Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (4)
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
Moving in the Anthropocene
(2018)
Animal movement is fundamental for ecosystem functioning and species survival, yet the effects of the anthropogenic footprint on animal movements have not been estimated across species. Using a unique GPS-tracking database of 803 individuals across 57 species, we found that movements of mammals in areas with a comparatively high human footprint were on average one-half to one-third the extent of their movements in areas with a low human footprint. We attribute this reduction to behavioral changes of individual animals and to the exclusion of species with long-range movements from areas with higher human impact. Global loss of vagility alters a key ecological trait of animals that affects not only population persistence but also ecosystem processes such as predator-prey interactions, nutrient cycling, and disease transmission.
Home range estimation is routine practice in ecological research. While advances in animal tracking technology have increased our capacity to collect data to support home range analysis, these same advances have also resulted in increasingly autocorrelated data. Consequently, the question of which home range estimator to use on modern, highly autocorrelated tracking data remains open. This question is particularly relevant given that most estimators assume independently sampled data. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of autocorrelation on home range estimation. We base our study on an extensive data set of GPS locations from 369 individuals representing 27 species distributed across five continents. We first assemble a broad array of home range estimators, including Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) with four bandwidth optimizers (Gaussian reference function, autocorrelated‐Gaussian reference function [AKDE], Silverman's rule of thumb, and least squares cross‐validation), Minimum Convex Polygon, and Local Convex Hull methods. Notably, all of these estimators except AKDE assume independent and identically distributed (IID) data. We then employ half‐sample cross‐validation to objectively quantify estimator performance, and the recently introduced effective sample size for home range area estimation ( N̂ area
) to quantify the information content of each data set. We found that AKDE 95% area estimates were larger than conventional IID‐based estimates by a mean factor of 2. The median number of cross‐validated locations included in the hold‐out sets by AKDE 95% (or 50%) estimates was 95.3% (or 50.1%), confirming the larger AKDE ranges were appropriately selective at the specified quantile. Conversely, conventional estimates exhibited negative bias that increased with decreasing N̂ area. To contextualize our empirical results, we performed a detailed simulation study to tease apart how sampling frequency, sampling duration, and the focal animal's movement conspire to affect range estimates. Paralleling our empirical results, the simulation study demonstrated that AKDE was generally more accurate than conventional methods, particularly for small N̂ area. While 72% of the 369 empirical data sets had >1,000 total observations, only 4% had an N̂ area >1,000, where 30% had an N̂ area <30. In this frequently encountered scenario of small N̂ area, AKDE was the only estimator capable of producing an accurate home range estimate on autocorrelated data.
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) projections are uncertain due to both model errors, as well as internal climate variability. An AMOC slowdown projected by many climate models is likely to have considerable effects on many aspects of global and North Atlantic climate. Previous studies to make probabilistic AMOC projections have broken new ground. However, they do not drift-correct or cross-validate the projections, and do not fully account for internal variability. Furthermore, they consider a limited subset of models, and ignore the skill of models at representing the temporal North Atlantic dynamics. We improve on previous work by applying Bayesian Model Averaging to weight 13 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 models by their skill at modeling the AMOC strength, and its temporal dynamics, as approximated by the northern North-Atlantic temperature-based AMOC Index. We make drift-corrected projections accounting for structural model errors, and for the internal variability. Cross-validation experiments give approximately correct empirical coverage probabilities, which validates our method. Our results present more evidence that AMOC likely already started slowing down. While weighting considerably moderates and sharpens our projections, our results are at low end of previously published estimates. We project mean AMOC changes between periods 1960-1999 and 2060-2099 of -4.0 Sv and -6.8 Sv for RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 emissions scenarios respectively. The corresponding average 90% credible intervals for our weighted experiments are [-7.2, -1.2] and [-10.5, -3.7] Sv respectively for the two scenarios.
This study pushes our understanding of research reliability by reproducing and replicating claims from 110 papers in leading economic and political science journals. The analysis involves computational reproducibility checks and robustness assessments. It reveals several patterns. First, we uncover a high rate of fully computationally reproducible results (over 85%). Second, excluding minor issues like missing packages or broken pathways, we uncover coding errors for about 25% of studies, with some studies containing multiple errors. Third, we test the robustness of the results to 5,511 re-analyses. We find a robustness reproducibility of about 70%. Robustness reproducibility rates are relatively higher for re-analyses that introduce new data and lower for re-analyses that change the sample or the definition of the dependent variable. Fourth, 52% of re-analysis effect size estimates are smaller than the original published estimates and the average statistical significance of a re-analysis is 77% of the original. Lastly, we rely on six teams of researchers working independently to answer eight additional research questions on the determinants of robustness reproducibility. Most teams find a negative relationship between replicators' experience and reproducibility, while finding no relationship between reproducibility and the provision of intermediate or even raw data combined with the necessary cleaning codes.