Literature DB >> 32362060

Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements.

Michael J Noonan1,2, Christen H Fleming1,2, Marlee A Tucker3,4,5, Roland Kays6,7, Autumn-Lynn Harrison8, Margaret C Crofoot9,10, Briana Abrahms11, Susan C Alberts12, Abdullahi H Ali13, Jeanne Altmann14, Pamela Castro Antunes15, Nina Attias16, Jerrold L Belant17, Dean E Beyer18, Laura R Bidner9,19, Niels Blaum20, Randall B Boone21,22, Damien Caillaud9, Rogerio Cunha de Paula23, J Antonio de la Torre24, Jasja Dekker25, Christopher S DePerno7, Mohammad Farhadinia26,27, Julian Fennessy28, Claudia Fichtel29, Christina Fischer30, Adam Ford31, Jacob R Goheen32, Rasmus W Havmøller9, Ben T Hirsch33, Cindy Hurtado34,35, Lynne A Isbell9,19, René Janssen36, Florian Jeltsch20, Petra Kaczensky37,38, Yayoi Kaneko39, Peter Kappeler29, Anjan Katna40,41, Matthew Kauffman42, Flavia Koch29, Abhijeet Kulkarni40, Scott LaPoint43,44, Peter Leimgruber1, David W Macdonald26, A Catherine Markham45, Laura McMahon46, Katherine Mertes1, Christopher E Moorman7, Ronaldo G Morato23,47, Alexander M Moßbrucker48, Guilherme Mourão49, David O'Connor4,50,51, Luiz Gustavo R Oliveira-Santos15, Jennifer Pastorini52,53, Bruce D Patterson54, Janet Rachlow55, Dustin H Ranglack56, Neil Reid57, David M Scantlebury58, Dawn M Scott59, Nuria Selva60, Agnieszka Sergiel60, Melissa Songer1, Nucharin Songsasen1, Jared A Stabach1, Jenna Stacy-Dawes50, Morgan B Swingen7,61, Jeffrey J Thompson62,63, Wiebke Ullmann20, Abi Tamim Vanak40,64,65, Maria Thaker66, John W Wilson67, Koji Yamazaki68,69, Richard W Yarnell70, Filip Zieba71, Tomasz Zwijacz-Kozica71, William F Fagan2, Thomas Mueller3,4, Justin M Calabrese1,2.   

Abstract

Accurately quantifying species' area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area-based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home-range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home-range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied block cross-validation to quantify bias in empirical home-range estimates. Area requirements of mammals <10 kg were underestimated by a mean approximately15%, and species weighing approximately100 kg were underestimated by approximately50% on average. Thus, we found area estimation was subject to autocorrelation-induced bias that was worse for large species. Combined with the fact that extinction risk increases as body mass increases, the allometric scaling of bias we observed suggests the most threatened species are also likely to be those with the least accurate home-range estimates. As a correction, we tested whether data thinning or autocorrelation-informed home-range estimation minimized the scaling effect of autocorrelation on area estimates. Data thinning required an approximately93% data loss to achieve statistical independence with 95% confidence and was, therefore, not a viable solution. In contrast, autocorrelation-informed home-range estimation resulted in consistently accurate estimates irrespective of mass. When relating body mass to home range size, we detected that correcting for autocorrelation resulted in a scaling exponent significantly >1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changed substantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum.
© 2020 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  allometry; alometría; animal movement; area-based conservation; autocorrelación; autocorrelation; conservación basada en áreas; diseño de reserva; distribución local; escalamiento; estimación de densidad del núcleo; home range; kernel density estimation; movimiento de mamíferos; reserve design; scaling; 保护区设计; 动物移动; 区域保护; 家域; 异速增长; 标度; 核密度估计; 自相关

Year:  2020        PMID: 32362060     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13495

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  5 in total

Review 1.  Using natural travel paths to infer and compare primate cognition in the wild.

Authors:  Karline R L Janmaat; Miguel de Guinea; Julien Collet; Richard W Byrne; Benjamin Robira; Emiel van Loon; Haneul Jang; Dora Biro; Gabriel Ramos-Fernández; Cody Ross; Andrea Presotto; Matthias Allritz; Shauhin Alavi; Sarie Van Belle
Journal:  iScience       Date:  2021-04-15

2.  A fresh look at an old concept: home-range estimation in a tidy world.

Authors:  Johannes Signer; John R Fieberg
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 2.984

3.  Movement ecology of vulnerable lowland tapirs between areas of varying human disturbance.

Authors:  E P Medici; S Mezzini; C H Fleming; J M Calabrese; M J Noonan
Journal:  Mov Ecol       Date:  2022-03-14       Impact factor: 3.600

4.  Precipitation, vegetation productivity, and human impacts control home range size of elephants in dryland systems in northern Namibia.

Authors:  Lorena Benitez; J Werner Kilian; George Wittemyer; Lacey F Hughey; Chris H Fleming; Peter Leimgruber; Pierre du Preez; Jared A Stabach
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-09-13       Impact factor: 3.167

5.  Lots of movement, little progress: a review of reptile home range literature.

Authors:  Matthew Crane; Inês Silva; Benjamin M Marshall; Colin T Strine
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 2.984

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.