Satellite telemetry is an increasingly utilized technology in wildlife research, and current devices can track individual animal movements at unprecedented spatial and temporal resolutions. However, as we enter the golden age of satellite telemetry, we need an in-depth understanding of the main technological, species-specific and environmental factors that determine the success and failure of satellite tracking devices across species and habitats. Here, we assess the relative influence of such factors on the ability of satellite telemetry units to provide the expected amount and quality of data by analyzing data from over 3,000 devices deployed on 62 terrestrial species in 167 projects worldwide. We evaluate the success rate in obtaining GPS fixes as well as in transferring these fixes to the user and we evaluate failure rates. Average fix success and data transfer rates were high and were generally better predicted by species and unit characteristics, while environmental characteristics influenced the variability of performance. However, 48% of the unit deployments ended prematurely, half of them due to technical failure. Nonetheless, this study shows that the performance of satellite telemetry applications has shown improvements over time, and based on our findings, we provide further recommendations for both users and manufacturers.

Group-living species have to coordinate collective actions to maintain cohesion. In primates, spatial movements represent a meaningful model to study group coordination processes across different socio-ecological contexts. We studied 4 groups of red-fronted lemurs (Eulemur rufifrons) in Kirindy Forest, Madagascar, between 2008 and 2010 across different ecological and reproductive seasons. We collected data on ranging patterns using GPS collars and observational data on different predefined parameters of group movements, including initiation, leadership, followership, overtaking events, termination, and travel distances. Cohesion of these relatively small, egalitarian lemur groups was high year-round, but daily path length and home range size varied considerably between ecological seasons, presumably due to long-distance migrations of some groups at the beginning of the rainy season. Individuals of different age and sex classes successfully initiated group movements. However, stable female leadership prevailed year-round, irrespective of ecological and reproductive season, which might be due to higher or more specific energetic requirements of reproduction. In contrast to lemur species with a more despotic social structure, female red-fronted lemurs did not recruit more followers than males. Adult leaders recruited more followers than subadult ones. Further, recruitment success was higher during the peak of the dry season, when predation risk appeared to be higher. Distances of single group movements did not depend on the initiator’s sex and age or on ecological seasons. Our results provide new insights into seasonal variability of coordination processes and the role of social dominance in lemur group movements, thereby contributing to a comparative perspective from a primate radiation that evolved group living independently of anthropoids.

Research on coordination and decision-making in humans and nonhuman primates has increased considerably throughout the last decade. However, terminology has been used inconsistently, hampering the broader integration of results from different studies. In this short article, we provide a glossary containing the central terms of coordination and decision-making research. The glossary is based on previous definitions that have been critically revised and annotated by the participants of the symposium “Where next? Coordination and decision-making in primate groups” at the XXIIIth Congress of the International Primatological Society (IPS) in Kyoto, Japan. We discuss a number of conceptual and methodological issues and highlight consequences for their implementation. In summary, we recommend that future studies on coordination and decision-making in animal groups do not use the terms “combined decision” and “democratic/despotic decision-making.” This will avoid ambiguity as well as anthropocentric connotations. Further, we demonstrate the importance of 1) taxon-specific definitions of coordination parameters (initiation, leadership, followership, termination), 2) differentiation between coordination research on individual-level process and group-level outcome, 3) analyses of collective action processes including initiation and termination, and 4) operationalization of successful group movements in the field to collect meaningful and comparable data across different species.