Can minimum convex polygon home ranges be used to draw biologically meaningful conclusions?
- 1k Downloads
Many conclusions about mammalian ranging behaviour have been drawn based on minimum convex polygon (MCP) estimates of home range size, although several studies have revealed its unpredictable nature compared to that of the kernel density estimator. We investigated to what extent the choice of home range estimator affected the biological interpretation in comparative studies. We found no discrepancy when the question asked covered a wide range of taxa, as real and very large differences in range size were likely to have masked smaller differences due to the choice of home range estimator. However, when the question asked concerned within-species characteristics, the choice of home range estimator explained as much of the variation in range size as did the ecological variable in question. The implications for macro-ecological and intraspecific studies are discussed.
KeywordsComparative studies Home range size Kernel MCP Variance components analysis
- Blundell GM, Maier JAK, Debevec EM (2001) Linear home ranges: effects of smoothing, sample size, and autocorrelation on kernel estimates. Ecol Monogr 71:469–489Google Scholar
- Grigione MM, Beier P, Hopkins RA, Neal D, Padley WD, Schonewald CM, Johnson ML (2002) Ecological and allometric determinants of home-range size for mountain lions (Puma concolor). Anim Conserv 5:317–324Google Scholar
- Nilsen EB, Linnell JDC (2006) Intra-specific variation and taxa-sampling affects the home range body mass relationship. Acta Theriol 51:225–232Google Scholar
- Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-Plus. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Schmidt-Nielsen K (1984) Scaling: why is animal size so important? Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Silva M, Downing JA (1995) CRC handbook of mammalian body masses. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Skrondal A, Rabe-Hesketh S (2004) Generalized latent variable modeling: multilevel, longitudinal and structural equation models. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar