Cargando…

Recording fine‐scale movement of ground beetles by two methods: Potentials and methodological pitfalls

Movement trajectories are usually recorded as a sequence of discrete movement events described by two parameters: step length (distance) and turning angle (bearing). One of the most widespread methods to record the geocoordinates of each step is by a GPS device. Such devices have limited suitability...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Růžičková, Jana, Elek, Zoltán
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8258227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34257916
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7670
_version_ 1783718462363795456
author Růžičková, Jana
Elek, Zoltán
author_facet Růžičková, Jana
Elek, Zoltán
author_sort Růžičková, Jana
collection PubMed
description Movement trajectories are usually recorded as a sequence of discrete movement events described by two parameters: step length (distance) and turning angle (bearing). One of the most widespread methods to record the geocoordinates of each step is by a GPS device. Such devices have limited suitability for recording fine movements of species with low dispersal ability including flightless carabid beetles at small spatio‐temporal scales. As an alternative, the distance‐bearing approach can avoid the measurement error of GPS units since it uses directly measured distances and compass azimuths. As no quantification of measurement error between distance‐bearing and GPS approaches exists so far, we generated artificial fine‐scale trajectories and in addition radio‐tracked living carabids in a temperate forest and recorded each movement step by both methods. Trajectories obtained from distance‐bearing were compared to those obtained by a GPS device in terms of movement parameters. Consequently, both types of trajectories were segmented by state‐switching modeling into two distinct movement stages typical for carabids: random walk and directed movement. We found that the measurement error of GPS compared to distance‐bearing was 1.878 m (SEM = 0.181 m) for distances and 31.330° (SEM = 2.066°) for bearings. Moreover, these errors increased under dense forest canopy and rainy weather. Distance error did not change with increasing distance recorded by distance‐bearing but bearings were significantly more sensitive to error at short distances. State‐switching models showed only slight, not significant, differences in movement states between the two methods in favor of the random walk in the distance‐bearing approach. However, the shape of the GPS‐measured trajectories considerably differed from those recorded by distance‐bearing caused especially by bearing error at short distances. Our study showed that distance‐bearing could be more appropriate for recording movement steps not only of ground‐dwelling beetles but also other small animals at fine spatio‐temporal scales.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8258227
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82582272021-07-12 Recording fine‐scale movement of ground beetles by two methods: Potentials and methodological pitfalls Růžičková, Jana Elek, Zoltán Ecol Evol Original Research Movement trajectories are usually recorded as a sequence of discrete movement events described by two parameters: step length (distance) and turning angle (bearing). One of the most widespread methods to record the geocoordinates of each step is by a GPS device. Such devices have limited suitability for recording fine movements of species with low dispersal ability including flightless carabid beetles at small spatio‐temporal scales. As an alternative, the distance‐bearing approach can avoid the measurement error of GPS units since it uses directly measured distances and compass azimuths. As no quantification of measurement error between distance‐bearing and GPS approaches exists so far, we generated artificial fine‐scale trajectories and in addition radio‐tracked living carabids in a temperate forest and recorded each movement step by both methods. Trajectories obtained from distance‐bearing were compared to those obtained by a GPS device in terms of movement parameters. Consequently, both types of trajectories were segmented by state‐switching modeling into two distinct movement stages typical for carabids: random walk and directed movement. We found that the measurement error of GPS compared to distance‐bearing was 1.878 m (SEM = 0.181 m) for distances and 31.330° (SEM = 2.066°) for bearings. Moreover, these errors increased under dense forest canopy and rainy weather. Distance error did not change with increasing distance recorded by distance‐bearing but bearings were significantly more sensitive to error at short distances. State‐switching models showed only slight, not significant, differences in movement states between the two methods in favor of the random walk in the distance‐bearing approach. However, the shape of the GPS‐measured trajectories considerably differed from those recorded by distance‐bearing caused especially by bearing error at short distances. Our study showed that distance‐bearing could be more appropriate for recording movement steps not only of ground‐dwelling beetles but also other small animals at fine spatio‐temporal scales. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-05-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8258227/ /pubmed/34257916 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7670 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Růžičková, Jana
Elek, Zoltán
Recording fine‐scale movement of ground beetles by two methods: Potentials and methodological pitfalls
title Recording fine‐scale movement of ground beetles by two methods: Potentials and methodological pitfalls
title_full Recording fine‐scale movement of ground beetles by two methods: Potentials and methodological pitfalls
title_fullStr Recording fine‐scale movement of ground beetles by two methods: Potentials and methodological pitfalls
title_full_unstemmed Recording fine‐scale movement of ground beetles by two methods: Potentials and methodological pitfalls
title_short Recording fine‐scale movement of ground beetles by two methods: Potentials and methodological pitfalls
title_sort recording fine‐scale movement of ground beetles by two methods: potentials and methodological pitfalls
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8258227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34257916
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7670
work_keys_str_mv AT ruzickovajana recordingfinescalemovementofgroundbeetlesbytwomethodspotentialsandmethodologicalpitfalls
AT elekzoltan recordingfinescalemovementofgroundbeetlesbytwomethodspotentialsandmethodologicalpitfalls