ArticleEcology2025
Accounting for Earth's curvature and elevation in animal movement modeling.
Article in Ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Animals move in three dimensions, yet movement models do not capture the third dimension when data are collected as longitude and latitude coordinates (only) and models are developed in two dimensions. Here, we ask the question to what extent topography and the shape of the Earth-its ellipsoidal shape-affect the quantification of animal movement. To answer this question, we draw from the fields of ecology and geodesy: geodesy provides the mathematics to solve the problem on the curved surface of the Earth exactly, as opposed to using a map projection, because all map projections impart a scale distortion that systematically enlarges or shrinks the distances between points in space. We provide mathematical derivations to solve this problem in two different ways and show that they are equivalent. We also provide analyses of data from pumas (Puma concolor) and humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to discuss the impact of not accounting for the macroscopic, ellipsoidal shape of the Earth nor for topography when quantifying animal movements. In short, if the vertical extent of the movement is small compared to the horizontal extent, then the difference is de minimis. Conversely, if an animal moves vertically as much, or more, than how far it moves horizontally, then the difference is not negligible. Using map-projection coordinates without corrections systematically increases and/or decreases distances and, therefore, speeds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.