AbstractAnimal tracking data are being collected more frequently, in greater detail, and on smaller taxa than ever before. These data hold the promise to increase the relevance of animal movement for understanding ecological processes, but this potential will only be fully realized if their accompanying location error is properly addressed. Historically, coarsely-sampled movement data have proved invaluable for understanding large scale processes (e.g., home range, habitat selection, etc.), but modern fine-scale data promise to unlock far more ecological information. While location error can often be ignored in coarsely sampled data, fine-scale data require much more care, and tools to do this have been lacking. Current approaches to dealing with location error largely fall into two categories—either discarding the least accurate location estimates prior to analysis or simultaneously fitting movement and error parameters in a hidden-state model. Unfortunately, both of these approaches have serious flaws. Here, we provide a general framework to account for location error in the analysis of animal tracking data, so that their potential can be unlocked. We apply our error-model-selection framework to 190 GPS, cellular, and acoustic devices representing 27 models from 14 manufacturers. Collectively, these devices are used to track a wide range of animal species comprising birds, fish, reptiles, and mammals of different sizes and with different behaviors, in urban, suburban, and wild settings. Then, using empirical data on tracked individuals from multiple species, we provide an overview of modern, error-informed movement analyses, including continuous-time path reconstruction, home-range distribution, home-range overlap, speed and distance estimation. Adding to these techniques, we introduce new error-informed estimators for outlier detection and autocorrelation visualization. We furthermore demonstrate how error-informed analyses on calibrated tracking data can be necessary to ensure that estimates are accurate and insensitive to location error, and allow researchers to use all of their data. Because error-induced biases depend on so many factors—sampling schedule, movement characteristics, tracking device, habitat, etc.—differential bias can easily confound biological inference and lead researchers to draw false conclusions.
Correction to: Analysis of local habitat selection and large-scale attraction/avoidance based on animal tracking data: is there a single best method?
