The Ecology and Macroecology of Mammalian Home Range Area

Although many studies employ allometric relationships to demonstrate possible dependence of various traits on body mass, the relationship between home range size and body mass has been perhaps the most difficult to understand. Early studies demonstrated that carnivorous species had larger home ranges than herbivorous species of similar mass. These studies also argued that scaling relations (e.g., slopes) of the former were steeper than those of the latter and explained this in terms of the distribution of food resources, which are more uniformly distributed for most herbivores than for carnivores. In contrast to these studies, we show that scaling relations of home ranges for carnivorous mammals do not differ significantly from those of herbivorous and omnivorous species and that all three exhibit slopes that are significantly steeper than predicted on the basis of energetic requirements. We also demonstrate that home range size is constrained to fit within a polygonal constraint space bounded by lines representing energetic and/or biophysical limitations, which suggests that the log‐linear relationship between home range area and mass may not be the appropriate function to compare against the energetically predicted slopes of 0.75 or 1.0. It remains unclear, however, why the slope of the relationship between home range area and body mass, whether based on raw data or on constraint lines, always exceeds that predicted by the energetic needs hypothesis.

[1]  S. Pickett,et al.  Functional location of forest edges: gradients of multiple physical factors , 1997 .

[2]  K. Schmidt-Nielsen,et al.  Scaling, why is animal size so important? , 1984 .

[3]  James H. Brown,et al.  Evolution of Species Assemblages: Effects of Energetic Constraints and Species Dynamics on the Diversification of the North American Avifauna , 1987, The American Naturalist.

[4]  Max Kleiber,et al.  The Fire of Life: An Introduction to Animal Energetics , 1975 .

[5]  D. H. Vuren,et al.  ENERGETIC CONSTRAINTS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BODY SIZE AND HOME RANGE AREA IN MAMMALS , 1999 .

[6]  G. Mace,et al.  Energetic Constraints on Home-Range Size , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[7]  J. Downing,et al.  The Allometric Scaling of Density and Body Mass: A Nonlinear Relationship for Terrestrial Mammals , 1995, The American Naturalist.

[8]  Susan C. Roberts,et al.  Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores , 1999, Nature.

[9]  J. Weiner,et al.  Physiological limits to sustainable energy budgets in birds and mammals: Ecological implications. , 1992, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[10]  Peter Turchin,et al.  Complex Dynamics in Ecological Time Series , 1992 .

[11]  Robert M. May,et al.  Simple mathematical models with very complicated dynamics , 1976, Nature.

[12]  S. Ellner,et al.  Chaos in Ecology: Is Mother Nature a Strange Attractor?* , 1993 .

[13]  Helmut Küchenhoff An Exact Algorithm for Estimating Breakpoints in Segmented Generalized Linear Models , 1997 .

[14]  T. Schoener Sizes of Feeding Territories among Birds , 1968 .

[15]  R. Costantino,et al.  NONLINEAR DEMOGRAPHIC DYNAMICS: MATHEMATICAL MODELS, STATISTICAL METHODS, AND BIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS' , 1995 .

[16]  D. Lott,et al.  A Review of Ecological Determinants of Territoriality within Vertebrate Species , 2000 .

[17]  J. C. Allen,et al.  Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos in Insect Populations , 1992 .

[18]  J. Damuth,et al.  Population density and body size in mammals , 1981, Nature.

[19]  M. Reiss,et al.  Scaling of home range size: Body size, metabolic needs and ecology. , 1988, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[20]  A. Harestad,et al.  Home Range and Body Weight‐‐A Reevaluation , 1979 .

[21]  W. Calder Size, Function, and Life History , 1988 .

[22]  Steven W. Buskirk,et al.  HOME RANGE, TIME, AND BODY SIZE IN MAMMALS' , 1986 .

[23]  P. J. Miller Miniature Vertebrates: The Implications of Small Body Size , 1996 .

[24]  M. Carrano,et al.  Scaling of reproductive turnover in archosaurs and mammals : why are large terrestrial mammals so rare? , 1991 .

[25]  M. Taper,et al.  Evolution of Body Size: Consequences of an Energetic Definition of Fitness , 1993, The American Naturalist.

[26]  R. Peters The Ecological Implications of Body Size , 1983 .

[27]  T. Schoener Simple Models of Optimal Feeding-Territory Size: A Reconciliation , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[28]  B. McNab Metabolic scaling: Energy constraints on carnivore diet , 2000, Nature.

[29]  B. McNab,et al.  Bioenergetics and the Determination of Home Range Size , 1963, The American Naturalist.