Terrestrial AIS data for Turkish fishing vessels operating in the Black Sea (Geographical Sub-Area 29) during 2022 was collected at a 5-minute time resolution, sourced from the authoritative Astra Paging provider. The dataset comprised records from 86 bottom trawlers and 50 pelagic trawlers, with vessel types classified according to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Key information in the dataset included MMSI (Maritime Mobile Service Identity), a unique nine-digit number assigned to each vessel for identification in AIS transmissions, as well as speed, latitude, longitude, and date-time. Each AIS message—often referred to as a ping—represents a single position report transmitted by a vessel.

AIS message gaps were identified using the data.table package (Dowle and Srinivasan, 2021). The time difference between consecutive AIS signals for each vessel was calculated, and gaps exceeding 30 minutes were identified. The 30-minute threshold was selected to identify meaningful gaps in AIS signals while preventing minor disruptions, such as temporary transmission loss, speed changes, or course adjustments, from significantly impacting the analysis. This threshold helps maintain the accuracy of vessel activity tracking. Even though very long gaps (>24 h) are likely due to AIS transponder issues rather than actual vessel behavior, an upper limit was not imposed to retain multi-day fishing trips. Indeed, our observations indicate that many vessels turn off AIS when approaching fishing grounds and reactivate it only upon returning to port, leading to long gaps that do not reflect actual vessel movements.

Average positions (between the start and end of each gap) and timestamps were used to locate these gaps, with each gap represented as a single point. Port locations (i.e., 406 ports around the Black Sea) were digitized and stored in a database and the The Haversine formula from the geosphere package (Hijmans, 2023) was applied to calculate the distance from the average position of each AIS gap to the nearest port.

Gaps occurring within 1.5 nautical miles (~2.778 km) of a port were filtered out to minimize potential biases related to port-associated AIS transmission behaviors. Fishing ports often host coast guard stations with fishing control authority, which may influence vessel AIS activation patterns. Additionally, fishing vessels commonly follow a distinct AIS transmission pattern, wherein devices are deactivated upon approaching fishing grounds and reactivated when departing from or returning to port. As a result, retaining these points could lead to misinterpretations of AIS gap occurrences. Excluding these areas ensures a more accurate assessment of AIS transmission patterns in active fishing zones.

The nearest port and distance to shore were calculated dynamically for each AIS gap, using the average position of the gap (midpoint between the start and end points). Gaps were classified based on their duration (t) into four distinct categories: 30 min ≤ t ≤ 1 h, 1 < t ≤ 2 h, 2 < t ≤ 24 h), and >24 h. Additionally, AIS gaps were grouped by their distance from the nearest harbor into four ranges: 1.5–3 km, 3–5 km, and beyond 5 km. Since each gap is represented by its average position, it falls into only one distance range. The relative frequency of each category was then calculated as a percentage.

This analysis aims to quantify the number of AIS gaps linked to ports by identifying gaps in AIS transmissions and assigning them to departure (origin) and arrival (destination) ports. The process begins by assigning the origin and destination port to each recorded AIS gap, determining where vessels were last detected before a gap occurred (origin port) and where they reappeared after the gap (destination port). This step ensures that each AIS gap is linked to specific port activity, allowing for a spatial understanding of where transmission interruptions commonly occur. Once origin and destination ports are assigned, the number of times each port appears as an origin and destination is counted. This provides two key metrics: gaps_as_origin (the number of gaps where a port is the last recorded position before an AIS signal loss) and gaps_as_destination (the number of gaps where a port is the first recorded position after the signal is restored). These values are then combined to compute the total number of AIS gaps linked to each port, accounting for both departing and arriving vessels. To ensure a balanced representation of port-related gaps, the analysis then calculates the average number of gaps per port by taking the mean of the total gaps counted as origin and destination. This prevents the results from being skewed by ports that naturally experience higher vessel traffic and ensures that comparisons across ports are meaningful. Finally, a port-level summary is generated, aggregating total and average AIS gaps for each port. This final step provides a clear comparison of which ports exhibit the highest AIS transmission interruptions. This approach ensures that the analysis avoids double counting gaps.

The following environmental and AIS-based features were additionally integrated:

A gradient boosting model (XGBoost) was applied to identify key predictors of AIS gaps based on the selected features, and implemented using the xgboost package (Chen et al., 2023). XGBoost was chosen for this analysis due to its efficiency with large datasets, robustness against overfitting through regularization, and strong predictive performance in classification and regression. Additionally, its ability to capture complex feature-target relationships while maintaining computational efficiency, makes it well-suited for identifying AIS gaps based on environmental and vessel-related predictors (Chen and Guestrin, 2016). The dataset underwent extensive preprocessing and feature engineering to ensure compatibility with the machine learning model and optimize performance. Missing values were excluded using the tidyr package (Wickham and Girlich, 2023) to maintain data integrity. Categorical and numerical features were converted into a matrix format compatible with XGBoost. Hyperparameter tuning was performed to optimize model performance using randomized grid search. over the following ranges: learning rate (0.01 - 0.3), maximum tree depth (3 - 10), subsample ratio (0.5 - 1.0), and boosting iterations (100 - 2000). To address both the occurrence and duration of AIS gaps, we trained two distinct XGBoost models tailored to different predictive tasks. The first model was a binary classification model, developed to predict whether an AIS gap occurred (gap vs. no gap). The second model was a regression model, applied only to records where a gap was present, aiming to estimate the duration of the gap in minutes. These two models were trained independently using the same feature set and cross-validation strategy but optimized for their respective output types. Accordingly, classification metrics (Accuracy, AUC, TSS, Cohen’s Kappa) were used to evaluate the classification model, while regression metrics (MAE, RMSE, R², Explained Variance) were applied to the regression model. This dual-model approach enabled us to capture both the likelihood of AIS gap occurrence and the expected duration of such events, offering a more comprehensive understanding of vessel behavior and monitoring reliability.

We applied 5-fold cross-validation, balancing bias and variance in error estimation (James et al., 2013). A lower k (e.g., 2 or 3) may increase bias due to insufficient training data in each fold, whereas higher k (e.g., 10) may raise variance as the training subsets become more similar to the full dataset (Hastie et al., 2009). The optimal parameters were: learning rate 0.1, maximum tree depth 6, subsample ratio 0.8, and 1000 boosting iterations. To ensure the effectiveness of the prediction, the dataset was split into training and testing sets. The dataset was divided into training, validation, and testing sets following a commonly used 70-20–10 ratio. Specifically, 70% of the data was allocated to training, 20% to validation for hyperparameter tuning using 5-fold cross-validation, and 10% to testing to assess model performance on unseen data. This approach ensured reliable model evaluation while preventing data leakage. The dataset split was carefully designed to prevent data leakage and ensure robust model validation. Additionally, hyperparameter tuning was conducted to optimize the model’s predictive performance. These steps ensured the model was both efficient and robust in capturing the complex relationships between AIS signal gaps and their influencing factors. The performance of predictive models for AIS gaps in bottom and pelagic trawl fishing activities was evaluated using multiple metrics. For classification, we used Accuracy, Area Under the Curve (AUC), True Skill Statistic (TSS), and Cohen’s Kappa. For predicting AIS gap duration, we employed error-based metrics, including Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), coefficient of determination (R²), and Explained Variance, to assess the model’s ability to capture temporal patterns.

Feature importance and interpretability analyses were performed using partial dependence plots from the pdp package (Greenwell, 2017) to visualize the marginal effects of individual features on the target variable. Data visualizations were created using ggplot2 (Wickham, 2016; Wickham and Girlich, 2023) for exploratory analysis and result interpretation. Heatmaps depicted the spatiotemporal distribution of AIS gaps, while bar charts summarized seasonal and monthly variations. Calibration plots assessed prediction reliability. A 3 × 3 km grid covering the Black Sea was generated in QGIS, where AIS gaps were spatially intersected, aggregated, and summed per cell to visualize their distribution.

The AIS dataset contains 103,082 AIS messages from bottom trawlers and 65,899 from pelagic trawlers. The procedure identified 1,897 gaps connecting 3825 pings in bottom trawl records (3.7% of bottom trawl AIS data) and 1270 gaps connecting 2140 pings in pelagic trawl records (0.5% of pelagic trawl AIS data).

For bottom trawlers, AIS signal gaps occurred most frequently beyond 5 km from the coast, where short gaps (≤1 h) accounted for 44.52%, followed by medium (2–24 h, 30.69%) and long gaps (>24 h, 12.88%). Gaps >24 h lasted ~ 8 days. In contrast, closer to shore (1.5–3 km), short gaps were more dominant (47.83%), but long-duration gaps still represented 15.22% of all events. Medium gaps were particularly prominent at distances between 3–5 km, making up 44.44% of gaps. For pelagic trawlers, the proportion of long-duration gaps (>24 h) was highest close to shore (27.45%) and decreased with distance, falling to 16.92% beyond 5 km. Short gaps (≤1 h) were most common in offshore zones (>5 km, 38.49%), while medium-duration gaps (2–24 h) were relatively stable across all distance classes, ranging from 25.49% to 32.51%. Medium gaps (2–24 h) are less frequent at 1.5–3 km but increase beyond 3 km. This gradient suggests a spatial trend where short gaps dominate offshore and long gaps are more frequent nearshore, particularly in pelagic operations (Table 1).

To give an indication of the derived further results, we present data from a bottom trawler, showing repeated patterns of gaps starting and ending on the western border. Figure 1 compares its speed variations on two days. Figure 1 (left) shows uninterrupted AIS reporting on 28-03-2022, with speeds consistently within trawling thresholds (dashed lines, Ferrà et al., 2020). Figure 1 (right), highlights two AIS gaps (2h23m and 3h39m), where speed data was interrupted (day: 19-10-2022). Straight red lines connect positions before and after signal loss, illustrating temporal gaps. These AIS interruptions complicate trawling activity analysis, emphasizing the challenges AIS gaps pose for monitoring vessel operations.

The analysis of AIS gap durations reveals distinct patterns between vessel types and operational zones. For bottom trawl vessels (Figure 2), the longest average gaps in forbidden zones occurred in January (290 minutes), while the shortest were observed in September (74 minutes). Overall operations showed maximum gap durations in April (214 minutes) and minimum durations in November (71 minutes). Pelagic trawl vessels (Figure 3) exhibited their most severe gaps in forbidden zones during March (486 minutes) and the briefest in November (54 minutes). For general operations, peak gaps appeared in April (312 minutes) with the lowest values recorded in November (79 minutes). Notably, forbidden zone gaps consistently exceeded general operation gaps for both vessel types throughout the monitoring period. The data also shows pelagic trawlers maintained substantially longer gap durations than bottom trawlers across all months, with particularly pronounced differences during the autumn months (September-November).

The spatial distribution of AIS gaps durations is visualized on two maps along the Turkish Black Sea coastline (Figure 4). Pelagic trawl gaps are concentrated along the western and central Black Sea coast, with the highest densities near Samsun extending eastward. In contrast, bottom trawl gaps cluster near the northern entrance of the Istanbul Strait. While both trawling types overlap spatially, bottom trawl closures are more concentrated in the western and northwestern coastal regions, decreasing eastward. Pelagic trawl gaps display a more uniform spread, with higher densities in the central Black Sea compared to bottom trawl closures, which are more localized near major fishing ports. These findings highlight geographical variations in AIS gap frequencies, influenced by the trawling type and regional fishing efforts.

Figure 5 presents the spatial distribution of average AIS gaps associated with ports for bottom trawl and pelagic trawl operations in the Black Sea. The size and color intensity of the circles represent the average number of AIS gaps linked to each port, providing insight into the differences in operational behavior between the two fishing methods. Overall, the patterns for bottom trawl and pelagic trawl are similar, with many ports overlapping in both fisheries. However, some distinctions emerge in terms of gap intensity and specific port utilization. For bottom trawl operations, the highest average AIS gaps are observed in ports near the Istanbul Strait and adjacent western Black Sea, including Rumelifeneri (27.4), Karaburun (28.9), Yeniköy (19.9), and Şile (22). Additionally, ports such as Riva (18.2), Kefkenadası (15.7), and Kıyıköy (12.1) also show relatively high AIS gap densities. For pelagic trawl operations, while some of the same western ports remain prominent (e.g., Kıyıköy (12.9), Rumelifeneri (9.5), Karaburun (9.9), and Şile (5.3)), the distribution extends further into the central and eastern Black Sea. The ports with the highest AIS gaps for pelagic trawl include Tekkeköy (10.2), 19 Mayıs (6.9), and Yeniköy (6.8), which are less prominent in bottom trawl operations. Although the differences in intensity are not extreme, pelagic trawl operations appear to be more dispersed along the coast, whereas bottom trawl gaps are concentrated around key western ports. Additionally, the difference in the number of active vessels (86 bottom trawlers vs. 50 pelagic trawlers) likely influences the relative intensity of AIS gaps between the two fishing methods.

Variance thresholds ensured that no predictor was constant or near-constant, while the correlation threshold minimized risks of multicollinearity. The VIF values are well below the commonly accepted threshold of 5 (Kutner et al., 2004; O’Brien, 2007; James et al., 2013), indicating the absence of serious multicollinearity. These results confirm that the selected variables are not highly correlated (Figure 6) and can be reliably used in further statistical modeling without concerns regarding redundancy or instability.

For bottom trawl fishing gaps, the model demonstrated strong predictive capabilities across classification-based evaluation metrics. The model achieved an accuracy of 80.26%, an AUC of 0.8855, and a True Skill Statistic (TSS) of 0.6052, indicating a good balance between sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, Cohen’s Kappa value of 0.6053 suggests substantial agreement between predicted and observed classifications, confirming the model’s effectiveness in distinguishing AIS gaps. In contrast, when considering AIS gap duration as a continuous variable, the model’s explained variance was 92.63%, and the R² was 94.92%, suggesting that the model successfully captures the variance in gap durations. However, error metrics indicate a mean absolute error (MAE) of 1336.74 minutes (~22.3 hours) and a root mean squared error (RMSE) of 3205.54 minutes (~53.4 hours). RMSE suggests that while the model captures broad patterns, it struggles with precise predictions for long-duration gaps, potentially due to extreme outliers. Feature importance analysis identified chlorophyll concentration and distance to shore as the most influential predictors (Figure 7). Partial dependence plots indicate that AIS gap probability increases sharply at chlorophyll concentrations above ~3.5 mg/m³, while proximity to shore exhibits a decreasing effect beyond 20 km (Figure 8). Spatially, AIS gaps in bottom trawling were more prevalent near the Istanbul Strait and the western Black Sea, reflecting concentrated operational zones.

For pelagic trawl fishing gaps, the classification-based performance metrics indicated moderate predictive capabilities. The model achieved an accuracy of 61.68%, an AUC of 0.6663, and a TSS of 0.2336, reflecting limited success in differentiating true gaps from non-gaps. Similarly, Cohen’s Kappa value of 0.2336 suggests only slight agreement between predictions and observations, indicating the model struggles to accurately classify AIS gaps in pelagic trawl activities. When modeling AIS gap duration, the explained variance reached 95.73%, with an R² of 97.03%, suggesting the model captures the overall trend well. However, the MAE of 2011.05 minutes (~33.5 hours) and RMSE of 4400.40 minutes (~73.3 hours) indicate that the model exhibits high absolute error, particularly in longer-duration gaps. This suggests that while the model accounts for broad variance, it struggles with precise forecasting, especially for extreme values. Feature importance analysis identified chlorophyll concentration and sea surface temperature as key predictors. Partial dependence plots (Figure 8) indicate that AIS gaps increase significantly at SST levels around 15 °C, while chlorophyll concentration exerts the strongest influence between 2 mg/m³ and 5 mg/m³. These results underscore the significance of environmental variables like chlorophyll and SST, as well as spatial factors such as proximity to ports and the shoreline, in explaining AIS gaps for both bottom and pelagic trawl fishing. The feature ‘Nearby Vessel Activity’ showed limited explanatory power in the model, ranking among the least influential variables in predicting AIS gaps for both trawl types.

A key feature of our analytical framework was the use of a dual-model design. Although the distribution patterns appear similar across the study area, the ranking of factors influencing this distribution varies between bottom and pelagic trawlers. Bottom trawlers exhibited significant concentrations of AIS gaps near the northern entrance of the Istanbul Strait and other nearshore areas. This behavior aligns with anecdotal and regulatory observations that bottom trawlers tend to operate in shallower waters. The tendency to move into shallower regions may be influenced by the presence of high-value demersal species, including red mullet (Mullus barbatus), whiting (Merlangius merlangus), and turbot (Scophthalmus maximus), which are key targets for bottom trawl fisheries. These shallower zones, although sometimes adjacent to areas with regulatory restrictions, are often associated with rich demersal habitats. While fishers may be drawn by the economic value of species like red mullet, some of these activities may inadvertently or intentionally encroach upon forbidden zones. While larger whiting are often found in deeper waters, red mullet, which is smaller but highly abundant in shallow areas, offers a more lucrative return due to its market demand and higher catch volumes (Yildiz, 2016; Yildiz and Karakulak, 2018). This economic incentive likely explains the increased occurrence of AIS gap in shallower waters, as vessels may switch off AIS to evade detection while engaging in illegal fishing. Signal gaps near exclusive economic zones suggest that some vessels deliberately conceal unauthorized border crossings to fish in forbidden zones. While not all vessels that deactivate AIS for extended periods are necessarily engaged in illicit activities, the intentional act of going ‘dark’ raises concerns (Bunwaree, 2023). The western Black Sea has historically been Türkiyey’s primary trawling ground along Black Sea coast, with ports such as İğneada-Kıyıköy and Rumelifeneri-Poyrazköy hosting a high concentration of trawlers. This long-standing significance is reflected in the elevated number of AIS gaps recorded around these ports, indicating intensified fishing activity in the region.

According to Dağtekin et al., 2021, Turkish pelagic trawl fishing is mainly located in the Middle Black Sea along a coastline of 116 km from Taşkana Cape (40°01 E, 43°39 N) to Çayağzı Cape (41°55 E, 41°52 N). Unlike bottom trawlers whose AIS gaps are concentrated near ports, in contrast, pelagic trawlers exhibited a more widespread distribution of AIS gaps, reflecting their operational strategy of targeting pelagic species such as anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus), horse mackerel (Trachurus mediterraneus), and bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix). Pelagic trawling was first introduced in the Western Black Sea in 2010 with a limited number of vessels. At the time, the absence of restrictions on gear changes during the fishing season led fishers to use midwater trawls primarily during the peak season. In recent years, however, the number of vessels adopting this method has increased due to the high catch potential and the resulting economic benefits. Unlike bottom trawling, which is closely tied to benthic habitats, pelagic trawlers adjust their movements more dynamically in response to the distribution and migration of their target species. This reliance on fish movement may explain why environmental factors such as sea surface temperature ranked more in predicting AIS gaps for pelagic trawl operations, as pelagic schools respond more directly to temperature variations, influencing fishing vessel behavior. The widespread adoption of pelagic trawling in the Black Sea began in the waters off Samsun (central Black Sea), primarily for sprat catching (Özdemir et al., 2006). Samsun et al. (2006) reported that anchovy is intensively caught between November and January while sprat is abundant in March and April, making pelagic trawling particularly effective for these species. This may explain why AIS gaps for pelagic trawlers increase in spring.

Previous studies (Coro et al., 2023; Ferrà et al., 2020), have demonstrated the utility of AIS and VMS data in analyzing fishing activities, including potential unreported fishing efforts. While Coro et al. (2023) developed a workflow for analyzing tracking data, their analysis primarily focuses on AIS rather than VMS. These studies indicate that gaps in AIS transmission could result from both technical issues and intentional disabling, particularly in areas with restricted access or heightened regulatory control. Coro et al. (2023) stated that such gaps might also correspond to voluntary transmission switch-offs, especially in (or around) prohibited or protected areas. While we considered all AIS gaps exceeding 30 minutes (as in Ferrà et al., 2020), Coro et al. (2023) identified potential unreported activity based on specific AIS gap duration ranges, suggesting a nuanced approach in detecting unreported fishing efforts. Coro et al. (2023) developed a workflow that prioritizes spatial overlap between fishing activity and protected zones, a principle which supports our own observation that signal gaps cluster near high-regulation areas. Welch et al. (2022) developed a model to identify AIS gaps likely caused by intentional disabling. Unlike our approach, Welch et al. (2022) primarily focused on gaps exceeding 12 hours and occurring more than 50 nautical miles from shore, incorporating additional factors such as loitering behavior, proximity to restricted areas, and piracy risks. While our findings indicate that AIS gaps in the Black Sea are concentrated in specific coastal areas rather than in offshore waters, Welch et al. (2022) identified hotspots of AIS disabling near contested Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and regions of high transshipment activity. Welch et al. (2022)’s identification of gaps beyond 50 NM offers a useful contrast to our study, which finds nearshore concentration of AIS gaps—suggesting differences in enforcement strategies and vessel behavior across regions.

While AIS devices can be disabled to conceal illegal activities (Bunwaree, 2003; Galdelli et al., 2021), there is also evidence suggesting that interruptions may occur during legal fishing operations, such as during open season in designated areas. Chlorophyll emerged as a significant driver of AIS deactivation for both trawl types, indicating that fishers may intentionally switch off AIS devices to prevent competitors from identifying productive fishing grounds. However, multiple motivations are possible, including competition avoidance (as expressed by fisher), masking IUU activities (during open season in forbidden zones). Since trawl fishing activity is spatially concentrated on continental shelves, it is far more localized and dense compared to other fishing methods, making competition particularly relevant for this gear type. In the Black Sea, the narrow continental shelf further intensifies this spatial concentration (Yıldız, 2016), forcing vessels to operate within forbidden zones, which may contribute to the strategic deactivation of AIS to avoid detection by other fishers. Although these patterns do not directly indicate IUU fishing, intense fishing pressure—exacerbated by limited available fishing grounds—has contributed to overexploitation and population declines in many commercially important stocks.

The decision to disable AIS transmissions may be partly rooted in broader socio-economic challenges faced by Turkish small- and medium-scale fishers. Several studies have documented how limited fishing grounds, increasing operational costs, and shrinking profit margins have contributed to heightened economic pressure across the sector (Ünal and Ulman, 2020; Sağlam et al., 2016; Şahin, and Özekinci, 2020). These pressures are particularly acute in coastal communities where fishers rely heavily on high-value target species to sustain livelihoods (Doğan, 2010). In this context, the strategic deactivation of AIS may be perceived not only as a means to avoid detection during illegal fishing, but also as a competitive tactic to conceal productive grounds from other vessels (Ünal et al., 2009). This behavior aligns with observations from recent field interviews and surveys indicating that some fishers express mistrust in monitoring technologies and fear data-sharing may undermine their economic resilience. Moreover, studies have highlighted that despite national regulations such as BAGIS enforcement, awareness and compliance vary significantly depending on vessel size, education level, and engagement with cooperatives (Birkan and Öndes, 2020; Doğan, 2018). These findings reinforce the importance of addressing socio-economic vulnerabilities in tandem with technological and legal monitoring strategies, as fishers’ responses to regulation are shaped not only by enforcement capacity but also by livelihood imperatives and perceived fairness of governance.

To comprehensively capture both the occurrence and duration of AIS gaps, we adopted a dual-model approach using XGBoost. Specifically, we trained a classification model to predict whether an AIS gap would occur, and a separate regression model to estimate the duration of the gap in minutes. This two-model structure enabled us to disentangle different aspects of vessel behavior, allowing for more interpretable results. It also helped identify which variables were more influential in predicting the likelihood of AIS deactivation versus those affecting the length of signal silence.

The use of XGBoost regression models allowed for detailed predictions of AIS gap durations, demonstrating high explained variance and R² values for both pelagic and bottom trawl datasets. While our findings highlight the effectiveness of machine learning in capturing AIS data patterns, they should be interpreted with caution. Wolsing et al. (2022) reviewed various anomaly detection approaches in AIS data and noted that while machine learning methods are frequently used their review does not explicitly conclude that machine learning is superior for identifying patterns. Rather, it emphasizes the diversity of approaches and the need to evaluate model suitability based on specific maritime contexts. Our results contribute to this discussion by demonstrating the predictive utility of machine learning when tailored to fishing-specific variables. The high accuracy and low error metrics in our models underscore their reliability, offering actionable insights for fisheries management and regulatory bodies. Notably, the bottom trawl model outperformed the pelagic trawl model across all evaluation metrics, including accuracy, AUC, TSS, and Kappa. This suggests that environmental and operational factors, such as depth and proximity to shore, are stronger predictors for bottom trawl activities. In contrast, the weaker performance of the pelagic trawl model indicates that additional features, such as migratory patterns of pelagic species or dynamic oceanographic variables, may be necessary to enhance predictive accuracy.

The concentration of AIS signal gaps in nearshore areas where trawlers frequently operate indicates potential challenges for monitoring and protecting coastal waters. Identifying and understanding the spatial distribution of these gaps can help refine compliance strategies and support sustainable fisheries in ecologically sensitive zones. Clustering of AIS gaps in shallow waters near the Istanbul Strait suggests priority areas for compliance monitoring. However, further investigation is needed to distinguish whether these gaps primarily result from transmission issues or intentional AIS disabling, as noted in previous studies. Future research should integrate external sources (e.g., Fishing Vessels Monitoring System (Balıkçı Gemilerini İzleme Sistemi - BAGIS) or independent vessel monitoring reports) to better understand the causes of these gaps and refine enforcement strategies accordingly. According to the relevant authority, the Vessel Monitoring Device installed on Turkish fishing vessels sends the position, speed and direction information of the vessel received at 10 minutes intervals to the Vessel Monitoring Centre primarily via GSM, and if the vessel is outside the GSM coverage area, via Satellite, and this frequency seems to be sufficient to reveal the mentioned analysis.

Although AIS data gaps may occur due to technical issues unrelated to deliberate disabling, ad-hoc interviews were conducted informally with fishers during field visits between 2022 and 2023. These insights, while not part of a structured survey, provided qualitative support for observed AIS deactivation patterns. To examine this hypothesis, the variable Nearby Vessel Activity was included in the model, based on the assumption that increased vessel density might influence AIS behavior. However, analysis showed this variable had the least explanatory power, indicating that fishers’ justification may not fully explain the observed AIS gaps. According to the Regulation on the Equipping and Use of AIS Devices by Marine Vessels (Official Gazette No. 28510, 2016), vessels equipped with AIS must ensure continuous operation except during dry dock, system malfunction, or extreme weather conditions. Fishing vessels with AIS Class B devices cannot view other fishing vessels’ signals, but non-fishing vessels and coastal stations can access all AIS transmissions (Official Gazzette, 2022). Non-fishing vessels can monitor all AIS messages, including those from fishing vessels, and AIS Coastal Stations and non-fishing vessels can view fishing vessel data. One key limitation of this study is its reliance solely on AIS data from fishing vessels, which restricts insights into interactions with commercial, recreational, or other non-fishing vessels. In highly trafficked areas such as the Istanbul Strait—a major international shipping corridor—these unaccounted interactions may influence AIS transmission behavior in complex ways. For a more precise assessment, additional data on the overall maritime traffic, including commercial and transport vessels, would be necessary. This is particularly relevant in high-traffic areas such as the Istanbul Strait, which serves as a major international shipping route with a high volume of cargo ships, tankers, and passenger vessels. The presence of these large vessels may influence AIS transmission patterns in ways not fully accounted for in this study. Future research would include both fishing and non-fishing vessels, and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing AIS transmission behavior in Turkish waters. Several studies (e.g., Iphar et al., 2019; Welch et al., 2022) have shown that AIS transmission can be affected by surrounding traffic density, especially in regions with large commercial vessel flows, such as straits or transshipment zones.

Regulatory enforcement in Türkiye has identified significant trawl violations, with a 2019 study reporting that nearly 60% of these violations occurred in the Gulf of Samsun–Sinop İnceburun region and 40% in the Black Sea Ereğli-Kefken region (Karabacak and Deval, 2023). Additionally, 28% of recorded trawl violations were in Istanbul (Karabacak and Deval, 2023). In 2022, the most common fisheries violations (25% of all legal actions) were related to field and seasonal restrictions (Turkish Coast Guard Commande, 2022). These patterns, combined with enforcement reports, suggest a possible link between AIS gaps and illegal fishing practices. However, since AIS is used primarily for real-time tracking rather than retrospective monitoring, such gaps rarely lead to formal sanctions. Moreover, there is no fishing vessel actually penalized if the AIS device is closed outside the specified limits. All licensed fishing vessels over 12 meters must install and maintain BAGIS devices, which transmit real-time data on location, speed, and fishing activities to authorities. Operators must ensure continuous BAGIS operation. If a device stops transmitting for six hours, they must report the issue within 12 hours. Failure to do so results in the device being classified as inoperative, risking compliance penalties. Unlike AIS, which is not regularly audited unless integrated with national monitoring programs, BAGIS is directly managed by Turkish authorities. Article 22 of the Fisheries Regulation requires mandatory BAGIS reporting and outlines penalties for non-compliance, including suspension of fishing licenses (Resmi Gazete, 2016) (Denizhaber.net, 2017; 7Deniz.net, 2024; Denizhaber.com, 2024). Scientific analyses indicate that Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) provide broader fleet coverage and stronger legal enforcement capacity, while Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) offer high-resolution monitoring in coastal areas and greater public transparency. For example, the studies by Hintzen et al. (2012) and Vespe et al. (2016) demonstrated that AIS enables intensive tracking near ports, whereas VMS covers wider marine areas. Additionally, research by Guillot et al. (2017) and Watson and Haynie (2016) emphasized that combining both systems can significantly enhance monitoring accuracy. As also noted by the FAO (2007), AIS was originally developed for maritime safety, whereas VMS is a system specifically designed for fisheries monitoring, providing encrypted and regular data transmission to regulatory authorities. This distinction highlights the regulatory gap in AIS oversight, despite its broader visibility in vessel tracking systems. In conclusion, this study contributes to the broader discourse on sustainable fisheries management, emphasizing the critical role of AIS data and machine learning techniques. By addressing gaps in monitoring and providing actionable insights into fishing behaviors, it supports efforts to combat IUU fishing and promote ecosystem resilience, aligning with global conservation goals. These findings emphasize the urgent need for integrated monitoring systems and policy reforms that align national enforcement tools with international best practices in fisheries governance.