Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements

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.

A test of the Niche Variation Hypothesis in a ruminant herbivore

“…The digestive physiology and movement behaviour of moose inherently align with recommendations 1 and 2 because digesta is mixed in the gut for ~48–72 hr, thereby causing faecal samples of moose to represent tens of foraging bouts (Clauss et al., 2007; Hofmann, 1989; Meyer et al., 2010). Moose traverse their home ranges ~1 time per day (Noonan et al., 2020), meaning faecal samples for this species likely represent the overall seasonal diet of the individual (recommendation 3). And lastly, we ensured individual samples were collected across small spatiotemporal windows (recommendation 4) by collecting samples within the seasonal ranges of each population over short periods of time (i.e.…”

A fresh look at an old concept: Home-range estimation in a tidy world

“…Yet, differences in the tracking regime (VHF or GPS) and sampling rate (i.e., how often is an animal tracked) can lead to vastly different home-range estimates depending on one's choice of estimator (Noonan et al 2019;Peris et al 2020). These differences can also influence estimates of derived quantities and observed relationships, for example scaling laws between home-range size and body size (e.g., Noonan et al 2020). Thus, it is important for researchers to conduct sensitivity analyses to determine how choice of estimator influences their quantitative and qualitative results.…”

Lots of movement, little progress: A review of reptile home range literature

“…Researchers can make use of free data repositories (movement specific like MoveBank, or generic like Zenodo or OSF) to ease this process. We hope the opening of reptile movement data can facilitate broader studies similar to those undertaken in avian and mammalian fields (e.g., Tucker et al, 2019; Noonan et al, 2020).…”