Skip to main content

Table 2 Relationships between positional error and fixed factors for the top performing model identified in Table 1

From: A location fingerprinting approach for the automated radio telemetry of wildlife and comparison to alternative methods

Predictor

Estimate (β)

95% CI

p

(Intercept)

256.19

223.87–293.17

< 0.001

Biangulation

2.44

1.82–3.28

< 0.001

Linear regression

1.08

0.97–1.21

0.162

Receiver count

0.89

0.80–0.99

0.04

Pulse interval (13 s)

1.45

1.01–2.06

0.041

Mean distance to receiver (km)

1.16

1.02–1.32

0.02

Mean received signal strength

0.72

0.65–0.80

 < 0.001

Biangulation x Receiver count

0.94

0.75–1.18

0.596

Linear regression x Receiver count

1.09

0.97–1.23

0.143

Biangulation x Pulse interval (13 s)

0.58

0.36–0.93

0.023

Linear regression x Pulse interval (13 s)

0.83

0.62–1.10

0.195

Biangulation x Mean distance to receiver (km)

1.07

0.84–1.35

0.598

Linear regression x Mean distance to receiver (km)

1.28

1.13–1.44

 < 0.001

Biangulation x Mean received signal strength

1.59

1.12–2.27

0.01

Linear regression x Mean received signal strength

1.11

1.00–1.24

0.05

Observations

406

  

R2 marginal/R2 conditional

0.408/0.614

  
  1. Methods were compared using a generalised linear mixed effects model with a log-link gamma distribution. Model estimates (β and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) have been scaled
Back to article page

Animal Biotelemetry

ISSN: 2050-3385