LoCoH: Nonparameteric Kernel Methods for Constructing Home Ranges and Utilization Distributions

Parametric kernel methods currently dominate the literature regarding the construction of animal home ranges (HRs) and utilization distributions (UDs). These methods frequently fail to capture the kinds of hard boundaries common to many natural systems. Recently a local convex hull (LoCoH) nonparametric kernel method, which generalizes the minimum convex polygon (MCP) method, was shown to be more appropriate than parametric kernel methods for constructing HRs and UDs, because of its ability to identify hard boundaries (e.g., rivers, cliff edges) and convergence to the true distribution as sample size increases. Here we extend the LoCoH in two ways: “fixed sphere-of-influence,” or r-LoCoH (kernels constructed from all points within a fixed radius r of each reference point), and an “adaptive sphere-of-influence,” or a-LoCoH (kernels constructed from all points within a radius a such that the distances of all points within the radius to the reference point sum to a value less than or equal to a), and compare them to the original “fixed-number-of-points,” or k-LoCoH (all kernels constructed from k-1 nearest neighbors of root points). We also compare these nonparametric LoCoH to parametric kernel methods using manufactured data and data collected from GPS collars on African buffalo in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Our results demonstrate that LoCoH methods are superior to parametric kernel methods in estimating areas used by animals, excluding unused areas (holes) and, generally, in constructing UDs and HRs arising from the movement of animals influenced by hard boundaries and irregular structures (e.g., rocky outcrops). We also demonstrate that a-LoCoH is generally superior to k- and r-LoCoH (with software for all three methods available at http://locoh.cnr.berkeley.edu).

[1]  Wayne M. Getz,et al.  A local nearest-neighbor convex-hull construction of home ranges and utilization distributions , 2004 .

[2]  W. H. Burt Territoriality and Home Range Concepts as Applied to Mammals , 1943 .

[3]  Bernard W. Silverman,et al.  Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis , 1987 .

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

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

[6]  Sandro Lovari,et al.  Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates. , 2006, The Journal of animal ecology.

[7]  Ronald J. Birk,et al.  Government programs for research and operational uses of commercial remote sensing data , 2003 .

[8]  B. Worton Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies , 1989 .

[9]  F. Vollrath,et al.  Social dominance, seasonal movements, and spatial segregation in African elephants: a contribution to conservation behavior , 2007, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[10]  J. Mitani,et al.  BOUNDARY PATROLS AND INTERGROUP ENCOUNTERS IN WILD CHIMPANZEES , 2001 .

[11]  P. J. Green,et al.  Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis , 1987 .

[12]  M. Burgman,et al.  Bias in species range estimates from minimum convex polygons: implications for conservation and options for improved planning , 2003 .

[13]  D. W. Krumme,et al.  The analysis of space use patterns. , 1979, Journal of theoretical biology.

[14]  A. Rodgers,et al.  Differences in home-range size computed in commonly used software programs , 2001 .

[15]  Jason Matthiopoulos Model-supervised kernel smoothing for the estimation of spatial usage , 2003 .

[16]  Monica G. Turner,et al.  Factors influencing female home range sizes in elk (Cervus elaphus) in North American landscapes , 2005, Landscape Ecology.

[17]  Bruce J. Worton,et al.  A CONVEX HULL-BASED ESTIMATOR OF HOME-RANGE SIZE , 1995 .

[18]  E. Debevec,et al.  LINEAR HOME RANGES: EFFECTS OF SMOOTHING, SAMPLE SIZE, AND AUTOCORRELATION ON KERNEL ESTIMATES , 2001 .

[19]  Zoran A. Salcic,et al.  A Comparison of Accuracy Using a GPS and a Low-Cost DGPS , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement.

[20]  C. Holden Inching Toward Movement Ecology , 2006, Science.

[21]  JOHN FIEBERG,et al.  QUANTIFYING HOME-RANGE OVERLAP: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE UTILIZATION DISTRIBUTION , 2005 .

[22]  R. Jennrich,et al.  Measurement of non-circular home range. , 1969, Journal of theoretical biology.

[23]  Kurt Hornik,et al.  kernlab - An S4 Package for Kernel Methods in R , 2004 .

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

[25]  W. Getz,et al.  Defining herbivore assemblages in the Kruger National Park: a correlative coherence approach , 2005, Oecologia.

[26]  Robert A. Gitzen,et al.  Analysis of Resource Selection Using Utilization Distributions , 2006 .

[27]  Samuel A. Cushman,et al.  Elephants in space and time , 2005 .

[28]  David W. Macdonald,et al.  Are kernels the mustard? Data from global positioning system (GPS) collars suggests problems for kernel home- range analyses with least-squares cross-validation , 2005 .

[29]  Kathy H. Hodder,et al.  DENSITY AND LINKAGE ESTIMATORS OF HOME RANGE: NEAREST‐NEIGHBOR CLUSTERING DEFINES MULTINUCLEAR CORES , 2001 .

[30]  WAYNE M. GETZ,et al.  Range and Habitat Selection of African Buffalo in South Africa , 2006 .

[31]  Jon S. Horne,et al.  Likelihood Cross-Validation Versus Least Squares Cross-Validation for Choosing the Smoothing Parameter in Kernel Home-Range Analysis , 2006 .

[32]  M. Kenward,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 2007 .