Accounting for location uncertainty in azimuthal telemetry data improves ecological inference

Characterizing animal space use is critical to understand ecological relationships. Despite many decades of using radio-telemetry to track animals and make spatial inference, there are few statistical options to handle these unique data and no synthetic framework for modeling animal location uncertainty and accounting for it in ecological models. We describe a novel azimuthal telemetry model (ATM) to account for azimuthal uncertainty with covariates and propagate location uncertainty into ecological models. We evaluate the ATM with commonly used estimators in several study design scenarios using simulation. We also provide illustra-tive empirical examples, demonstrating the impact of ignoring location uncertainty within home range and resource selection analyses. We found the ATM to have good performance and the only model that has appropriate measures of coverage. Ignoring animal location un-certainty when estimating resource selection or home ranges can have pernicious effects on ecological inference. We demonstrate that home range estimates can be overly confident and conservative when ignoring location uncertainty and resource selection coefficients can lead to incorrect inference and over confidence in the magnitude of selection. Our findings and model development have important implications for interpreting historical analyses using this type of data and the future design of radio-telemetry studies.

[1]  David Saltz,et al.  Reporting error measures in radio location by triangulation: a review , 1994 .

[2]  Jacob S. Ivan,et al.  A functional model for characterizing long‐distance movement behaviour , 2016 .

[3]  B. Doligez,et al.  Tracking prospecting movements involved in breeding habitat selection: insights, pitfalls and perspectives , 2013 .

[4]  Jay M. Ver Hoef,et al.  Implications of Ignoring Telemetry Error on Inference in Wildlife Resource use Models , 2011 .

[5]  Mevin B Hooten,et al.  Animal movement constraints improve resource selection inference in the presence of telemetry error. , 2015, Ecology.

[6]  Douglas H. Johnson THE COMPARISON OF USAGE AND AVAILABILITY MEASUREMENTS FOR EVALUATING RESOURCE PREFERENCE , 1980 .

[7]  John M. Marzluff,et al.  Effects of Tagging and Location Error in Wildlife Radiotelemetry Studies , 2001 .

[8]  Joshua J. Millspaugh,et al.  Radio Tracking and Animal Populations , 2001 .

[9]  P. Guttorp,et al.  Finding the Location of a Signal: A Bayesian Analysis , 1988 .

[10]  Gordon B. Stenhouse,et al.  Removing GPS collar bias in habitat selection studies , 2004 .

[11]  Daniel P. Costa,et al.  Accuracy of ARGOS Locations of Pinnipeds at-Sea Estimated Using Fastloc GPS , 2010, PloS one.

[12]  Mevin B Hooten,et al.  Reconciling resource utilization and resource selection functions. , 2013, The Journal of animal ecology.

[13]  E. Blankenship,et al.  Correction of location errors for presence‐only species distribution models , 2014 .

[14]  Gary J. Roloff,et al.  Can We Accurately Characterize Wildlife Resource Use When Telemetry Data Are Imprecise? , 2010 .

[15]  Joshua J. Millspaugh,et al.  Radio-Tracking and Animal Populations: Past Trends and Future Needs , 2001 .

[16]  Sophia Blau,et al.  Analysis Of Wildlife Radio Tracking Data , 2016 .

[17]  Richard M. Pace,et al.  A nonlinear weighted least-squares estimator for radiotracking via triangulation , 1990 .

[18]  Anthony D. Apa,et al.  The importance of seasonal resource selection when managing a threatened species: targeting conservation actions within critical habitat designations for the Gunnison sage-grouse , 2017, Wildlife Research.

[19]  Russell V. Lenth,et al.  On Finding the Source of a Signal , 1981 .