4.3 Article

Inferring linear feature use in the presence of GPS measurement error

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL STATISTICS
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 531-546

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10651-008-0095-7

关键词

Bivariate Laplace distribution; Error distribution; Global Positioning System; Habitats of small spatial extent; Location classification; Location error; Rare habitats; Seismic lines

资金

  1. NSERC CRO
  2. University of Alberta
  3. Canada Research Chair in Mathematical Biology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global Positioning System (GPS) collars are increasingly used to study animal movement and habitat use. Measurement error is defined as the difference between the observed and true value being measured. In GPS data measurement error is referred to as location error and leads to misclassification of observed locations into habitat types. This is particularily true when studying habitats of small spatial extent with large amounts of edge, such as linear features (e.g. roads and seismic lines). However, no consistent framework exists to address the effect of measurement error on habitat classification of observed locations and resulting biological inference. We developed a mechanistic, empirically-based method for buffering linear features that minimizes the underestimation of animal use introduced by GPS measurement error. To do this we quantified the distribution of measurement error and derived an explicit formula for buffer radius which incorporated the error distribution, the width of the linear feature, and a predefined amount of acceptable type I error in location classification. In our empirical study we found the GPS measurement error of the Lotek GPS_3300 collar followed a bivariate Laplace distribution with parameter rho = 0.1123. When we applied our method to a simulated landscape, type I error was reduced by 57%. This study highlights the need to address the effect of GPS measurement error in animal location classification, particularily for habitats of small spatial extent.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据