No Cover Image

Journal article 1578 views

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

Novella Franconi Orcid Logo, Luca Borger Orcid Logo, NOVELLA FRANCONI, GIAMPIERO DE MICHELE, ALBERTO GANTZ, FIORA MESCHI, ANDREA MANICA, SANDRO LOVARI, TIM COULSON

Journal of Animal Ecology, Volume: 75, Issue: 6, Pages: 1393 - 1405

Swansea University Authors: Novella Franconi Orcid Logo, Luca Borger Orcid Logo

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...

Full description

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
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
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>SBI</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 ef&#xFB01;cient, robust and unbiased: 10 &#xFB01;xes per month, if collected over a standardized number of days, were suf&#xFB01;cient 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 &#xFB01;xes 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 inef&#xFB01;cient 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 &#xFB01;eld 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</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>SBI</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 SBI 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 COLLEGE CODE SBI 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 2006-09-26T03:18:59Z
_version_ 1763750486946611200
score 11.012678

Similar Items