Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34187578›Full record

ArticleMovement ecology2021

Deterministic, random, or in between? Inferring the randomness level of wildlife movements.

Teresa Goicolea, Aitor Gastón, Pablo Cisneros-Araujo, Juan Ignacio García-Viñas, M Cruz Mateo-Sánchez

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Movement ecology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Teresa GoicoleaETSI Montes, Forestal y del Medio Natural, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain. t.goicolea@upm.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4069-6001
Aitor GastónETSI Montes, Forestal y del Medio Natural, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Pablo Cisneros-AraujoETSI Montes, Forestal y del Medio Natural, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Juan Ignacio García-ViñasETSI Montes, Forestal y del Medio Natural, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
M Cruz Mateo-SánchezETSI Montes, Forestal y del Medio Natural, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen assessing connectivity, it is crucial to rely on accurate modeling frameworks that consider species movement preferences and patterns. One important aspect is the level of randomness or unpredictability in the route selection. In this respect, traditional approaches (based on least-cost path or circuit theory) consider species movements unrealistically as totally deterministic or as totally random. A recent approach (randomized shortest path) advocates for choosing intermediate levels of randomness through a single parameter. This parameter may be optimized by validating connectivity surfaces developed from different levels of randomness against observed movement data. However, connectivity models are seldom validated, and it is still unclear how to approach this task. To address this knowledge gap, this paper aims at comparing different validation methods to infer the optimal randomness level in connectivity studies. Additionally, we aimed to disentangle the practical consequences of applying traditional connectivity approaches versus using an optimized level of movement randomness when delineating corridors.

methodsThese objectives were accomplished through the study case of the Iberian lynx, an endangered species whose maintenance and recovery depend on the current connectivity among its population nuclei. We firstly determined a conductance surface based on point selection functions accounting for the behavioral state (territorial or exploratory) of individuals. Secondly, we identified the level of randomness that better fits lynxes' movements with independent GPS locations and different validation techniques. Lastly, we delineated corridors between lynx population nuclei through a) the randomized shortest path approach and the extreme and optimal levels of randomness of each validation method, and b) the traditional connectivity approaches.

resultsAccording to all used validation methodologies, models with intermediate levels of randomness outperformed those with extreme randomness levels representing totally deterministic or random movements. We found differences in the optimal randomness level among validation methods but similar results in the delineation of corridors. Our results also revealed that models with extreme randomness levels (deterministic and random walk) of the randomized path approach provided equivalent corridor networks to those from traditional approaches. Moreover, these corridor networks calculated with traditional approaches showed notable differences in patterns from the corridor network calculated with an optimized randomness level.

conclusionsHere we presented a connectivity model with a solid biological basis that calibrates the level of movement randomness and is supported by comprehensive validation methods. It is thus a step forward in the search and evaluation of connectivity approaches that lead to improved, efficient, and successful management actions.

Indexed as

Connectivity validationCorridorsEcological connectivityEcological corridorsIberian lynxLynx pardinusMovement ecologyPoint selection functionsRandomized shortest path

Identifiers

PMID34187578
PMCPMC8244215
OpenAlexW3176407743

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.