Ecological Research

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 635–639 | Cite as

Can minimum convex polygon home ranges be used to draw biologically meaningful conclusions?

  • Erlend B. Nilsen
  • Simen Pedersen
  • John D. C. Linnell
Note and Comment

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Comparative studies Home range size Kernel MCP Variance components analysis 

References

  1. Barg JJ, Jones J, Robertson RJ (2005) Describing breeding territories of migratory passerines: suggestions for sampling, choice of estimator, and delineation of core areas. J Anim Ecol 74:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Borger L, Franconi N, De Michele G, Gantz A, Meschi F, Manica A, Lovari S, Coulson T (2006a) Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates. J Anim Ecol 75:1493–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borger L, Franconi N, Ferretti F, Meschi F, De Michele G, Gantz A, Coulson T (2006b) An integrated approach to identify spatiotemporal and individual-level determinants of animal home range size. Am Nat 168:471–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gautestad AO, Mysterud I (1995) The home range ghost. Oikos 74:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Getz WE, Fortmann-Roe S, Cross PC, Lyons AJ, Ryan SJ, Wilmers CC (2007) LoCoH: nonparametric kernel methods for constructing home ranges and utilization distributions. PLoS ONE 2:e207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gompper E, Gittleman JL (1991) Home range scaling: intraspecific and comparative trends. Oecologia 87:343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Harestad A, Bunnell F (1979) Home range and body weight—a reevaluation. Ecology 60:389–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herfindal I, Linnell JDC, Odden J, Nilsen EB, Andersen R (2005) Prey density, environmental productivity and home-range size in the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). J Zool 265:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ives AR, Zhu J (2006) Statistics for correlated data: Phylogenies, space, and time. Ecol Appl 16:20–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jetz W, Carbone C, Fulford J, Brown JH (2004) The scaling of animal space use. Science 306:266–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelt DA, Van Vuren DH (2001) The ecology and macroecology of mammalian home range area. Am Nat 157:637–645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Millspaugh JJ, Nielson RM, McDonald L, Marzluff JM, Gitzen RA, Ritenhouse CD, Hubbard MW, Sheriff SL (2006) Analysis of resource selection using utilization distributions. J Wildl Manage 70:384–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mysterud A, Perez-Barberia FJ, Gordon IJ (2001) The effect of season, sex and feeding style on home range area versus body mass scaling in temperate ruminants. Oecologia 127:30–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nilsen EB, Linnell JDC (2006) Intra-specific variation and taxa-sampling affects the home range body mass relationship. Acta Theriol 51:225–232Google Scholar
  17. Nilsen EB, Herfindal I, Linnell JDC (2005) Can intra-specific variation in carnivore home-range size be explained using remote-sensing estimates of environmental productivity? Ecoscience 12:68–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-Plus. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Schmidt-Nielsen K (1984) Scaling: why is animal size so important? Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Seaman DE, Powell RA (1996) An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology 77:2075–2085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Silva M, Downing JA (1995) CRC handbook of mammalian body masses. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  22. Skrondal A, Rabe-Hesketh S (2004) Generalized latent variable modeling: multilevel, longitudinal and structural equation models. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. St-Pierre NR (2001) Invited review: integrating quantitative findings from multiple studies using mixed model methodology. J Dairy Sci 84:741–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tufto J, Andersen R, Linnell J (1996) Habitat use and ecological correlates of home range size in a small cervid: the roe deer. J Anim Ecol 65:715–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Worton BJ (1987) A review of models of home range for animal movement. Ecol Modell 38:277–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ecological Society of Japan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erlend B. Nilsen
    • 1
  • Simen Pedersen
    • 1
  • John D. C. Linnell
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Forestry and Wildlife ManagementHedmark University CollegeKoppangNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Institute for Nature ResearchTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations