? Maybe more popular, commonly used, or else…?

Authors: They are prominent in number of users. We have clarified this point in the text.

L104 - Birdlife factsheet indicates several parameters explaining why this shearwater is critically endangered and why actions to improve knowledge on population trends are urgent, but I did not find any reference to the species being one of the most threatened species of seabirds. Maybe rephrase emphasizing that information from [26] allows placing this species as one of the most threatened seabirds in the world, as possibly it is.

Authors: Done.

L151. Is it possible to plot the position of known breeding colonies of the species?

Authors: We think that it is not a good idea to show the breeding colonies in the map because only a few main colonies are known for these species and the information would not be an overall picture of the breeding range. However, following the reviewer suggestion and according to the publication below, we now show both the breeding and the non-breeding range for the species in Figure 1.

José Manuel Arcos: International species action plan for the Balearic shearwater, Puffinus mauretanicus, SEO/BirdLife & BirdLife International, 2011,

Line 170. This is key: correctly identified when sighted. Some seabirds at sea are very difficult to distinguish; therefore the use of data from citizen science for study difficult-to-identify species should be careful. I hope that it is acknowledged in the discussion.

Authors: Actually, it was mentioned in the Discussion section (see lines 426-431; and line 516).

L183. Data from 2005 to 2017 was used because it is the most representative period in terms of sampling. 2018 was excluded because it does not have a homogeneous sampling throughout the year. Mention it here.

Authors: In fact this point had been indicated just in a couple lines below in the previous version of the manuscript: “However, to ensure the maximum seasonal representation of the dataset to be analysed (see Figure S1 in the Supplementary material), from this total sample of birds, we only modelled data collected during the migration period from 2005 to 2017 (see Results)”. Please see lines 188-191.

L191. It seems you used year and geographical position as factors in your model (by seeing figure 3). It is not described in methods how those variables entered the model. I would not recommend using Lat and Long as factors in this case, and I really think it doesn’t help your study at all (if it does, please provide an explanation). Lat and Long are not environmental variables used by the birds, and given that both were the most influencing variables in the model, it is likely the models outputs are predicting the occurrences rather than the relation between abundance and environment. Don’t you agree? If this is true, the model should be run again without lat and long as factors. You could, a posteriori, use a probability of occurrence based on latlong to filter the predictions like Hindell et al. (2020; DOI 10.1038/s41586-020-2126-y) did.

Authors: Latitude and longitude were included as discrete variables in the models (this is now explicitly indicated in line 212). We have included latitude and longitude as predictors because we are not predicting the static distribution of the shearwaters as a particular time snapshot, but their occurrence along the migration period. Below we provide a detailed explanation. Depending on the species, birds can more or less rely on photoperiodic cues and/or endogenous rhythms to initiate their migration. Therefore, although migration decisions in shearwaters are partially dictated by food availability, the endogenous programme of the bird should make it to instinctively move into the north as long as the post-breeding season progresses. Date, longitude and latitude variables allow us to include in the models the endogenous rhythm of the bird. In addition, as we mentioned in the Introduction section, breeding and wintering grounds of different shearwater populations differ. Therefore, longitude and also latitude can be indirect proxies of the effects that different wintering sites, different length of the route and different en-route environmental conditions may pose to different migrant birds. These effects are not possible to be quantified in detail from citizen datasets since, in contrast to ringing or electronic tracking devices records, because they do not provide information on the particular origin and destination of the observed bird. On the other hand, and most important, we cannot ignore that we are not predicting merely habitat use but modelling birds which are in movement. In this sense, the use of these additional predictors also allows to incorporate the effects of the complex interactions emerging between predictors, such as latitude, date and temperature. For instance, for a migrating shearwater it has not the same meaning, in terms of migration decisions, to experience 25°C in the Mediterranean Sea in mid-February than 25°C in the UK coasts in mid-August. Similarly, due to different rates of change across space among different bird populations, interactions between predictors and “latitude”, and between “year” and “latitude” may allow to quantify both the spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the migratory responses. We have now briefly clarified all these facts in the new version of the manuscript (please see lines 212-226).

L193. In practical terms, zero was suppressed, right?

Authors: The reviewer is right. We have now clarified this point in the text (please see line 199).

L197 – “For a detailed description of the set of predictors included in the models, please see the Supplementary Material.” Instead of this, you could add in line 195 “…predictors (Table 1, Supp. Material).” The references in the supplemental material are the same from the main text? Shouldn’t sup. material have its own reference list?

Authors: Done. The sentence has been removed and we have created a new specific section of references in the Supplementary material.

L211. Where exactly in results? Reference to supp. material.

Authors: Done.

L212-221. I didn’t understand this section. You applied a single machine-learning based technique (random forest), right? You start the sentence saying it in plural. Then you presented a series of models and an equation, apparently presented in three studies [43,44,45]. If this is true, this paragraph could be simplified to saying that among a handful of techniques, RF was identified as one of the most accurate in at least three studies based on comparison of RMSE. The reader can check then the studies that you cited.

Authors: Actually, as the reviewer suggests, this assessment was only cited in the first version of the manuscript. This paragraph was added in the previous reviewing round after request of one of the reviewers, since the cited work remains yet unpublished (it is under review). For this reason, we have decided to keep the further explanation regarding the selection of the modelling approach.

L242 – 248.

This is not clear and needs further explaining. You used bootstrap to calibrate the model, the algorithm stopped when the best “solution” was reached? That’s why you have a variable number of combinations (1-15)? It is also usual to run a fixed number of trees and check the increase in accuracy, and a posteriori, select the trees that produced increasing accuracy without substantial overfit. That’s why you had a variable number of trees between 100 to 500? I imagine you used 500 threes for all the possible variable combinations and used the approach I described to select the best solutions, the minimum number of trees required to achieve that was 100. Is it right? Or I completely misunderstood?

The RMSE is calculated over the OOB-error? It did not seem that you did it. In my opinion, a plot showing OOB vs RMSE (or AUC, or other…) over all iteration trees could provide such information and justify why there is a variable number of trees used in the final and averaged abundance output (I briefly checked the packages you used, there are some ways of doing that: http://topepo.github.io/caret/model-training-and-tuning.html). If this is not what you did and I misunderstood, please provide alternative explanations.

Authors: We think the reviewer confuse the machine learning technique applied. Bagging is the application of the Bootstrap procedure to a high-variance machine learning algorithm, typically decision trees. And Random Forest is an improvement over bagged decision trees, consisting of a large number of individual decision trees that operate as an ensemble. As it is stated in the text (see lines 267-269), any random forest model applies bagging (i.e., bootstrap aggregating) to sub-sample the data that are used for training. Please, see also comment below about the difference between boosting and bagging techniques.

As it is described in the Methods, we are following a usual Random Forest regression analysis so the RMSE is calculated over all the trees in a particular model over the bagging procedure. In Random forest each model is calculated through a bagging procedure (i.e., by building multiple different decision tree models from a single training data set by repeatedly using multiple bootstrapped subsets of the data and averaging the models, see lines 267-269). OOB error is derived from this bootstrap process. When bagging decision trees the number of samples and hence the number of trees is a parameter to be selected (see lines 278-279). Therefore, the algorithm increases the number of trees on run after run until the accuracy begins to stop showing improvement. We have now clarified this point in the text (please see lines 278-282). On the other hand, random forest model has hyperparameters that should be tuned to avoid overfitting. The previous is now explicitly clarified in the text (lines 273-274). Therefore, as it was stated in the text, to determine the parameter values offering the best fit, we specified a set of tuning values to be tested during the calibration of the models. That is why we have a number of combinations (1-15). Specifically, we applied a grid search method, thus we evaluated the model over different combinations of parameters included in the grid (values ranging between 1-15 at one-unit intervals). We must have in mind that RMSE is the average difference between the observed known values of the outcome and the predicted value by the model (see lines 243-244). Therefore, the best fit parameter combination is then asseses by means of the RMSE of the models (see new lines 282-284 explicitly explaining the later point).

We could not apply AUC (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics -ROC- Curve) because this measure is only applicable to classification trees but not to regression trees, as it is our approach. That is the reason why we chose RMSE metric.

L272. Order of the figures was quite confusing… figure 1 was the last in the PDF… putting the legends with the figures instead of merging it in the text would facilitate reviewing. I hope authors consider it in further revisions or submissions.

Authors: we will take care of the figure ordering when re-submitting the manuscript. However, the inclusion of the legends throughout of the text is a requirement of PLOSONE to indicate the suggested position of the Figure within the text.

L273. You said in methods that you removed correlated variables, and in the end, you used all variables because no variable was correlated. Change it in methods.

Authors: Done, see lines 232-235.

L277. Figure 2 points out a small variability on power of prediction based on R2 values, more or less between 0.49 and 0.53, and slightly more accurate predictions during RFPost, as mean error was lower. It is not clear to me how it indicated substantial variation among models. Please explain. Further information is also required: are those results from all the iterated trees?

Authors: The differences between pre-breeding and post-breeding models were measured as the lagged and iterated differences over the model resamples. This sentence was initially included in the Result section, but we have now moved it into the Methods. On the other hand, as it is stated in the text, the variation among models built with different training data subsamples is measured as the 95% confidence interval in the used metrics (RMSE and R2). We have now qualified this point in the text. Even if the variability seems small, according to the Results (see lines 328-338), differences in RMSE between pre- and post-breeding models are statistically significant.

L279-281. Please explain what lagged-iterated differences mean and how they were calculated. Is this a lag between iterations or annual variability? Check next comment.

Authors: As it is stated in the text, “the differences between pre-breeding and post-breeding models were measured as the lagged and iterated differences over the model resamples”, so the differences are measured over the model resamples, as the difference between a resample and the previous one in an iterative way. We have now included this clarification in the text (lines 328-329).

L299. Year entered as a factor? Or models were run separately for each year? Methods were not clear on how annual variability was used in the models. If year entered as factor in the analysis, how did you deal with fisheries time-coverage being different then the species data? You probably used fishing as a fixed non-dynamic variable. How you justify that?

Authors: Year, as well as date, longitude and latitude, entered in the models as discrete variables predicting shearwater abundance. We have now clarified this point (see comment above and lines 210-2132).

L306. What is minimum depth? It is crucial to understand figure 3. An alternative way (more straightforward, in my opinion) of analyzing variable contribution is to plot the change in accuracy when the variable is absent from the model. Seems that Caret package has a standard function to do that: ‘varImp’.

Authors: Minimal depth is a method developed by Ishwaran et al. (2010) that determines variable importance by the position of the variables in the decision trees so the importance is based on the decision tree structure. The idea is that variables that tend to split close to the root node should have more importance in prediction. We really think that our approach, even more complex than other simple measures of prediction performance, provides a better understanding of the relative variable importance and, therefore, it should be kept. To help the reader understanding the approach, we have included additional information on the way that minimal depth is measured (see lines 298-302).

L312. Not sure whether figure 4 contributes to the overall results. It could be placed on the suppl. Material. How annual variability was used in the model is not clear either.

Authors: We disagree with the reviewer regarding the importance of Figure 4. The results on the interaction between latitude and year variables (which is shown in Figure 4) allow to determine whether there is a spatial trend in abundance over the period. This is explained in lines 340-342. This fact has been previously discussed for this and other seabird species in other research studies, see the Discussion section, and it is relevant both for understanding the effects of climate change and to delimit marine areas (see the Discussion section). For these reasons, we have kept Figure 4 within the main text of the article. Regarding annual variability, as it was stated in the text (see line 213), interannual variability is measured through the effect of the variable “year”. If there is no interannual variability, then the “year” should have a minor importance in the model. We have further clarified this fact in the new version of the manuscript (see line 346-349).

L325. You said in methods you used two periods of migration, instead you present here eight different periods. Can you group information for only those two period? More detailed results could be placed in the Supp Material and in the main text a general figure highlighting the detected stop-overs on the two different periods. Breeding and non-breeding known areas in the figure also would be very useful.

Authors: As it is stated in the Methods section (lines 190-196), actually we use two periods of migration (pre-breeding and post-breeding) so we built two specific models for one each other. However, also in the Methods section (lines 305-307), we indicate that “as an example of the potential marine areas that can be identified from the models, we predicted shearwater abundance across the study area on the fifteenth of the month, from May to December, based on the environmental conditions during 2017”, which are the eight different periods mentioned by the reviewer. As it is state in the text (lines 370-374), May to August represent the northward migration whereas September to December show the southward migration period. However, we have now explicitly indicated (see line 374 and new additions in the legend of the Figure 5) that May-August correspond to the post-breeding period and September-December to the pre-breeding. Therefore, we think that the information for both periods in Figure 5 is clearly differentiated.

Regarding the stop-overs, as it is highlighted in the Discussion section (see lines 436-437) , “our predictions should be taken rather as an illustration than as an exact calculation, since they are based on a single snapshot on the fifteenth of the month in a particular year”. An accurate estimation of stop-overs along the migratory route requires to quantify the distribution of abundance along the period in both seasons and apply appropriate methods for delimiting the marine areas (such as spatial prioritization algorithms). This work is part of the present research of the co-authors of the manuscript.

Regarding breeding and non-breeding areas, we think that adding these layers into Figure 5 would make hard to interpret the model results. However, this information has now been added in the new Figure 1.

L325. Figure suggests part of the population remains in the Mediterranean year-round. Is that true or it is a product of the modelling?

Authors: A variable fraction of the total Balearic shearwater population, mainly adult birds, appeared to remain in the Mediterranean (Ruiz and Martí, 2004). This is now discussed in the manuscript (see lines 497-500).

Ruiz, A., Martí, R., 2004. La Pardela Balear. SEO/BirdLife-Conselleria de Medi Ambient del Govern de les Illes Balears, Madrid, Spain.

L348-351. It is important to highlight that boosted regression trees methods such as the used here can artificially inflate accuracy with increasing iterations, therefore the need to evaluate how fit and accuracy varies with iterations. It is possible to have increasing accuracy and loss of fit to the point that the model starts predicting the response itself (occurrence or abundance) disregarding the factors, therefore one should use this in order to select the optimum number of iterations to be used in the final model outputs. This is not clear in methods, and this is not discussed either.

Authors: We think that the reviewer confuses “boosting” with “bagging” (used in Random Forest, see also comment above). As it is clearly stated in the manuscript (see lines ¿?), we do not apply boosted regression trees but Random Forest models. And any random forest model apply bagging (i.e., bootstrap aggregating) to sub-sample the data that are used for training. Random forests builds each tree independently while boosting builds one tree at a time and, while random forests combine results at the end of the process (by averaging or "majority rules"), boosting combines results along the way. For these reasons, boosting can result in better performance than random forests. However, in situations where a lot of noise is present (as it is our case), boosting may not be a good choice because it can result in overfitting (as the reviewer pointed out). Furthermore, Random Forest is an ensemble of decision trees. Although the single decision tree is very sensitive to data variations and it can easily overfit to noise in the data, when we add trees to the Random Forest then the tendency to overfitting decreases thanks to bagging and random feature selection. For all the previous, we found Random Forest as the best modelling approach for our datasets (see also Methods section on the assessment of other modelling techniques).

L386-390. Nowhere in your results there are estimated response curves. So please cite a reference to this statement.

Authors: See new Figures S4-S6 in the Supplementary material and line 442 in the Discussion section.

L389. It would be very useful to place in the map the sites you mention here, such as Alboran Sea or Gulf of Cadiz in figure 1, so readers not familiar with this region of the globe can be spatially situated.

Authors: Done.

L392-394. I thought results indicated differences on migratory routes between periods. Did I misunderstand?

Authors: In the Results section it is stated that, “according to the models, Balearic Shearwaters use slightly different regions during their northward (May–August, post-breeding) and southward migration (September–December, pre-breeding)”. We think that this is indeed not in contradiction with the above-mentioned sentence by the reviewer (“our results also suggested that Atlantic coast of Portugal and France are migratory, stopover and/or moulting sites for Balearic shearwaters both during pre and post-breeding migration”. As the regions are slightly different, Atlantic areas in Portugal and France are both used during pre- and post-breeding whereas other areas (also detailed in the Discussion section a few lines below) are clearly different for both migration periods (see lines 451-456: “the post-breeding model showed that Western English Channel is an important area for Balearic shearwaters mainly during August, whereas high abundance of shearwaters is predicted along the Algerian/Tunisian coastline in November”).

L397. Yet, how temporal variability was used in the model is not clear.

Authors: Temporal variability is explicitly modelled by “date” and “year” predictors, as well as, of course, indirectly modelled by the temporal variability in the environmental predictors. Please see lines 212-214 in the Methods section and also the Supplementary Methods in the Supplementary material describing the environmental variables modulating the migratory behaviour of shearwaters. See also comments above regarding the “effect to year” and the interaction between year and latitude in Figure 4.

L417. Again, without estimated response curves, I don’t think it is possible to reach such conclusion. A variable having high importance in the modelling doesn’t mean the birds had higher abundance in the higher values of the variable, this is particularly true using a model as RF that does not necessarily assumes linearity.

Authors: We have now added additional information in this regard in the Supplementary Material. Please see new Figures S4-S6.

L423. How variability in accuracy (that was not as large as the authors claimed) was led by the link with food availability? It is not clear. Needs better explanation.

Authors: As it is stated in the Results section, the difference in RMSE (i.e. model accuracy) between pre- and post-breeding models, even though small, is statistically significant at a Bonferroni p-level (see new addition in line 330 to highlight this point). If the distribution of the shearwater abundance depends on static predictors such as bathymetry, then the differences among resamples built with different training data sets are expected to be lower, thus the overall accuracy among resamples should be less variable. However, if migration progression depends on highly spatially and temporally variable predictors such as chlorophyll (food availability) then the variability in the accuracy among resamples is expected to be larger. We have now clarified this point in the text (see lines 481-485).

Attachment

Submitted filename: answers_to_reviewers_may2020.docx

Decision Letter 2

Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva

13 Jul 2020

Citizen science for predicting spatio-temporal patterns in seabird abundance during migration

PONE-D-19-29580R2

Dear Dr. Martin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I think authors addressed all my comments and elucidated some of my concerns on the methods, particularly, the use of Lat and Long in the models (which was my main concern) and further description of the techniques applied.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva

21 Jul 2020

PONE-D-19-29580R2

Citizen science for predicting spatio-temporal patterns in seabird abundance during migration

Dear Dr. Martin:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Balearic_shearwater_migration_eBird_sep19_PLOSONE_kdh.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: answer_to_reviewers_PONE_Feb2020.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: answers_to_reviewers_may2020.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Regarding the data used in this study, Trektellen is a public database of migration / seawatch counts and ringing results (https://www.trektellen.nl/). Trektellen database can be accessed searching by location, date and particular species using the website tools. All the environmental predictors used in the present study are freely available from the websites of the different data sources indicated in Table 1, as well as from Trektellen website. Data sourced by eBird can be obtained after registration and request at https://ebird.org/. For further information, please see https://ebird.org/science/download-ebird-data-products.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES