Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBennison, A
dc.contributor.authorBearhop, S
dc.contributor.authorBodey, TW
dc.contributor.authorVotier, SC
dc.contributor.authorGrecian, WJ
dc.contributor.authorWakefield, ED
dc.contributor.authorHamer, KC
dc.contributor.authorJessopp, M
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-13T11:10:43Z
dc.date.issued2017-11-23
dc.description.abstractSearch behavior is often used as a proxy for foraging effort within studies of animal movement, despite it being only one part of the foraging process, which also includes prey capture. While methods for validating prey capture exist, many studies rely solely on behavioral annotation of animal movement data to identify search and infer prey capture attempts. However, the degree to which search correlates with prey capture is largely untested. This study applied seven behavioral annotation methods to identify search behavior from GPS tracks of northern gannets (Morus bassanus), and compared outputs to the occurrence of dives recorded by simultaneously deployed time-depth recorders. We tested how behavioral annotation methods vary in their ability to identify search behavior leading to dive events. There was considerable variation in the number of dives occurring within search areas across methods. Hidden Markov models proved to be the most successful, with 81% of all dives occurring within areas identified as search. k-Means clustering and first passage time had the highest rates of dives occurring outside identified search behavior. First passage time and hidden Markov models had the lowest rates of false positives, identifying fewer search areas with no dives. All behavioral annotation methods had advantages and drawbacks in terms of the complexity of analysis and ability to reflect prey capture events while minimizing the number of false positives and false negatives. We used these results, with consideration of analytical difficulty, to provide advice on the most appropriate methods for use where prey capture behavior is not available. This study highlights a need to critically assess and carefully choose a behavioral annotation method suitable for the research question being addressed, or resulting species management frameworks established.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNatural Environment Research Council, Grant/Award Number: IRF NE/M017990/1 and NE/H007466/1; Irish Research Council, Grant/Award Number: GOIPG/2016/503; Marine Renewable Energy Ireland (MaREI); The SFI Centre for Marine Renewable Energy Research, Grant/Award Number: 12/RC/2302en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 8 (1), pp. 13 - 24en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/ece3.3593
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/31437
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherWiley Open Accessen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29321847en_GB
dc.rightsThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2017 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltden_GB
dc.subjectbehavioren_GB
dc.subjectfirst passage timeen_GB
dc.subjecthidden Markov modelsen_GB
dc.subjectkernel densityen_GB
dc.subjectk‐meansen_GB
dc.subjectmachine learningen_GB
dc.subjectmovementen_GB
dc.subjectstate‐space modelsen_GB
dc.subjecttelemetryen_GB
dc.titleSearch and foraging behaviors from movement data: A comparison of methods.en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2018-02-13T11:10:43Z
dc.identifier.issn2045-7758
exeter.place-of-publicationEnglanden_GB
dc.descriptionThis is the final version of the article. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalEcology and Evolutionen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record