Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Wildlife Research Wildlife Research Society
Ecology, management and conservation in natural and modified habitats
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > WR > WR08032
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 36(3)

Home-range estimation within complex restricted environments: importance of method selection in detecting seasonal change

Carolyn M. Knight A B C G , Robert E. Kenward A D E F , Rodolphe E. Gozlan A E , Kathryn H. Hodder A E , Sean S. Walls A E D and Martyn C. Lucas B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Winfrith Technology Centre, Dorchester, Dorset, DT2 8ZD, UK.

B University of Durham, School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science Laboratories, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK.

C Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 Oslo, Norway.

D Anatrack Ltd, Furzebrook, Wareham, Dorset, BH20 5AX, UK.

E School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, BH12 5BB, UK.

F Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK.

G Corresponding author. Email: carolyn.knight@niva.no

Wildlife Research 36(3) 213-224 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR08032
Submitted: 27 February 2008  Accepted: 3 February 2009   Published: 15 April 2009

Abstract

Estimating the home ranges of animals from telemetry data can provide vital information on their spatial behaviour, which can be applied by managers to a wide range of situations including reserve design, habitat management and interactions between native and non-native species. Methods used to estimate home ranges of animals in spatially restricted environments (e.g. rivers) are liable to overestimate areas and underestimate travel distances by including unusable habitat (e.g. river bank). Currently, few studies that collect telemetry data from species in restricted environments maximise the information that can be gathered by using the most appropriate home-range estimation techniques. Simulated location datasets as well as radio-fix data from 23 northern pike (Esox lucius) were used to examine the efficiency of home-range and travel estimators, with and without correction for unusable habitat, for detecting seasonal changes in movements. Cluster analysis most clearly demonstrated changes in range area between seasons for empirical data, also showing changes in patchiness, and was least affected by unusable-environment error. Kernel analysis showed seasonal variation in range area more clearly than peripheral polygons or ellipses. Range span, a linear estimator of home range, had no significant seasonal variation. Results from all range area estimators were smallest in autumn, when cores were least fragmented and interlocation movements smallest. Cluster analysis showed that core ranges were largest and most fragmented in summer, when interlocation distances were most variable, whereas excursion-sensitive methods (e.g. kernels) recorded the largest outlines in spring, when interlocation distances were largest. Our results provide a rationale for a priori selection of home-range estimators in restricted environments. Contours containing 95% of the location density defined by kernel analyses better reflected excursive activity than ellipses or peripheral polygons, whereas cluster analyses better defined range cores in usable habitat and indicate range fragmentation.


Acknowledgements

We thank the many fieldworkers for their hard work tracking pike, in particular J. Masters, A. Pinder, W. Beaumont and L. Scott. J. Masters contributed much to earlier studies of the pike population. We thank anonymous referees for helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. C. M. Knight was in receipt of a Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) studentship. The data collection was supported by a Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Integrated Fund project and a NERC LOCAR grant.


References

Aebischer, N. J. , Robertson, P. A. , and Kenward, R. E. (1993). Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74, 1313–1325.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Calhoun J. B. , and Casby J. U. (1958). Calculation of home range and density of small mammals. Public Health Monograph 55. United States Public Health Service.

Cook, M. F. , and Bergersen, E. P. (1988). Movements, habitat selection, and activity periods of northern pike in Eleven Mile Reservoir, Colorado. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117, 495–502.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Dalke P. D. , and Sime P. R. (1938). Home and seasonal ranges of eastern cottontail in Connecticut. Transcripts of the North American Wildlife Conference 3, 659–669.

Dixon, K. R. , and Chapman, J. A. (1980). Harmonic mean measure of animal activity areas. Ecology 61, 1040–1044.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | European Commission (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. In ‘Official Journal of the European Community’. pp. 1–72.

Fedriani, J. M. , Delibes, M. , Ferreras, P. , and Roman, J. (2002). Local and landscape habitat determinants of water vole distribution in a patchy Mediterranean environment. Ecoscience 9, 12–19.
Fuller M. R. , Church K. E. , Millspaugh J. J. , and Kenward R. E. (2005). Wildlife telemetry. In ‘Manual of Wildlife Management Techniques’. (Ed. C. L. Braun.) pp. 377–417. (The Wildlife Society: Bethesda, MD.)

Getz, W. M. , and Wilmers, C. C. (2004). A local nearest-neighbor convex-hull construction of home ranges and utilization distributions. Ecography 27, 489–505.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Kenward R. E. (1987). ‘Wildlife Radio Tagging: Equipment, Field Techniques and Data Analysis’. (Academic Press: London.)

Kenward R. E. (1992). Quantity versus quality: programming for collection and analysis of radio tag data. In ‘Wildlife Telemetry – Remote Monitoring and Tracking of Animals’. (Eds I. G. Priede and S. M. Swift.) pp. 231–246. (Ellis Horwood: Chichester, UK.)

Kenward R. E. (2001). ‘A Manual for Wildlife Radio Tagging.’ (Academic Press: London.)

Kenward, R. E. , and Hodder, K. H. (1998). Red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) released in conifer woodland: the effects of source habitat, predation and interactions with grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis). Journal of the Zoological Society of London 244, 23–32.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Kernohan B. J. , Gitzen R. A. , and Millspaugh J. J. (2001). Analysis of animal space use and movements. In ‘Radio Tracking and Animal Populations’. (Eds J. J. Millspaugh and J. M. Marzluff.) pp. 125–166. (Academic Press: San Diego, CA.)

Knight, C. M. , Gozlan, R. E. , and Lucas, M. C. (2008). Can seasonal home-range size in pike (Esox lucius) predict excursion distance? Journal of Fish Biology 73, 1058–1064.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Larson M. A. (2001). A catalogue of software to analyze radiotelemetry data. In ‘Radio Tracking and Animal Populations’. (Eds J. J. Millspaugh and J. M. Marzluff.) pp. 398–421. (Academic Press: San Diego, CA.)

Laver, P. N. , and Kelly, M. J. (2008). A critical review of home range studies. Journal of Wildlife Management 72, 290–298.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Powell R. A. (2000). Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators. In ‘Research Techniques in Animal Ecology: Controversies and Consequences’. (Ed. T. K. Fuller.) pp. 65–110. (Columbia University Press: New York.)

Rader, R. , and Krockenberger, A. (2006). Three-dimensional use of space by a tropical rainforest rodent, Melomys cervinipes, and its implications for foraging and home range size. Wildlife Research 33, 577–582.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | White G. C. , and Garrott R. A. (1990). ‘Analysis of Wildlife Radio-tracking Data.’ (Academic Press: New York.)

White, J. G. , Gubiani, R. , Smallman, N. , Snell, K. , and Morton, A. (2006). Home range, habitat selection and diet of foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in a semi-urban riparian environment. Wildlife Research 33, 175–180.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Zar J. H. (1984). ‘Biostatistical Analysis.’ (Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.)