Abstract

Study of animal movements is key for understanding their ecology and facilitating their conservation. The Argos satellite system is a valuable tool for tracking species which move long distances, inhabit remote areas, and are otherwise difficult to track with traditional VHF telemetry and are not suitable for GPS systems. Previous research has raised doubts about the magnitude of position errors quoted by the satellite service provider CLS. In addition, no peer-reviewed publications have evaluated the usefulness of the CLS supplied error ellipses nor the accuracy of the new Kalman filtering (KF) processing method. Using transmitters hung from towers and trees in southeastern Peru, we show the Argos error ellipses generally contain <25% of the true locations and therefore do not adequately describe the true location errors. We also find that KF processing does not significantly increase location accuracy. The errors for both LS and KF processing methods were found to be lognormally distributed, which has important repercussions for error calculation, statistical analysis, and data interpretation. In brief, “good” positions (location codes 3, 2, 1, A) are accurate to about 2 km, while 0 and B locations are accurate to about 5–10 km. However, due to the lognormal distribution of the errors, larger outliers are to be expected in all location codes and need to be accounted for in the user’s data processing. We evaluate five different empirical error estimates and find that 68% lognormal error ellipses provided the most useful error estimates. Longitude errors are larger than latitude errors by a factor of 2 to 3, supporting the use of elliptical error ellipses. Numerous studies over the past 15 years have also found fault with the CLS-claimed error estimates yet CLS has failed to correct their misleading information. We hope this will be reversed in the near future.

Highlights

  • Documenting animal movements is key for understanding species’ home ranges, migration patterns, resource tracking, and is vital for developing realistic conservation plans

  • In 13 of the 14 cases, the errors were well described by the lognormal distribution (Lilliefors test with alpha = 0.05)

  • We were surprised that the error ellipses failed so completely as estimates of true error. Do these error ellipses refer to the precision of the calculation rather than the accuracy of the result? Does the fact that Argos assumes in their calculations that the errors follow a normal distribution [15] have a major impact? Are there additional sources of errors that are not included in the error covariance matrix? We suggest Argos provide a better explanation of what their error ellipses describe and how they might be useful to users

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Documenting animal movements is key for understanding species’ home ranges, migration patterns, resource tracking, and is vital for developing realistic conservation plans. Remote tracking of animals began in the late 1950’s with VHF radio telemetry and this technique is still frequently used to track terrestrial animals over relatively short distances [1]. Tracking of wideranging animals and intercontinental migrants was not possible until the 1970s with the development of 5–11 kg Argos system PTTs (platform terminal transmitters) for tracking large mammals [2]. For some telemetry applications the newer GPS (Global Positioning System) has replaced VHF and Argos. An important advantage of both Argos and GPS is that, unlike short-range VHF telemetry, the satellites are placed in orbits that allow positions to be obtained from every location on earth, allowing studies of wide ranging and migratory animals in inaccessible regions both terrestrial and marine

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call