Scinovex
article Open AccessTop 1% cited

Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates

Journal of Animal Ecology · 2006 · Vol. 75(6) · pp. 1393–1405
Luca BörgerNovella FranconiGiampiero De MicheleAlberto GantzFiora MeschiAndrea ManicaSandro LovariTim Coulson

Abstract

1. Although the home range is a fundamental ecological concept, there is considerable debate over how it is best measured. There is a substantial literature concerning the precision and accuracy of all commonly used home range estimation methods; however, there has been considerably less work concerning how estimates vary with sampling regime, and how this affects statistical inferences. 2. We propose a new procedure, based on a variance components analysis using generalized mixed effects models to examine how estimates vary with sampling regime. 3. To demonstrate the method we analyse data from one study of 32 individually marked roe deer and another study of 21 individually marked kestrels. We subsampled these data to simulate increasingly less intense sampling regimes, and compared the performance of two kernel density estimation (KDE) methods, of the minimum convex polygon (MCP) and of the bivariate ellipse methods. 4. Variation between individuals and study areas contributed most to the total variance in home range size. Contrary to recent concerns over reliability, both KDE methods were remarkably efficient, robust and unbiased: 10 fixes per month, if collected over a standardized number of days, were sufficient for accurate estimates of home range size. However, the commonly used 95% isopleth should be avoided; we recommend using isopleths between 90 and 50%. 5. Using the same number of fixes does not guarantee unbiased home range estimates: statistical inferences differ with the number of days sampled, even if using KDE methods. 6. The MCP method was highly inefficient and results were subject to considerable and unpredictable biases. The bivariate ellipse was not the most reliable method at low sample sizes. 7. We conclude that effort should be directed at marking more individuals monitored over long periods at the expense of the sampling rate per individual. Statistical results are reliable only if the whole sampling regime is standardized. We derive practical guidelines for field studies and data analysis.

Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesStatisticsRange (aeronautics)Bivariate analysisVariance (accounting)Sampling (signal processing)MathematicsEconometricsSample size determinationKernel density estimationHome range

MeSH terms

AnimalsDeerFemaleMaleResearch DesignTerritorialityTime FactorsEcosystemSample SizeFalconiformes

Funding

  • Cambridge Trust
  • Ministry of Environment
Citations
796
FWCI
19.77
field-weighted impact
References
84
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
Cited by
A Critical Review of Home Range Studies
Journal of Wildlife Management · 2008 · 620 citations
References
Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS
Technometrics · 2001 · 9,355 citations
A review of models of home range for animal movement
Ecological Modelling · 1987 · 709 citations
Effects of Sample Size on Kernel Home Range Estimates
Journal of Wildlife Management · 1999 · 1,392 citations
Research Techniques in Animal Ecology: Controversies and Consequences
Journal of Wildlife Management · 2001 · 1,027 citations
Influence of Sampling Interval on Estimates of Home-Range Size
Journal of Wildlife Management · 1985 · 420 citations
Using Monte Carlo Simulation to Evaluate Kernel-Based Home Range Estimators
Journal of Wildlife Management · 1995 · 711 citations
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.