Скачать книгу

each state must be characterized a posteriori. For ease of interpretation, we have chosen to categorize three states according to the average observed speed. State 1 corresponds to the activity with the lowest average speed, while state 3 corresponds to the fastest average speed.

Schematic illustration of the representation of states along trajectories estimated using two different models.

      It is clear from the figure that the two models result in different nuances in the trajectories.

       – Using the length/angle metric, three states are clearly visible, notably a “slow” state that characterizes the erratic phases of the trajectory. An intermediate state (2) characterizes trajectories of medium speed and a medium level of eraticness, while the third state reflects fast, direct movement.

       – Using the bivariate velocity, metric, a similar third state is obtained, but there are significant differences in terms of the distinction between the first two states. In the first state, the bird appears to be “drifting”, at slow speeds with little variation. The second state appears to characterize all movement during which the bird is not resting, with a high level of variation in terms of speed.

Schematic illustration of the distribution of our chosen metrics for the states estimated using our two models.

      It is immediately evident that the distinction between states is not based on the distribution of turning angles in either model. The influence of the step length distribution is much clearer.

Schematic illustration of the contingencies of estimated states for our two models.

      Once again, we see that state 1 of the bivariate velocity metric falls within state 1 of the Length/Angle metric; similarly, the third states of the two metrics correspond. The metrics differ in the way in which state 2 is characterized: state 2 of the Bivariate Velocity metric corresponds to a combination of states 1 and 2 of the Length/Angle metric.

      These differences are not surprising, given the differences between the underlying metrics. We have chosen to highlight this difference here for illustrative purposes, but it should be noted that, for a four-state model, the disparities are much smaller.

      In this context, the characterization of states and the choice of the “best” model is based on interpretation, drawing on biological knowledge of the species in question. As is often the case, this unsupervised approach is most suitable for exploratory purposes, and should be interpreted in light of the ecological context.

      1.3.5.2. State uncertainty

Schematic illustration of the evolution of the probability of being in state 1 or state 2 over time, by model.

      We see that the level of uncertainty in terms of state classification is very low, as the separation of distributions in each state is clear.

      1.3.5.3. Inclusion of the nest distance covariate

image

      where dt is the distance from the nest at time t. A quadratic component has been added to take account of the potentially variable character of the relation between the probability of transition and the covariate.

Graphs depict the evolution of estimated transition probabilities as a function of distance from the nest.

Скачать книгу