The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Trends and missing parts in the study of movement ecology
Open accessAbstract
Movement is important to all organisms, and accordingly it is addressed in a huge number of papers in the literature. Of nearly 26,000 papers referring to movement, an estimated 34% focused on movement by measuring it or testing hypotheses about it. This enormous amount of information is difficult to review and highlights the need to assess the collective completeness of movement studies and identify gaps. We surveyed 1,000 randomly selected papers from 496 journals and compared the facets of movement studied with a suggested framework for movement ecology, consisting of internal state (motivation, physiology), motion and navigation capacities, and external factors (both the physical environment and living organisms), and links among these components. Most studies simply measured and described the movement of organisms without reference to ecological or internal factors, and the most frequently studied part of the framework was the link between external factors and motion capacity. Few studies looked at the effects on movement of navigation capacity, or internal state, and those were mainly from vertebrates. For invertebrates and plants most studies were at the population level, whereas more vertebrate studies were conducted at the individual level. Consideration of only population-level averages promulgates neglect of between-individual variation in movement, potentially hindering the study of factors controlling movement. Terminology was found to be inconsistent among taxa and subdisciplines. The gaps identified in coverage of movement studies highlight research areas that should be addressed to fully understand the ecology of movement.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The movement ecology and dynamics of plant communities in fragmented landscapes
Damschen, E. I., Brudvig, L. A., Haddad, N. M., Levey, D. J., Orrock, J. L., & Tewksbury, J. J. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0802037105 · Cited by 189
Machine learning for inferring animal behavior from location and movement data
Wang, G. (2019) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2018.12.002 · Cited by 154
Suite of simple metrics reveals common movement syndromes across vertebrate taxa
Abrahms, B., Seidel, D. P., Dougherty, E., Hazen, E. L., Bograd, S. J., Wilson, A. M., Weldon McNutt, J., Costa, D. P., Blake, S., Brashares, J. S., et al. (2017) · Movement Ecology · doi:10.1186/s40462-017-0104-2 · Cited by 109
Unnithan Kumar, S., Turnbull, J., Hartman Davies, O., Hodgetts, T., & Cushman, S. A. (2022) · Landscape Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10980-022-01504-x · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Holyoak, M., Casagrandi, R., Nathan, R., Revilla, E., & Spiegel, O.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2008-12-09
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 49
- Pages
- 19060-19065
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2028921316
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trends and missing parts in the study of movement ecology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0800483105
- The paper
- Holyoak, M., Casagrandi, R., Nathan, R., Revilla, E., & Spiegel, O. (2008). Trends and missing parts in the study of movement ecology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0800483105
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.