Effects of sampling effort based on GPS telemetry on home-range size estimations

Home-range size is widely used in wildlife biology to assess animal-habitat relationships. But home-range size estimation largely depends on the estimator and sample size used. Using 3 different estimators (minimum convex polygons, fixed-kernels, clusters), we used data collected on moose (Alces alces), fitted with Global Positioning System (GPS) collars (which allow automatic recording of large data sets with fewer field constraints than VHF telemetry) to investigate to what extent increasing the number of locations affects home-range size estimations. Our results indicated that 100 to 300 locations per animal annually and 30 to 100 locations seasonally were needed to reach an asymptote. High biases occurred below this asymptotic value. Minimum convex polygons consistently underestimated home-range sizes, but fixed-kernel and cluster estimators followed variable trends that often overestimated home-range sizes. Low sampling efforts also affected the number of animals needed to ensure an adequate statistical power of analysis to compare space use between 2 groups. Despite the higher cost, our findings indicate that in most instances, GPS telemetry is better suited than conventional radiotelemetry to estimate home-range sizes precisely and accurately. Moreover, this tracking technique is not limited by meteorological constraints and allows for the collection of similar sample sizes for all tracked animals, which is of major importance for further comparisons of space use among individuals.

[1]  Don W. Hayne,et al.  Calculation of Size of Home Range , 1949 .

[2]  R. Courtois,et al.  Effects of intensive harvesting on moose reproduction , 2000 .

[3]  W. V. Winkle.  COMPARISON OF SEVERAL PROBABILISTIC HOME-RANGE MODELS' , 1975 .

[4]  R. Peterman.  Statistical Power Analysis can Improve Fisheries Research and Management , 1990 .

[5]  K. Dixon,et al.  Harmonic mean measure of animal activity areas , 1980 .

[6]  R. Powell,et al.  An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Kernel Density Estimators for Home Range Analysis , 1996 .

[7]  Paul R. Moorcroft,et al.  Home range analysis using a mechanistic home range model , 1999 .

[8]  B. J. Worton,et al.  A review of models of home range for animal movement , 1987 .

[9]  Douglas H. Johnson.  THE COMPARISON OF USAGE AND AVAILABILITY MEASUREMENTS FOR EVALUATING RESOURCE PREFERENCE , 1980 .

[10]  Nicholas J. Aebischer,et al.  Compositional Analysis of Habitat Use From Animal Radio-Tracking Data , 1993 .

[11]  C. O. Mohr,et al.  Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals , 1947 .

[12]  J. Gilbert,et al.  Summer home range and habitat use by moose in northern Maine , 1989 .

[13]  R. Rempel,et al.  Effects of differential correction on accuracy of a GPS animal location system , 1997 .

[14]  Stephen Harris,et al.  Home‐range analysis using radio‐tracking data–a review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to the study of mammals , 1990 .

[15]  Y. Cohen,et al.  Accuracy of GPS telemetry collar locations with differential correction , 1997 .

[16]  Tim Gerrodette,et al.  A POWER ANALYSIS FOR DETECTING TRENDS , 1987 .

[17]  Norman A. Slade,et al.  Influence of sampling interval on estimates of home-range size , 1985 .

[18]  Gary C. White,et al.  Autocorrelation of location estimates and the analysis of radiotracking data , 1999 .

[19]  Rolf A. Ims,et al.  Effects of spatiotemporal scale on autocorrelation and home range estimators , 1997 .

[20]  R. Bonduriansky,et al.  Eliminating autocorrelation reduces biological relevance of home range estimates , 1999 .

[21]  Robert E. Kenward,et al.  Wildlife radio tagging : equipment, field techniques and data analysis , 1987 .