Jump to content
Ornithology Exchange

JennyL

Society Members
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0

Profile Information

  • Country
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks for your help, Eldar! Distance does seem to be key. Increasing max distance in particle.filter has improved the return track. Now working on adjusting mean and sd. Forgive a beginner question, but is there an easy way to estimate appropriate values? I have the result of a particle.filter run that produced an OK-looking track, but not quite sure what I should use. Should I include all movements in my estimates? These are birds that remain in a relatively small area for most of the year, but travel long distances quickly during migration...
  2. Hi, all I'm using FLightR 0.4.9 to track migration of shorebirds. Tags were deployed in Alaska and recovered at the same site a year later. FLightR gives me nice-looking tracks for the breeding season in Alaska, fall migration to Chile, and the non-breeding season in Chile. But the track for spring migration is consistently problematic -- instead of returning north to Alaska, it heads south toward Antarctica. Has anyone experienced something similar? Any ideas for what I can do? Calibration periods are from the study site (lon = -150.725, lat = 61.272): one from the beginning of the study (shortly after tag deployment) and another from the end (shortly before tag recovery). Both verified by plot_slopes_by_location. > Calibration.periods <- data.frame(calibration.start=as.POSIXct(c("2009-05-17", "2010-05-10")), calibration.stop=as.POSIXct(c("2009-06-15", NA)),lon=-150.725, lat=61.272) > print(Calibration.periods) calibration.start calibration.stop lon lat 1 2009-05-17 2009-06-15 -150.725 61.272 2 2010-05-10 <NA> -150.725 61.272 Calibrating from pre-deployment data instead yields similar results. For the particle filter run I've tried known.last=TRUE and known.last=FALSE. Changing behavioral masks, outlier check, nParticles, etc. also do not seem to help. > all.in <- make.prerun.object(Proc.data, Grid, start=c(-150.725, 61.272), Calibration=Calibration) > nParticles=1e6 > Result <- run.particle.filter(all.in, threads=-1, nParticles=nParticles, known.last=TRUE, check.outliers=TRUE) Since I'm using the correct lon/lat at the end of the track to calibrate, why might the output show my end coordinates so far away from there? Jenny
×
×
  • Create New...