Kristen Hart

Dr. Kristen Hart

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

17Years (2010-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
19 February 2021 in Global Change Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MOMichael J. Osland
Michael J. Osland
PSPhilip W. Stevens
Philip W. Stevens
MLMargaret M. Lamont
Margaret M. Lamont
RBRichard C. Brusca
Richard C. Brusca
KHKristen Hart
Kristen Hart
JSJeffrey A. Seminoff
Jeffrey A. Seminoff

5 January 2021 in Movement Ecology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KHKristen Hart
Kristen Hart
JGJacquelyn C. Guzy
Jacquelyn C. Guzy
BSBrian J. Smith
Brian J. Smith
Background: Satellite tags have revolutionized our understanding of marine animal movements. However, tags may stop transmitting for many reasons and little research has rigorously examined tag failure. Using a long-term, large-scale, multi-species dataset, we evaluated factors influencing tracking duration of satellite tags to inform study design for future tracking studies. Methods: We leveraged data on battery status transmitted with location data, recapture events, and number of transmission days to probabilistically quantify multiple potential causes of failure (i.e., battery failure, premature detachment, and tag damage/fouling). We used a combination of logistic regressions and an ordinary linear model including several predictor variables (i.e., tag type, battery life, species, sex, size, and foraging region). Results: We examined subsets of data from 360 satellite tags encompassing 86,889 tracking days deployed on four species of marine turtles throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, and Bahamas from 2008 to 2019. Only 4.1% of batteries died before failure due to other causes. We observed species-specific variation in how long tags remain attached: hawksbills retained 50% of their tags for 1649 days (95% CI 995–1800), loggerheads for 584 days (95% CI 400–690), and green turtles for 294 days (95% CI 198–450). Estimated tracking duration varied by foraging region (Caribbean: 385 days; Bahamas: 356; southern Gulf of Mexico [SGOM]: 276, northern Gulf of Mexico [NGOM]: 177). Additionally, we documented species-specific variation in estimated tracking duration among foraging regions. Based on sensor data, within the Gulf of Mexico, across species, we estimated that 50% of tags began to foul after 83 95% CI (70–120) days. Conclusions: The main factor that limited tracking duration was tag damage (i.e., fouling and/or antenna breakage). Turtles that spent most of their time in the Gulf of Mexico had shorter tracking durations than those in the Bahamas and Caribbean, with shortest durations observed in the NGOM. Additionally, tracking duration varied by species, likely as a result of behaviors that damage tags. This information will help researchers, tag companies, permitting agencies, and funders better predict expected tracking durations, improving study designs for imperiled marine turtles. Our results highlight the heterogeneity in telemetry device longevity, and we provide a framework for researchers to evaluate telemetry devices with respect to their study objectives.

30 July 2014 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KHKristen Hart
Kristen Hart
MLMargaret M. Lamont
Margaret M. Lamont
ASAutumn R. Sartain
Autumn R. Sartain
IFIkuko Fujisaki
Ikuko Fujisaki
Northern Gulf of Mexico (NGoM) loggerheads (Caretta caretta) make up one of the smallest subpopulations of this threatened species and have declining nest numbers. We used satellite telemetry and a switching state-space model to identify distinct foraging areas used by 59 NGoM loggerheads tagged during 2010–2013. We tagged turtles after nesting at three sites, 1 in Alabama (Gulf Shores; n = 37) and 2 in Florida (St. Joseph Peninsula; n = 20 and Eglin Air Force Base; n = 2). Peak migration time was 22 July to 9 August during which >40% of turtles were in migration mode; the mean post-nesting migration period was 23.0 d (±13.8 d SD). After displacement from nesting beaches, 44 turtles traveled to foraging sites where they remained resident throughout tracking durations. Selected foraging locations were variable distances from tagging sites, and in 5 geographic regions; no turtles selected foraging sites outside the Gulf of Mexico (GoM). Foraging sites delineated using 50% kernel density estimation were located a mean distance of 47.6 km from land and in water with mean depth of −32.5 m; other foraging sites, delineated using minimum convex polygons, were located a mean distance of 43.0 km from land and in water with a mean depth of −24.9 m. Foraging sites overlapped with known trawling activities, oil and gas extraction activities, and the footprint of surface oiling during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill (n = 10). Our results highlight the year-round use of habitats in the GoM by loggerheads that nest in the NGoM. Our findings indicate that protection of females in this subpopulation requires both international collaborations and management of threats that spatially overlap with distinct foraging habitats.

26 May 2010 in Endangered Species Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
KHKristen Hart
Kristen Hart
IFIkuko Fujisaki
Ikuko Fujisaki

3 July 2013 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KHKristen Hart
Kristen Hart
MLMargaret M. Lamont
Margaret M. Lamont
ASAutumn R. Sartain
Autumn R. Sartain
IFIkuko Fujisaki
Ikuko Fujisaki
BSBrail S. Stephens
Brail S. Stephens
Nesting strategies and use of important in-water habitats for far-ranging marine turtles can be determined using satellite telemetry. Because of a lack of information on habitat-use by marine turtles in the northern Gulf of Mexico, we used satellite transmitters in 2010 through 2012 to track movements of 39 adult female breeding loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) tagged on nesting beaches at three sites in Florida and Alabama. During the nesting season, recaptured turtles emerged to nest 1 to 5 times, with mean distance between emergences of 27.5 km; however, several turtles nested on beaches separated by ∼250 km within a single season. Mean total distances traveled throughout inter-nesting periods for all turtles was 1422.0±930.8 km. In-water inter-nesting sites, delineated using 50% kernel density estimation (KDE), were located a mean distance of 33.0 km from land, in water with mean depth of −31.6 m; other in-water inter-nesting sites, delineated using minimum convex polygon (MCP) approach, were located a mean 13.8 km from land and in water with a mean depth of −15.8 m. Mean size of in-water inter-nesting habitats were 61.9 km2 (50% KDEs, n = 10) and 741.4 km2 (MCPs, n = 30); these areas overlapped significantly with trawling and oil and gas extraction activities. Abundance estimates for this nesting subpopulation may be inaccurate in light of how much spread there is between nests of the same individual. Further, our results also have consequences for critical habitat designations for northern Gulf loggerheads, as protection of one nesting beach would not encompass the entire range used by turtles during breeding seasons.

24 September 2018 in Frontiers in Marine Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KHKristen Hart
Kristen Hart
AIAutumn Iverson
Autumn Iverson
IFIkuko Fujisaki
Ikuko Fujisaki
MLMargaret M. Lamont
Margaret M. Lamont
DBDavid Bucklin
David Bucklin
DSDonna Jill Shaver
Donna Jill Shaver
Effective management of human activities affecting listed species requires understanding both threats and animal habitat-use patterns. However, the extent of spatial overlap between high-use foraging areas (where multiple marine species congregate) and anthropogenic threats is not well-known. Our modeling approach incorporates data on sea turtle spatial ecology and a suite of threats in the Gulf of Mexico to identify and map “hot spots” of threats to two imperiled turtle species. Of all 820 “high” threats grid cells, our tracked turtles foraged at least 1 day in 77% of them. Although threat data were not available outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, our map of turtle and threat “hot spots” can be incorporated in future more comprehensive threat analyses for the region. Knowledge of these shared foraging- and threat-areas can assist managers charged with designing effective conservation and population recovery strategies, in future habitat modeling efforts, and in designations of Gulf of Mexico habitat with high conservation value.