Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Hanley, B. McNeil (1982)
The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.Radiology, 143 1
J. Biggs, K. Bennett, P. Fresquez (2001)
Relationship between home range characteristics and the probability of obtaining successful global positioning system (GPS) collar positions for elk in New MexicoWestern North American Naturalist, 61
(1999)
Evaluation of GPS telemetry collar performance for habitat studies in the boreal forest
R. Rempel, A. Rodgers (1997)
Effects of differential correction on accuracy of a GPS animal location systemJournal of Wildlife Management, 61
M. Samuel, K. Kenow (1992)
Evaluating habitat selection with radio-telemetry triangulation errorJournal of Wildlife Management, 56
(1992)
Weighting for unequal Pi
R. Little (1986)
Survey Nonresponse Adjustments for Estimates of MeansInternational Statistical Review, 54
V. Nams (1989)
Effects of radiotelemetry error on sample size and bias when testing for habitat selectionCanadian Journal of Zoology, 67
John Thompson, Gilberto Levy (2004)
Missing dataAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Other Motor Neuron Disorders, 5
J. Barnard, D. Rubin (1999)
Small-sample degrees of freedom with multiple imputationBiometrika, 86
Mohr Mohr (1947)
Table of equivalent animal populations of North American small mammalsAmerican Midland Naturalist, 37
R. Moen, J. Pastor, Y. Cohen, C. Schwartz (1996)
Effects of moose movement and habitat use on GPS collar performanceJournal of Wildlife Management, 60
(1997)
Effects of forest vegetation and topography on global positioning system collars for elk
B. Compton, J. Rhymer, M. Mccollough (2002)
HABITAT SELECTION BY WOOD TURTLES (CLEMMYS INSCULPTA): AN APPLICATION OF PAIRED LOGISTIC REGRESSIONEcology, 83
L. Edenius (1997)
Field test of a GPS location system for moose Alces alces under Scandinavian boreal conditionsWildlife Biology, 3
J. Bowman, C. Kochanny, S. Demarais, B. Leopold (2000)
Evaluation of a GPS collar for white-tailed deer.Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28
G. White, R. Garrott (1986)
Effects of biotelemetry triangulation error on detecting habitat selectionJournal of Wildlife Management, 50
A. Cooper, J. Millspaugh (1999)
THE APPLICATION OF DISCRETE CHOICE MODELS TO WILDLIFE RESOURCE SELECTION STUDIESEcology, 80
S. Merrill, L. Adams, M. Nelson, L. Mech (1999)
Testing releasable GPS radiocollars on wolves and white-tailed deerWildlife Society Bulletin, 26
J. Robins, Naisyin Wang (2000)
Inference for imputation estimatorsBiometrika, 87
W. Rettie, P. McLoughlin (1999)
Overcoming radiotelemetry bias in habitat- selection studiesCanadian Journal of Zoology, 77
D. Rubin (1996)
Multiple Imputation After 18+ YearsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 91
Chris Johnson, K. Parker, D. Heard, M. Gillingham (2002)
Movement parameters of ungulates and scale‐specific responses to the environmentJournal of Animal Ecology, 71
(2004)
British Ecological Society Journal of Applied Ecology
Christopher Winship, L. Radbill (1994)
Sampling Weights and Regression AnalysisSociological Methods & Research, 23
R. Rempel, A. Rodgers, K. Abraham (1995)
PERFORMANCE OF A GPS ANIMAL LOCATION SYSTEM UNDER BOREAL FOREST CANOPYJournal of Wildlife Management, 59
R. Kufeld, John Siperek, D. Bowden (1987)
Evaluation of a Telemetry System for Measuring Habitat Usage in Mountainous Terrain
J. Robins, A. Rotnitzky, L. Zhao (1994)
Estimation of Regression Coefficients When Some Regressors are not Always ObservedJournal of the American Statistical Association, 89
D. Pregibon (1981)
Logistic Regression DiagnosticsAnnals of Statistics, 9
L. Conner, Mark Smith, L. Burger (2003)
A COMPARISON OF DISTANCE-BASED AND CLASSIFICATION-BASED ANALYSES OF HABITAT USEEcology, 84
D. Pfeffermann (1993)
The Role of Sampling Weights when Modeling Survey DataInternational Statistical Review, 61
C. Mohr (1947)
Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammalsAmerican Midland Naturalist, 37
D. Hjermann (2000)
Analyzing habitat selection in animals without well-defined home rangesEcology, 81
R. Moen, J. Pastor, Y. Cohen (1997)
Accuracy of GPS telemetry collar locations with differential correctionJournal of Wildlife Management, 61
N. Aebischer, P. Robertson, R. Kenward (1993)
Compositional Analysis of Habitat Use From Animal Radio-Tracking DataEcology, 74
D. Hosmer, S. Lemeshow (1991)
Applied Logistic Regression
J. Schafer (1999)
Multiple imputation: a primerStatistical Methods in Medical Research, 8
R. D’eon, R. Serrouya, Graham Smith, C. Kochanny (2002)
GPS radiotelemetry error and bias in mountainous terrainWildlife Society Bulletin, 30
STATA Corporation (2001a) Stata 7 Reference
H. White (1980)
A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for HeteroskedasticityEconometrica, 48
J. Pendergast, S. Gange, Michael Newton, M. Lindstrom, M. Palta, Marian Fisher (1996)
A survey of methods for analyzing clustered binary response dataInternational Statistical Review, 64
B. Manly, L. McDonald, Dana Thomas (1993)
Resource Selection by Animals
K. Kenow, R. Wright, M. Samuel, P. Rasmussen (2001)
Integrating SAS and GIS software to improve habitat-use estimates from radiotelemetry dataWildlife Society Bulletin, 29
K. Burnham, David Anderson (2003)
Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approachJournal of Wildlife Management, 67
B. Manly, L. McDonald, Dana Thomas (1994)
Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies.
B. Johnson, A. Ager, Scott Findholt, M. Wisdom, D. Marx, John Kern, L. Bryant (1998)
Mitigating spatial differences in observation rate of automated telemetry systemsJournal of Wildlife Management, 62
S. Arthur, B. Manly, L. McDonald, G. Garner (1996)
Assessing habitat selection when availability changesEcology, 77
Douglas Johnson (1980)
THE COMPARISON OF USAGE AND AVAILABILITY MEASUREMENTS FOR EVALUATING RESOURCE PREFERENCEEcology, 61
Summary 1 Compared to traditional radio‐collars, global positioning system (GPS) collars provide finer spatial resolution and collect locations across a broader range of spatial and temporal conditions. However, data from GPS collars are biased because vegetation and terrain interfere with the satellite signals necessary to acquire a location. Analyses of habitat selection generally proceed without correcting for this known sampling bias. We documented the effects of bias in resource selection functions (RSF) and compared the effectiveness of two bias‐correction techniques. 2 The effects of environmental conditions on the probability of a GPS collar collecting a location were modelled for three brands of collar using data collected in 24‐h trials at 194 test locations. The best‐supported model was used to create GPS‐biased data from unbiased animal locations. These data were used to assess the effects of bias given data losses in the range of 10–40% at both 1‐ and 6‐h sampling intensities. We compared the sign, value and significance of coefficients derived using biased and unbiased data. 3 With 6‐h locations we observed type II error rates of 30–40% given as little as a 10% data loss. Biased data also produced coefficients that were significantly more negative than unbiased estimates. Increasing the sampling intensity from 6‐ to 1‐h locations eliminated type II errors but increased the magnitude of coefficient bias. No type I errors or changes in sign were observed. 4 We applied sample weighting and iterative simulation given a 30% data loss. For a biased vegetation type, simulation reduced more type II errors than weighting, most probably because the original sample size was re‐established. However, selection for areas near trails, which was influenced by a biased vegetation type, showed fewer type II errors after weighting existing animal locations than after simulation. Both techniques corrected 100% and ≥ 80% of the biased coefficients at the 6‐ and 1‐h sampling intensities, respectively. 5 Synthesis and applications. This study demonstrates that GPS error is predictable and biases the coefficients of resource selection models dependant upon the GPS sampling intensity and the level of data loss. We provide effective alternatives for correcting bias and discuss applying corrections under different sampling designs.
Journal of Applied Ecology – Wiley
Published: Apr 1, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.