Journal article 1786 views
Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates
Journal of Animal Ecology, Volume: 75, Issue: 6, Pages: 1393 - 1405
Swansea University Authors: Novella Franconi , Luca Borger
Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.
DOI (Published version): 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01164.x
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 concer...
Published in: | Journal of Animal Ecology |
---|---|
Published: |
2006
|
Online Access: |
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01164.x |
URI: | https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa16618 |
first_indexed |
2013-12-14T03:03:44Z |
---|---|
last_indexed |
2021-07-17T02:28:41Z |
id |
cronfa16618 |
recordtype |
SURis |
fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2021-07-16T15:02:54.7477052</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>16618</id><entry>2013-12-14</entry><title>Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>578d65c768ecf9d38a6cbb457d57d744</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-4572-4083</ORCID><firstname>Novella</firstname><surname>Franconi</surname><name>Novella Franconi</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author><author><sid>8416d0ffc3cccdad6e6d67a455e7c4a2</sid><ORCID>0000-0001-8763-5997</ORCID><firstname>Luca</firstname><surname>Borger</surname><name>Luca Borger</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2013-12-14</date><deptcode>BGPS</deptcode><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.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Journal of Animal Ecology</journal><volume>75</volume><journalNumber>6</journalNumber><paginationStart>1393</paginationStart><paginationEnd>1405</paginationEnd><publisher/><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic/><keywords>animal movement; home range; radio-tracking;</keywords><publishedDay>26</publishedDay><publishedMonth>9</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2006</publishedYear><publishedDate>2006-09-26</publishedDate><doi>10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01164.x</doi><url>https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01164.x</url><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Biosciences Geography and Physics School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>BGPS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2021-07-16T15:02:54.7477052</lastEdited><Created>2013-12-14T01:05:23.4998586</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Science and Engineering</level><level id="2">School of Biosciences, Geography and Physics - Biosciences</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Novella</firstname><surname>Franconi</surname><orcid>0000-0002-4572-4083</orcid><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Luca</firstname><surname>Borger</surname><orcid>0000-0001-8763-5997</orcid><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>NOVELLA</firstname><surname>FRANCONI</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>GIAMPIERO DE</firstname><surname>MICHELE</surname><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>ALBERTO</firstname><surname>GANTZ</surname><order>5</order></author><author><firstname>FIORA</firstname><surname>MESCHI</surname><order>6</order></author><author><firstname>ANDREA</firstname><surname>MANICA</surname><order>7</order></author><author><firstname>SANDRO</firstname><surname>LOVARI</surname><order>8</order></author><author><firstname>TIM</firstname><surname>COULSON</surname><order>9</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807> |
spelling |
2021-07-16T15:02:54.7477052 v2 16618 2013-12-14 Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates 578d65c768ecf9d38a6cbb457d57d744 0000-0002-4572-4083 Novella Franconi Novella Franconi true false 8416d0ffc3cccdad6e6d67a455e7c4a2 0000-0001-8763-5997 Luca Borger Luca Borger true false 2013-12-14 BGPS 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. Journal Article Journal of Animal Ecology 75 6 1393 1405 animal movement; home range; radio-tracking; 26 9 2006 2006-09-26 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01164.x https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01164.x COLLEGE NANME Biosciences Geography and Physics School COLLEGE CODE BGPS Swansea University 2021-07-16T15:02:54.7477052 2013-12-14T01:05:23.4998586 Faculty of Science and Engineering School of Biosciences, Geography and Physics - Biosciences Novella Franconi 0000-0002-4572-4083 1 Luca Borger 0000-0001-8763-5997 2 NOVELLA FRANCONI 3 GIAMPIERO DE MICHELE 4 ALBERTO GANTZ 5 FIORA MESCHI 6 ANDREA MANICA 7 SANDRO LOVARI 8 TIM COULSON 9 |
title |
Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates |
spellingShingle |
Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates Novella Franconi Luca Borger |
title_short |
Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates |
title_full |
Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates |
title_fullStr |
Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates |
title_full_unstemmed |
Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates |
title_sort |
Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates |
author_id_str_mv |
578d65c768ecf9d38a6cbb457d57d744 8416d0ffc3cccdad6e6d67a455e7c4a2 |
author_id_fullname_str_mv |
578d65c768ecf9d38a6cbb457d57d744_***_Novella Franconi 8416d0ffc3cccdad6e6d67a455e7c4a2_***_Luca Borger |
author |
Novella Franconi Luca Borger |
author2 |
Novella Franconi Luca Borger NOVELLA FRANCONI GIAMPIERO DE MICHELE ALBERTO GANTZ FIORA MESCHI ANDREA MANICA SANDRO LOVARI TIM COULSON |
format |
Journal article |
container_title |
Journal of Animal Ecology |
container_volume |
75 |
container_issue |
6 |
container_start_page |
1393 |
publishDate |
2006 |
institution |
Swansea University |
doi_str_mv |
10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01164.x |
college_str |
Faculty of Science and Engineering |
hierarchytype |
|
hierarchy_top_id |
facultyofscienceandengineering |
hierarchy_top_title |
Faculty of Science and Engineering |
hierarchy_parent_id |
facultyofscienceandengineering |
hierarchy_parent_title |
Faculty of Science and Engineering |
department_str |
School of Biosciences, Geography and Physics - Biosciences{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Science and Engineering{{{_:::_}}}School of Biosciences, Geography and Physics - Biosciences |
url |
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01164.x |
document_store_str |
0 |
active_str |
0 |
description |
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. |
published_date |
2006-09-26T06:32:41Z |
_version_ |
1822110894148026368 |
score |
10.957818 |