TY - JOUR
T1 - Does estimator choice influence our ability to detect changes in home-range size?
AU - Signer, Johannes
AU - Balkenhol, Niko
AU - Ditmer, Mark
AU - Fieberg, John
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Signer et al.
PY - 2015/7/1
Y1 - 2015/7/1
N2 - Background: Estimates of home-range size are frequently used to compare areal requirements of animals over time or space. Comparative studies of home-range estimators have highlighted extreme differences among general classes of methods (e.g., polygon-based and kernel density-based estimators) and sensitivity to the choice of various tuning parameters (e.g., amount of smoothing). These studies, however, have largely failed to consider how estimates of home-range size are typically used in applied research. We illustrate simulation-based methods for comparing estimators, which focus on relative differences in home-range size (over time or space), rather than their absolute magnitude. We also consider Global Positioning Technology (GPS) location data from a black bear (Ursus americanus) from northwestern Minnesota, USA, to illustrate the relevance to real-world data applications. Results: In our examples, estimates of home-range size often differed considerably in absolute magnitude. Yet, for relative differences, the choice of home-range estimator was often negligible. Furthermore, choosing the right estimator was less important than other aspects of study design (e.g., number of animals followed). Conclusion: Many questions in ecology focus on changes in space-use patterns (over space or time). For these types of questions, home-range estimators should be evaluated in terms of their ability to detect these spatial and temporal patterns. More importantly, home-range estimation should be seen as a means to an end-i.e., estimators provide indices useful for addressing interesting biological questions or hypotheses-rather than as an end to itself.
AB - Background: Estimates of home-range size are frequently used to compare areal requirements of animals over time or space. Comparative studies of home-range estimators have highlighted extreme differences among general classes of methods (e.g., polygon-based and kernel density-based estimators) and sensitivity to the choice of various tuning parameters (e.g., amount of smoothing). These studies, however, have largely failed to consider how estimates of home-range size are typically used in applied research. We illustrate simulation-based methods for comparing estimators, which focus on relative differences in home-range size (over time or space), rather than their absolute magnitude. We also consider Global Positioning Technology (GPS) location data from a black bear (Ursus americanus) from northwestern Minnesota, USA, to illustrate the relevance to real-world data applications. Results: In our examples, estimates of home-range size often differed considerably in absolute magnitude. Yet, for relative differences, the choice of home-range estimator was often negligible. Furthermore, choosing the right estimator was less important than other aspects of study design (e.g., number of animals followed). Conclusion: Many questions in ecology focus on changes in space-use patterns (over space or time). For these types of questions, home-range estimators should be evaluated in terms of their ability to detect these spatial and temporal patterns. More importantly, home-range estimation should be seen as a means to an end-i.e., estimators provide indices useful for addressing interesting biological questions or hypotheses-rather than as an end to itself.
KW - Changes in home-range size
KW - Estimator choice
KW - Movement cost
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018193422&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018193422&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s40317-015-0051-x
DO - 10.1186/s40317-015-0051-x
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85018193422
SN - 2050-3385
VL - 3
JO - Animal Biotelemetry
JF - Animal Biotelemetry
IS - 1
M1 - 16
ER -