Big-data approaches lead to an increased understanding of the ecology of animal movement

Understanding animal movement is essential to elucidate how animals interact, survive, and thrive in a changing world. Recent technological advances in data collection and management have transformed our understanding of animal “movement ecology” (the integrated study of organismal movement), creating a big-data discipline that benefits from rapid, cost-effective generation of large amounts of data on movements of animals in the wild. These high-throughput wildlife tracking systems now allow more thorough investigation of variation among individuals and species across space and time, the nature of biological interactions, and behavioral responses to the environment. Movement ecology is rapidly expanding scientific frontiers through large interdisciplinary and collaborative frameworks, providing improved opportunities for conservation and insights into the movements of wild animals, and their causes and consequences. Description Animal tracking in a big data world So-called “big-data” approaches have revolutionized fields of research from astronomy to genetics. Such approaches are not limited to fields that seem inherently technical, because the combination of rapid data collection and advanced analytical techniques could be applied to almost any scientific question. Nathan et al. reviewed how these modern approaches are being applied to the very old field of animal tracking and monitoring. Large-scale data collection can reveal details about how animals use their environment and interact with each other that were impossible to explore previously. Such methodological shifts will open new avenues of research—and conservation—across species. —SNV A review suggests that modern “big-data” techniques are vastly increasing our understanding of animal movement and its ecology. BACKGROUND Movement is ubiquitous across the natural world. All organisms move, actively or passively, regularly or during specific life stages, as a result of varied proximate drivers including energetic demands, social interactions, competition or predation. Movement closely interacts with individual fitness, affects a myriad of ecological processes, and is crucial for animals’ ability to cope with human-induced rapid environmental changes. Driven by advances in analytical methods and technologies for tracking mammals, birds, fish, and other free-ranging vertebrates (hereafter, wildlife), movement ecology is rapidly transforming into a data-rich discipline, following previous developments in fields such as genomics and environmental monitoring. This ongoing revolution is facilitated by cost-effective automated high-throughput wildlife tracking systems that generate massive high-resolution datasets across scales relevant to the ecological context in which animals perceive, interact with, and respond to their environment. ADVANCES Modern tracking technologies efficiently generate copious, accurate information on the movements of multiple individual animals in the wild. Reverse-GPS technologies, which primarily use acoustic signals under water and radio signals over land, are automated high-throughput systems that are highly cost- and power-effective and capable of simultaneous tracking of multiple small animals (e.g., 20-g birds) at high spatiotemporal resolution (e.g., 1-s interval, a few meters) for months, but they require system installation and are usually limited to regional scales (≤100 km wide). GPS-based systems are, by contrast, readily available, longer term, and cover nearly global scales, but are similarly spatially accurate and periodically capable of high-resolution tracking at regional scales. However, they are more cost- and power-demanding, limited to larger animals, and cannot be applied under water. Two other tracking technologies, radar and computer vision, permit high-resolution snapshots of the movement of multiple individuals and can noninvasively track nontagged animals, but are less cost-effective, usually limited to smaller scales, and make individual identification challenging. Combined, these high-throughput technologies enable groundbreaking research in animal behavior, cognitive sciences, evolution, and ecology, facilitating previously infeasible investigation of animal movement ecology. Big movement data can help link interindividual variation in movement to individual behavior, traits, cognition and physiology; divulge fine-scale interactions within or among species; improve evidence-based management of human-wildlife interactions; and elucidate behavioral changes across spatiotemporal scales. OUTLOOK High-throughput wildlife tracking technologies are opening new research frontiers in biology and ecology. Their advantages, however, come with typical big-data costs such as computational load, intensive data management and processing, and challenging statistical analyses. Enlisting fields with a longer history of big data offers new prospects to address these challenges. Progress will arise from combining observational and experimental movement ecology and data-rich studies revealing behavioral shifts across individuals, species, scales, ecosystems, and life stages. High-resolution wildlife tracking is currently infeasible at large to global scales, a key limitation that can be addressed by combining low- and high-rate sampling, increasing interoperability between technologies, standardizing and sharing data, and promoting multidisciplinary international collaboration. Coupling movement and environmental big data could help determine impacts of major environmental and climate changes on animal–environment interactions, whereas real-time movement data could uniquely inform biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management. Why do high-throughput movement data matter? Big movement data are essential for addressing key ecological questions, as conclusions based on traditional lower-resolution data could differ markedly from the correct conclusions. We illustrate several examples for contrasting conclusions derived from lower- versus higher-resolution data of the same tracks from the same number of animals. Higher-resolution data can reveal that bolder birds visit more sites across the landscape and that bird tracks frequently cross each other, suggesting high potential for disease transmission, and that fish avoid fisheries and frequently search locally within small patches. None of these conclusions, however, could have been drawn from lower-resolution data. See also movies S1 to S5.

[1]  Ran Nathan,et al.  Memory and Conformity, but Not Competition, Explain Spatial Partitioning Between Two Neighboring Fruit Bat Colonies , 2021, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.

[2]  Ran Nathan,et al.  A role for lakes in revealing the nature of animal movement using high dimensional telemetry systems , 2021, Movement ecology.

[3]  Ran Nathan,et al.  In situ three‐dimensional video tracking of tagged individuals within site‐attached social groups of coral‐reef fish , 2021, Limnology and Oceanography: Methods.

[4]  R. Dahlstrom,et al.  Challenges and opportunities , 2021, Foundations of a Sustainable Economy.

[5]  Daniel W. E. Sankey,et al.  Absence of “selfish herd” dynamics in bird flocks under threat , 2021, Current Biology.

[6]  R. Langrock,et al.  A bird's-eye view on turbulence: seabird foraging associations with evolving surface flow features , 2021, Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

[7]  B. Griffen,et al.  The development of animal personality across ontogeny: a cross-species review , 2021, Animal Behaviour.

[8]  Ran Nathan,et al.  An evaluation of machine learning classifiers for next-generation, continuous-ethogram smart trackers , 2021, Movement ecology.

[9]  V. Eguíluz,et al.  A standardisation framework for bio‐logging data to advance ecological research and conservation , 2021, Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

[10]  P. I. Miller,et al.  Sexual segregation of gannet foraging over 11 years: movements vary but isotopic differences remain stable , 2021 .

[11]  Philippa R. Laker,et al.  Spatial cognitive ability is associated with transitory movement speed but not straightness during the early stages of exploration , 2021, Royal Society Open Science.

[12]  D. Bekkevold,et al.  The battle between harvest and natural selection creates small and shy fish , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  Ran Nathan,et al.  Ergodicity Breaking in Area-Restricted Search of Avian Predators , 2021, Physical Review X.

[14]  Yehezkel S. Resheff,et al.  Early-life behaviour predicts first-year survival in a long-distance avian migrant , 2021, Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

[15]  R. Arlinghaus,et al.  Performance of a novel system for high-resolution tracking of marine fish societies , 2021 .

[16]  Christine E. Beardsworth,et al.  A guide to pre‐processing high‐throughput animal tracking data , 2020, bioRxiv.

[17]  M. Batty,et al.  Future Developments in Geographical Agent‐Based Models: Challenges and Opportunities , 2020, Geographical analysis.

[18]  Carrie J. Butts-Wilmsmeyer,et al.  The technological advancements that enabled the age of big data in the environmental sciences: A history and future directions , 2020 .

[19]  Travis L. Booms,et al.  Ecological insights from three decades of animal movement tracking across a changing Arctic , 2020, Science.

[20]  Edilson Fernandes de Arruda,et al.  Learning-agent-based simulation for queue network systems , 2020, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[21]  D. Farine,et al.  Shared decision-making allows subordinates to lead when dominants monopolize resources , 2020, Science Advances.

[22]  Susumu Takahashi,et al.  Deep learning-assisted comparative analysis of animal trajectories with DeepHL , 2020, Nature Communications.

[23]  Damian G. Kelty-Stephen,et al.  Point estimates, Simpson’s paradox, and nonergodicity in biological sciences , 2020, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[24]  T. Morikawa,et al.  A REAPPRAISAL , 2020, The Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics.

[25]  Rory P. Wilson,et al.  Why did the animal turn? Time-varying step selection analysis for inference between observed turning points in high frequency data , 2020, bioRxiv.

[26]  Sergio A. Lambertucci,et al.  Physical limits of flight performance in the heaviest soaring bird , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  R. Arlinghaus,et al.  Behavioural and fitness effects of translocation to a novel environment: whole-lake experiments in two aquatic top predators. , 2020, The Journal of animal ecology.

[28]  Sivan Toledo,et al.  Cognitive map–based navigation in wild bats revealed by a new high-throughput tracking system , 2020, Science.

[29]  Yossi Yovel,et al.  The ontogeny of a mammalian cognitive map in the real world , 2020, Science.

[30]  Petri T. Niemelä,et al.  A guide for studying among-individual behavioral variation from movement data in the wild , 2020, Movement ecology.

[31]  Paul Nührenberg,et al.  High-resolution, non-invasive animal tracking and reconstruction of local environment in aquatic ecosystems , 2020, Movement ecology.

[32]  Sergio A. Lambertucci,et al.  A comprehensive framework for handling location error in animal tracking data* , 2020, bioRxiv.

[33]  Nathan Ranc,et al.  Experimental evidence of memory-based foraging decisions in a large wild mammal , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  Alec L. Robitaille,et al.  The Ecology of Individual Differences Empirically Applied to Space-Use and Movement Tactics , 2020, The American Naturalist.

[35]  David Thompson,et al.  Tracking of marine predators to protect Southern Ocean ecosystems , 2020, Nature.

[36]  Allison K. Shaw Causes and consequences of individual variation in animal movement , 2020, Movement Ecology.

[37]  H. Weimerskirch,et al.  Ocean sentinel albatrosses locate illegal vessels and provide the first estimate of the extent of nondeclared fishing , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  Philippa R. Laker,et al.  Is habitat selection in the wild shaped by individual-level cognitive biases in orientation strategy? , 2020, Ecology letters.

[39]  Sivan Toledo Location Estimation from the Ground Up , 2020 .

[40]  Roland Kays,et al.  Scale-insensitive estimation of speed and distance traveled from animal tracking data , 2019, Movement Ecology.

[41]  Simon Benhamou,et al.  Optimising the use of bio-loggers for movement ecology research. , 2019, The Journal of animal ecology.

[42]  Ulrike E. Schlägel,et al.  Movement‐mediated community assembly and coexistence , 2019, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[43]  J. Tobias,et al.  Movement ecology of Afrotropical birds: Functional traits provide complementary insights to species identity , 2019, Biotropica.

[44]  G. Sonerud,et al.  Returning for more prey? Foraging in provisioning male Boreal Owls (Aegolius funereus) , 2019, Journal of Ornithology.

[45]  Ulrike E. Schlägel,et al.  Estimating interactions between individuals from concurrent animal movements , 2019, Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

[46]  Carlos M. Duarte,et al.  Estimates for energy expenditure in free-living animals using acceleration proxies; a reappraisal. , 2019, The Journal of animal ecology.

[47]  Steven J. Cooke,et al.  The Ocean Tracking Network: Advancing frontiers in aquatic science and management , 2019, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.

[48]  Orr Spiegel,et al.  A comprehensive analysis of autocorrelation and bias in home range estimation , 2019, Ecological Monographs.

[49]  Yossi Yovel,et al.  Using on-board sound recordings to infer behaviour of free-moving wild animals , 2019, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[50]  Marta Wayne,et al.  Faculty Opinions recommendation of Moving in the Anthropocene: Global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. , 2019, Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature.

[51]  Mathieu Basille,et al.  Navigating through the R packages for movement. , 2019, The Journal of animal ecology.

[52]  Jonathan R Potts,et al.  Making sense of ultrahigh‐resolution movement data: A new algorithm for inferring sites of interest , 2018, Ecology and evolution.

[53]  Louise Tosetto,et al.  Drone-Based High-Resolution Tracking of Aquatic Vertebrates , 2018, Drones.

[54]  Klaas Deneudt,et al.  A review of acoustic telemetry in Europe and the need for a regional aquatic telemetry network , 2018, Animal Biotelemetry.

[55]  Jeffrey J. Buler,et al.  Differential post-fledging habitat use of Nearctic-Neotropical migratory birds within an urbanized landscape , 2018, Movement Ecology.

[56]  R. Arlinghaus,et al.  Feeding Aquatic Ecosystems: Whole-Lake Experimental Addition of Angler’s Ground Bait Strongly Affects Omnivorous Fish Despite Low Contribution to Lake Carbon Budget , 2018, Ecosystems.

[57]  Iain D Couzin,et al.  From single steps to mass migration: the problem of scale in the movement ecology of the Serengeti wildebeest , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[58]  Víctor M. Eguíluz,et al.  How Big Data Fast Tracked Human Mobility Research and the Lessons for Animal Movement Ecology , 2018, Front. Mar. Sci..

[59]  Susanne A. Fritz,et al.  Moving in the Anthropocene: Global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements , 2018, Science.

[60]  A. Manica,et al.  Infections on the move: how transient phases of host movement influence disease spread , 2017, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[61]  Michael Dixon,et al.  Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone , 2017 .

[62]  Ella Browning,et al.  Predicting animal behaviour using deep learning: GPS data alone accurately predict diving in seabirds , 2017 .

[63]  Finn Økland,et al.  Positioning of aquatic animals based on time-of-arrival and random walk models using YAPS (Yet Another Positioning Solver) , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[64]  A. Farrell,et al.  Ecology of Exercise in Wild Fish: Integrating Concepts of Individual Physiological Capacity, Behavior, and Fitness Through Diverse Case Studies. , 2017, Integrative and comparative biology.

[65]  Charles M. Francis,et al.  The motus wildlife tracking system: A collaborative research network to enhance the understanding of wildlife movement , 2017 .

[66]  Franziska Broell,et al.  Remote bioenergetics measurements in wild fish: Opportunities and challenges. , 2016, Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Part A, Molecular & integrative physiology.

[67]  H. Weimerskirch,et al.  Frigate birds track atmospheric conditions over months-long transoceanic flights , 2016, Science.

[68]  Ran Nathan,et al.  Adult vultures outperform juveniles in challenging thermal soaring conditions , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[69]  Ruth King,et al.  Statistical modelling of individual animal movement: an overview of key methods and a discussion of practical challenges , 2016 .

[70]  Jonathan R. Potts,et al.  Integrated step selection analysis: bridging the gap between resource selection and animal movement , 2015, 1512.01614.

[71]  James K. Sheppard,et al.  An autonomous GPS geofence alert system to curtail avian fatalities at wind farms , 2015, Animal Biotelemetry.

[72]  M. W. Jones,et al.  Step by step: reconstruction of terrestrial animal movement paths by dead-reckoning , 2015, Movement Ecology.

[73]  Paul S. Kemp,et al.  Response of seaward-migrating European eel (Anguilla anguilla) to manipulated flow fields , 2015, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[74]  I. Couzin,et al.  Shared decision-making drives collective movement in wild baboons , 2015, Science.

[75]  J. Kocik,et al.  Aquatic animal telemetry: A panoramic window into the underwater world , 2015, Science.

[76]  R. Kays,et al.  Terrestrial animal tracking as an eye on life and planet , 2015, Science.

[77]  Martin Wæver Pedersen,et al.  Performance Assessment of Two Whole-Lake Acoustic Positional Telemetry Systems - Is Reality Mining of Free-Ranging Aquatic Animals Technologically Possible? , 2015, PloS one.

[78]  M. Snyder,et al.  High-throughput sequencing technologies. , 2015, Molecular cell.

[79]  Robert Weibel,et al.  Integrating cross-scale analysis in the spatial and temporal domains for classification of behavioral movement , 2014, J. Spatial Inf. Sci..

[80]  George Wittemyer,et al.  Novel opportunities for wildlife conservation and research with real-time monitoring. , 2014, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[81]  Ran Nathan,et al.  The gliding speed of migrating birds: slow and safe or fast and risky? , 2014, Ecology letters.

[82]  Simon Benhamou,et al.  Of scales and stationarity in animal movements. , 2014, Ecology letters.

[83]  H. Eugene Stanley,et al.  Anomalous diffusion and multifractality enhance mating encounters in the ocean , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[84]  S. Creel,et al.  Underestimating the frequency, strength and cost of antipredator responses with data from GPS collars: an example with wolves and elk , 2013, Ecology and evolution.

[85]  Jeffrey F. Kelly,et al.  Advances in tracking small migratory birds: a technical review of light-level geolocation , 2013 .

[86]  Eoin J. O’Gorman,et al.  Body Size Distribution of the Dinosaurs , 2012, PloS one.

[87]  Bart Kranstauber,et al.  Bias in estimating animal travel distance: the effect of sampling frequency , 2012 .

[88]  Eelke O. Folmer,et al.  Experimental evidence for cryptic interference among socially foraging shorebirds , 2012 .

[89]  T. Laaksonen,et al.  Home range size is determined by habitat composition but feeding rate by food availability in male Tengmalm’s owls , 2012, Animal Behaviour.

[90]  Ran Nathan,et al.  Using tri-axial acceleration data to identify behavioral modes of free-ranging animals: general concepts and tools illustrated for griffon vultures , 2012, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[91]  Martin Wikelski,et al.  Migration by soaring or flapping: numerical atmospheric simulations reveal that turbulence kinetic energy dictates bee-eater flight mode , 2011, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[92]  D. Bojanic,et al.  Impact of high-throughput screening in biomedical research , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[93]  R. Arlinghaus,et al.  Seasonal Carryover Effects following the Administration of Cortisol to a Wild Teleost Fish , 2010, Physiological and Biochemical Zoology.

[94]  G. Nolan,et al.  Computational solutions to large-scale data management and analysis , 2010, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[95]  I. Herfindal,et al.  Screening Global Positioning System Location Data for Errors Using Animal Movement Characteristics , 2010 .

[96]  E. Revilla,et al.  A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[97]  D. Haydon,et al.  Multiple movement modes by large herbivores at multiple spatiotemporal scales , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[98]  G. Parisi,et al.  Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: Evidence from a field study , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[99]  Ran Nathan,et al.  Incorporating dispersal distance into the disperser effectiveness framework: frugivorous birds provide complementary dispersal to plants in a patchy environment. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[100]  D. Paton,et al.  Predicting mistletoe seed shadow and patterns of seed rain from movements of the mistletoebird, Dicaeum hirundinaceum , 2007 .

[101]  Kathryn E Sieving,et al.  An Experimental Test of Matrix Permeability and Corridor Use by an Endemic Understory Bird , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[102]  M. Carrete,et al.  Application of central-place foraging theory shows the importance of Mediterranean dehesas for the conservation of the cinereous vulture, Aegypius monachus , 2005 .

[103]  Uta Berger,et al.  Pattern-Oriented Modeling of Agent-Based Complex Systems: Lessons from Ecology , 2005, Science.

[104]  T. Devault,et al.  HOME RANGES OF SYMPATRIC BLACK AND TURKEY VULTURES IN SOUTH CAROLINA , 2004 .

[105]  John W. Mallord,et al.  Habitat selection by song thrushes in stable and declining farmland populations , 2004 .

[106]  D. Grémillet,et al.  GPS tracking a marine predator: the effects of precision, resolution and sampling rate on foraging tracks of African Penguins , 2004 .

[107]  P. Amarasekare Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis , 2003 .

[108]  H. Stanley,et al.  Optimizing the success of random searches , 1999, Nature.

[109]  William S. Curran,et al.  A/I: a synthesis , 1982, ACM-SE 20.

[110]  A. D. Hawkins,et al.  Tracking cod Gadus morhua L. in a Scottish sea loch , 1974 .

[111]  J. Craighead,et al.  Satellite Monitoring of Black Bear , 1971 .

[112]  Orr Spiegel,et al.  What's your move? Movement as a link between personality and spatial dynamics in animal populations. , 2017, Ecology letters.

[113]  N. Levanon,et al.  THE BIRD-BORNE TRANSMITTER , 2015 .

[114]  V. Bretagnolle,et al.  Variation in home-range size and movements of wintering dabbling ducks , 2008, Journal of Ornithology.

[115]  A. Alavi,et al.  Opportunities and Challenges , 1998, In Vitro Diagnostic Industry in China.

[116]  C. Rutz Home range size, habitat use, activity patterns and hunting behaviour of urban-breeding Northern Goshawks Accipiter gentilis , 2006 .

[117]  Tom Tregenza,et al.  Building on the Ideal Free Distribution , 1995 .

[118]  C.E. Shannon,et al.  Communication in the Presence of Noise , 1949, Proceedings of the IRE.