Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31352884›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2019

Behavioural valuation of landscapes using movement data.

George Wittemyer, Joseph M Northrup, Guillaume Bastille-Rousseau

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Beyond the horizon: immersive developments for animal ecology research.Visual computing for industry, biomedicine, and art · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Mapping the connectivity-conflict interface to inform conservation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

George WittemyerDepartment of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523, USA.
Joseph M NorthrupWildlife Research and Monitoring Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J 8M5.
Guillaume Bastille-RousseauDepartment of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wildlife tracking is one of the most frequently employed approaches to monitor and study wildlife populations. To date, the application of tracking data to applied objectives has focused largely on the intensity of use by an animal in a location or the type of habitat. While this has provided valuable insights and advanced spatial wildlife management, such interpretation of tracking data does not capture the complexity of spatio-temporal processes inherent to animal behaviour and represented in the movement path. Here, we discuss current and emerging approaches to estimate the behavioural value of spatial locations using movement data, focusing on the nexus of conservation behaviour and movement ecology that can amplify the application of animal tracking research to contemporary conservation challenges. We highlight the importance of applying behavioural ecological approaches to the analysis of tracking data and discuss the utility of comparative approaches, optimization theory and economic valuation to gain understanding of movement strategies and gauge population-level processes. First, we discuss innovations in the most fundamental movement-based valuation of landscapes, the intensity of use of a location, namely dissecting temporal dynamics in and means by which to weight the intensity of use. We then expand our discussion to three less common currencies for behavioural valuation of landscapes, namely the assessment of the functional (i.e. what an individual is doing at a location), structural (i.e. how a location relates to use of the broader landscape) and fitness (i.e. the return from using a location) value of a location. Strengthening the behavioural theoretical underpinnings of movement ecology research promises to provide a deeper, mechanistic understanding of animal movement that can lead to unprecedented insights into the interaction between landscapes and animal behaviour and advance the application of movement research to conservation challenges. This article is part of the theme issue 'Linking behaviour to dynamics of populations and communities: application of novel approaches in behavioural ecology to conservation'.

Indexed as

EcosystemMovementAnimalsBehavior, AnimalConservation of Natural ResourcesEcologyEthologybiologginghome rangelandscape conservationmigrationoptimizationresource selection

Identifiers

PMID31352884
PMCPMC6710572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.