Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40357139›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2025

The 4th Dimension in Animal Movement: The Effect of Temporal Resolution and Landscape Configuration in Habitat-Selection Analyses.

Johannes Signer, Cédric Scherer, Viktoriia Radchuk, Carolin Scholz, Florian Jeltsch, Stephanie Kramer-Schadt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Johannes SignerWildlife Sciences, Faculty for Forestry and Forest Ecology University of Goettingen Göttingen Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1771-7775
Cédric SchererDepartment of Ecological Dynamics Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research Berlin Germany.
Viktoriia RadchukDepartment of Ecological Dynamics Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research Berlin Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3072-0095
Carolin ScholzDepartment of Ecological Dynamics Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research Berlin Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2283-7437
Florian JeltschInstitute of Biochemistry and Biology University of Potsdam Potsdam Germany.
Stephanie Kramer-SchadtDepartment of Ecological Dynamics Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research Berlin Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9269-4446

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding how animals use their habitat is essential to understand their biology and support conservation efforts. Technological advances in tracking technologies allow us to follow animals at increasingly fine temporal resolutions. Yet, how tracking devices' sampling intervals impact results remains unclear, as well as which method to use. Using simulations and empirical data from wild boars tracked in Germany, we systematically examine how the temporal resolution of movement data in interaction with the spatial autocorrelation of the landscape affects the outcomes of two common techniques for analyzing habitat selection: resource-selection analysis (RSA) and an autocorrelation-informed weighted derivative (wRSA) as well as integrated step-selection analysis (iSSA). Each method differs in the definition of "available" locations (RSA) and the implementation of the movement model during parameter estimation (iSSA). Our simulations suggested that landscape autocorrelation has a much stronger effect on the estimated selection coefficients and their variability than the sampling interval. Higher sampling intervals (i.e., longer time between steps) are required for landscapes with high autocorrelation, enabling the animal to experience enough variability in clumped landscapes. Short sampling intervals generally lead to higher variability and fewer statistically significant estimates (in particular for wRSA). Our results complement recent attempts to outline a coherent framework for habitat-selection analyses and to explain them to practitioners. We further contribute to these efforts by assessing the sensitivity of two commonly used methods, RSA and iSSA, to the changes in sampling interval of movement data. We expect our findings to further raise awareness of pitfalls underlying the comparison of estimated selection coefficients obtained in different studies and to assist movement ecologists in choosing the appropriate method for habitat-selection analysis.

Indexed as

animal movementhabitat selectionparameter estimationresource‐selection functionsampling intervalsensitivitystep‐selection functiontelemetry

Identifiers

PMID40357139
PMCPMC12068901

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.