Applying network theory to animal movements to identify properties of landscape space use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Network (graph) theory is a popular analytical framework to characterize the structure and dynamics among discrete objects and is particularly effective at identifying critical hubs and patterns of connectivity. The identification of such attributes is a fundamental objective of animal movement research, yet network theory has rarely been applied directly to animal relocation data. We develop an approach that allows the analysis of movement data using network theory by defining occupied pixels as nodes and connection among these pixels as edges. We first quantify node-level (local) metrics and graph-level (system) metrics on simulated movement trajectories to assess the ability of these metrics to pull out known properties in movement paths. We then apply our framework to empirical data from African elephants (Loxodonta africana), giant Galapagos tortoises (Chelonoidis spp.), and mule deer (Odocoileous hemionus). Our results indicate that certain node-level metrics, namely degree, weight, and betweenness, perform well in capturing local patterns of space use, such as the definition of core areas and paths used for inter-patch movement. These metrics were generally applicable across data sets, indicating their robustness to assumptions structuring analysis or strategies of movement. Other metrics capture local patterns effectively, but were sensitive to specified graph properties, indicating case specific applications. Our analysis indicates that graph-level metrics are unlikely to outperform other approaches for the categorization of general movement strategies (central place foraging, migration, nomadism). By identifying critical nodes, our approach provides a robust quantitative framework to identify local properties of space use that can be used to evaluate the effect of the loss of specific nodes on range wide connectivity. Our network approach is intuitive, and can be implemented across imperfectly sampled or large-scale data sets efficiently, providing a framework for conservationists to analyze movement data. Functions created for the analyses are available within the R package moveNT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".