Response to Lisovski et al.

Henry M. Streby, Gunnar R. Kramer, Sean M. Peterson, Justin A. Lehman, David A. Buehler, David E. Andersen

Lisovski et al.[1] describe the widely recognized limitations of light-level geolocator data for identifying short-distance latitudinal movements, recommend that caution be used when interpreting such data, intimated that we did not use such caution and argued that environmental shading likely explained the Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) movements described in our 2015 report [2]. Lisovski et al.[1] conclude that the bird movements we reported could not be disentangled from estimation error in stationary animals caused by environmental shading. We argue that, to the contrary, these hypotheses can easily be disentangled because the premise that environmental shading caused synchronous and parallel error among geolocators is false. With their assertion that our location estimates could be biased by >3,500 km on a day with no observable local sources of shading, Lisovski et al.[1] have taken a position of incredulity toward all geolocator-based animal movement data published to date.