Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements

Michael J. Noonan; Christen H. Fleming; Marlee A. Tucker; Roland Kays; Autumn Lynn Harrison; Margaret C. Crofoot; Briana Abrahms; Susan C. Alberts; Abdullahi H. Ali; Jeanne Altmann; Pamela Castro Antunes; Nina Attias; Jerrold L. Belant; Dean E. Beyer; Laura R. Bidner; Niels Blaum; Randall B. Boone; Damien Caillaud; Rogerio Cunha de Paula; J. Antonio de la Torre; Jasja Dekker; Christopher S. DePerno; Mohammad Farhadinia; Julian Fennessy; Claudia Fichtel; Christina Fischer; Adam Ford; Jacob R. Goheen; Rasmus W. Havmøller; Ben T. Hirsch; Cindy Hurtado; Lynne A. Isbell; René Janssen; Florian Jeltsch; Petra Kaczensky; Yayoi Kaneko; Peter Kappeler; Anjan Katna; Matthew Kauffman; Flavia Koch; Abhijeet Kulkarni; Scott LaPoint; Peter Leimgruber; David W. Macdonald; A. Catherine Markham; Laura McMahon; Katherine Mertes; Christopher E. Moorman; Ronaldo G. Morato; Alexander M. Moßbrucker; Guilherme Mourão; David O'Connor; Luiz Gustavo R. Oliveira-Santos; Jennifer Pastorini; Bruce D. Patterson; Janet Rachlow; Dustin H. Ranglack; Neil Reid; David M. Scantlebury; Dawn M. Scott; Nuria Selva; Agnieszka Sergiel; Melissa Songer; Nucharin Songsasen; Jared A. Stabach; Jenna Stacy-Dawes; Morgan B. Swingen; Jeffrey J. Thompson; Wiebke Ullmann; Abi Tamim Vanak; Maria Thaker; John W. Wilson; Koji Yamazaki; Richard W. Yarnell; Filip Zieba; Tomasz Zwijacz-Kozica; William F. Fagan; Thomas Mueller; Justin M. Calabrese

doi:10.1111/cobi.13495

Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements

Michael J. Noonan, Christen H. Fleming, Marlee A. Tucker, Roland Kays, Autumn Lynn Harrison, Margaret C. Crofoot, Briana Abrahms, Susan C. Alberts, Abdullahi H. Ali, Jeanne Altmann, Pamela Castro Antunes, Nina Attias, Jerrold L. Belant, Dean E. Beyer, Laura R. Bidner, Niels Blaum, Randall B. Boone, Damien Caillaud, Rogerio Cunha de Paula, J. Antonio de la TorreJasja Dekker, Christopher S. DePerno, Mohammad Farhadinia, Julian Fennessy, Claudia Fichtel, Christina Fischer, Adam Ford, Jacob R. Goheen, Rasmus W. Havmøller, Ben T. Hirsch, Cindy Hurtado, Lynne A. Isbell, René Janssen, Florian Jeltsch, Petra Kaczensky, Yayoi Kaneko, Peter Kappeler, Anjan Katna, Matthew Kauffman, Flavia Koch, Abhijeet Kulkarni, Scott LaPoint, Peter Leimgruber, David W. Macdonald, A. Catherine Markham, Laura McMahon, Katherine Mertes, Christopher E. Moorman, Ronaldo G. Morato, Alexander M. Moßbrucker, Guilherme Mourão, David O'Connor, Luiz Gustavo R. Oliveira-Santos, Jennifer Pastorini, Bruce D. Patterson, Janet Rachlow, Dustin H. Ranglack, Neil Reid, David M. Scantlebury, Dawn M. Scott, Nuria Selva, Agnieszka Sergiel, Melissa Songer, Nucharin Songsasen, Jared A. Stabach, Jenna Stacy-Dawes, Morgan B. Swingen, Jeffrey J. Thompson, Wiebke Ullmann, Abi Tamim Vanak, Maria Thaker, John W. Wilson, Koji Yamazaki, Richard W. Yarnell, Filip Zieba, Tomasz Zwijacz-Kozica, William F. Fagan, Thomas Mueller, Justin M. Calabrese

Museo de Historia Natural

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

37 Scopus citations

Abstract

Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology Accurately quantifying species’ area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area-based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home-range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home-range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied block cross-validation to quantify bias in empirical home-range estimates. Area requirements of mammals <10 kg were underestimated by a mean approximately15%, and species weighing approximately100 kg were underestimated by approximately50% on average. Thus, we found area estimation was subject to autocorrelation-induced bias that was worse for large species. Combined with the fact that extinction risk increases as body mass increases, the allometric scaling of bias we observed suggests the most threatened species are also likely to be those with the least accurate home-range estimates. As a correction, we tested whether data thinning or autocorrelation-informed home-range estimation minimized the scaling effect of autocorrelation on area estimates. Data thinning required an approximately93% data loss to achieve statistical independence with 95% confidence and was, therefore, not a viable solution. In contrast, autocorrelation-informed home-range estimation resulted in consistently accurate estimates irrespective of mass. When relating body mass to home range size, we detected that correcting for autocorrelation resulted in a scaling exponent significantly >1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changed substantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum.

Original language	American English
Pages (from-to)	1017-1028
Number of pages	12
Journal	Conservation Biology
Volume	34
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13495
State	Published - 1 Aug 2020

Keywords

allometry
alometría
animal movement
area-based conservation
autocorrelación
autocorrelation
conservación basada en áreas
diseño de reserva
distribución local
escalamiento
estimación de densidad del núcleo
home range
kernel density estimation
movimiento de mamíferos
reserve design
scaling
保护区设计
动物移动
区域保护
家域
异速增长
标度
核密度估计
自相关

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1111/cobi.13495

Cite this

Noonan, M. J., Fleming, C. H., Tucker, M. A., Kays, R., Harrison, A. L., Crofoot, M. C., Abrahms, B., Alberts, S. C., Ali, A. H., Altmann, J., Antunes, P. C., Attias, N., Belant, J. L., Beyer, D. E., Bidner, L. R., Blaum, N., Boone, R. B., Caillaud, D., de Paula, R. C., ... Calabrese, J. M. (2020). Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements. Conservation Biology, 34(4), 1017-1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13495

@article{16bd88bd1c8947f6b6f6678c3201eaf7,

title = "Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements",

abstract = "Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology Accurately quantifying species{\textquoteright} area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area-based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home-range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home-range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied block cross-validation to quantify bias in empirical home-range estimates. Area requirements of mammals <10 kg were underestimated by a mean approximately15%, and species weighing approximately100 kg were underestimated by approximately50% on average. Thus, we found area estimation was subject to autocorrelation-induced bias that was worse for large species. Combined with the fact that extinction risk increases as body mass increases, the allometric scaling of bias we observed suggests the most threatened species are also likely to be those with the least accurate home-range estimates. As a correction, we tested whether data thinning or autocorrelation-informed home-range estimation minimized the scaling effect of autocorrelation on area estimates. Data thinning required an approximately93% data loss to achieve statistical independence with 95% confidence and was, therefore, not a viable solution. In contrast, autocorrelation-informed home-range estimation resulted in consistently accurate estimates irrespective of mass. When relating body mass to home range size, we detected that correcting for autocorrelation resulted in a scaling exponent significantly >1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changed substantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum.",

keywords = "allometry, alometr{\'i}a, animal movement, area-based conservation, autocorrelaci{\'o}n, autocorrelation, conservaci{\'o}n basada en {\'a}reas, dise{\~n}o de reserva, distribuci{\'o}n local, escalamiento, estimaci{\'o}n de densidad del n{\'u}cleo, home range, kernel density estimation, movimiento de mam{\'i}feros, reserve design, scaling, 保护区设计, 动物移动, 区域保护, 家域, 异速增长, 标度, 核密度估计, 自相关, allometry, alometr{\'i}a, animal movement, area-based conservation, autocorrelaci{\'o}n, autocorrelation, conservaci{\'o}n basada en {\'a}reas, dise{\~n}o de reserva, distribuci{\'o}n local, escalamiento, estimaci{\'o}n de densidad del n{\'u}cleo, home range, kernel density estimation, movimiento de mam{\'i}feros, reserve design, scaling, 保护区设计, 动物移动, 区域保护, 家域, 异速增长, 标度, 核密度估计, 自相关",

author = "Noonan, {Michael J.} and Fleming, {Christen H.} and Tucker, {Marlee A.} and Roland Kays and Harrison, {Autumn Lynn} and Crofoot, {Margaret C.} and Briana Abrahms and Alberts, {Susan C.} and Ali, {Abdullahi H.} and Jeanne Altmann and Antunes, {Pamela Castro} and Nina Attias and Belant, {Jerrold L.} and Beyer, {Dean E.} and Bidner, {Laura R.} and Niels Blaum and Boone, {Randall B.} and Damien Caillaud and {de Paula}, {Rogerio Cunha} and {de la Torre}, {J. Antonio} and Jasja Dekker and DePerno, {Christopher S.} and Mohammad Farhadinia and Julian Fennessy and Claudia Fichtel and Christina Fischer and Adam Ford and Goheen, {Jacob R.} and Havm{\o}ller, {Rasmus W.} and Hirsch, {Ben T.} and Cindy Hurtado and Isbell, {Lynne A.} and Ren{\'e} Janssen and Florian Jeltsch and Petra Kaczensky and Yayoi Kaneko and Peter Kappeler and Anjan Katna and Matthew Kauffman and Flavia Koch and Abhijeet Kulkarni and Scott LaPoint and Peter Leimgruber and Macdonald, {David W.} and Markham, {A. Catherine} and Laura McMahon and Katherine Mertes and Moorman, {Christopher E.} and Morato, {Ronaldo G.} and Mo{\ss}brucker, {Alexander M.} and Guilherme Mour{\~a}o and David O'Connor and Oliveira-Santos, {Luiz Gustavo R.} and Jennifer Pastorini and Patterson, {Bruce D.} and Janet Rachlow and Ranglack, {Dustin H.} and Neil Reid and Scantlebury, {David M.} and Scott, {Dawn M.} and Nuria Selva and Agnieszka Sergiel and Melissa Songer and Nucharin Songsasen and Stabach, {Jared A.} and Jenna Stacy-Dawes and Swingen, {Morgan B.} and Thompson, {Jeffrey J.} and Wiebke Ullmann and Vanak, {Abi Tamim} and Maria Thaker and Wilson, {John W.} and Koji Yamazaki and Yarnell, {Richard W.} and Filip Zieba and Tomasz Zwijacz-Kozica and Fagan, {William F.} and Thomas Mueller and Calabrese, {Justin M.}",

year = "2020",

month = aug,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1111/cobi.13495",

language = "American English",

volume = "34",

pages = "1017--1028",

journal = "Conservation Biology",

issn = "0888-8892",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",

number = "4",

}

Noonan, MJ, Fleming, CH, Tucker, MA, Kays, R, Harrison, AL, Crofoot, MC, Abrahms, B, Alberts, SC, Ali, AH, Altmann, J, Antunes, PC, Attias, N, Belant, JL, Beyer, DE, Bidner, LR, Blaum, N, Boone, RB, Caillaud, D, de Paula, RC, de la Torre, JA, Dekker, J, DePerno, CS, Farhadinia, M, Fennessy, J, Fichtel, C, Fischer, C, Ford, A, Goheen, JR, Havmøller, RW, Hirsch, BT, Hurtado, C, Isbell, LA, Janssen, R, Jeltsch, F, Kaczensky, P, Kaneko, Y, Kappeler, P, Katna, A, Kauffman, M, Koch, F, Kulkarni, A, LaPoint, S, Leimgruber, P, Macdonald, DW, Markham, AC, McMahon, L, Mertes, K, Moorman, CE, Morato, RG, Moßbrucker, AM, Mourão, G, O'Connor, D, Oliveira-Santos, LGR, Pastorini, J, Patterson, BD, Rachlow, J, Ranglack, DH, Reid, N, Scantlebury, DM, Scott, DM, Selva, N, Sergiel, A, Songer, M, Songsasen, N, Stabach, JA, Stacy-Dawes, J, Swingen, MB, Thompson, JJ, Ullmann, W, Vanak, AT, Thaker, M, Wilson, JW, Yamazaki, K, Yarnell, RW, Zieba, F, Zwijacz-Kozica, T, Fagan, WF, Mueller, T & Calabrese, JM 2020, 'Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements', Conservation Biology, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1017-1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13495

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements

AU - Noonan, Michael J.

AU - Fleming, Christen H.

AU - Tucker, Marlee A.

AU - Kays, Roland

AU - Harrison, Autumn Lynn

AU - Crofoot, Margaret C.

AU - Abrahms, Briana

AU - Alberts, Susan C.

AU - Ali, Abdullahi H.

AU - Altmann, Jeanne

AU - Antunes, Pamela Castro

AU - Attias, Nina

AU - Belant, Jerrold L.

AU - Beyer, Dean E.

AU - Bidner, Laura R.

AU - Blaum, Niels

AU - Boone, Randall B.

AU - Caillaud, Damien

AU - de Paula, Rogerio Cunha

AU - de la Torre, J. Antonio

AU - Dekker, Jasja

AU - DePerno, Christopher S.

AU - Farhadinia, Mohammad

AU - Fennessy, Julian

AU - Fichtel, Claudia

AU - Fischer, Christina

AU - Ford, Adam

AU - Goheen, Jacob R.

AU - Havmøller, Rasmus W.

AU - Hirsch, Ben T.

AU - Hurtado, Cindy

AU - Isbell, Lynne A.

AU - Janssen, René

AU - Jeltsch, Florian

AU - Kaczensky, Petra

AU - Kaneko, Yayoi

AU - Kappeler, Peter

AU - Katna, Anjan

AU - Kauffman, Matthew

AU - Koch, Flavia

AU - Kulkarni, Abhijeet

AU - LaPoint, Scott

AU - Leimgruber, Peter

AU - Macdonald, David W.

AU - Markham, A. Catherine

AU - McMahon, Laura

AU - Mertes, Katherine

AU - Moorman, Christopher E.

AU - Morato, Ronaldo G.

AU - Moßbrucker, Alexander M.

AU - Mourão, Guilherme

AU - O'Connor, David

AU - Oliveira-Santos, Luiz Gustavo R.

AU - Pastorini, Jennifer

AU - Patterson, Bruce D.

AU - Rachlow, Janet

AU - Ranglack, Dustin H.

AU - Reid, Neil

AU - Scantlebury, David M.

AU - Scott, Dawn M.

AU - Selva, Nuria

AU - Sergiel, Agnieszka

AU - Songer, Melissa

AU - Songsasen, Nucharin

AU - Stabach, Jared A.

AU - Stacy-Dawes, Jenna

AU - Swingen, Morgan B.

AU - Thompson, Jeffrey J.

AU - Ullmann, Wiebke

AU - Vanak, Abi Tamim

AU - Thaker, Maria

AU - Wilson, John W.

AU - Yamazaki, Koji

AU - Yarnell, Richard W.

AU - Zieba, Filip

AU - Zwijacz-Kozica, Tomasz

AU - Fagan, William F.

AU - Mueller, Thomas

AU - Calabrese, Justin M.

PY - 2020/8/1

Y1 - 2020/8/1

N2 - Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology Accurately quantifying species’ area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area-based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home-range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home-range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied block cross-validation to quantify bias in empirical home-range estimates. Area requirements of mammals <10 kg were underestimated by a mean approximately15%, and species weighing approximately100 kg were underestimated by approximately50% on average. Thus, we found area estimation was subject to autocorrelation-induced bias that was worse for large species. Combined with the fact that extinction risk increases as body mass increases, the allometric scaling of bias we observed suggests the most threatened species are also likely to be those with the least accurate home-range estimates. As a correction, we tested whether data thinning or autocorrelation-informed home-range estimation minimized the scaling effect of autocorrelation on area estimates. Data thinning required an approximately93% data loss to achieve statistical independence with 95% confidence and was, therefore, not a viable solution. In contrast, autocorrelation-informed home-range estimation resulted in consistently accurate estimates irrespective of mass. When relating body mass to home range size, we detected that correcting for autocorrelation resulted in a scaling exponent significantly >1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changed substantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum.

AB - Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology Accurately quantifying species’ area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area-based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home-range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home-range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied block cross-validation to quantify bias in empirical home-range estimates. Area requirements of mammals <10 kg were underestimated by a mean approximately15%, and species weighing approximately100 kg were underestimated by approximately50% on average. Thus, we found area estimation was subject to autocorrelation-induced bias that was worse for large species. Combined with the fact that extinction risk increases as body mass increases, the allometric scaling of bias we observed suggests the most threatened species are also likely to be those with the least accurate home-range estimates. As a correction, we tested whether data thinning or autocorrelation-informed home-range estimation minimized the scaling effect of autocorrelation on area estimates. Data thinning required an approximately93% data loss to achieve statistical independence with 95% confidence and was, therefore, not a viable solution. In contrast, autocorrelation-informed home-range estimation resulted in consistently accurate estimates irrespective of mass. When relating body mass to home range size, we detected that correcting for autocorrelation resulted in a scaling exponent significantly >1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changed substantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum.

KW - allometry

KW - alometría

KW - animal movement

KW - area-based conservation

KW - autocorrelación

KW - autocorrelation

KW - conservación basada en áreas

KW - diseño de reserva

KW - distribución local

KW - escalamiento

KW - estimación de densidad del núcleo

KW - home range

KW - kernel density estimation

KW - movimiento de mamíferos

KW - reserve design

KW - scaling

KW - 保护区设计

KW - 动物移动

KW - 区域保护

KW - 家域

KW - 异速增长

KW - 标度

KW - 核密度估计

KW - 自相关

KW - allometry

KW - alometría

KW - animal movement

KW - area-based conservation

KW - autocorrelación

KW - autocorrelation

KW - conservación basada en áreas

KW - diseño de reserva

KW - distribución local

KW - escalamiento

KW - estimación de densidad del núcleo

KW - home range

KW - kernel density estimation

KW - movimiento de mamíferos

KW - reserve design

KW - scaling

KW - 保护区设计

KW - 动物移动

KW - 区域保护

KW - 家域

KW - 异速增长

KW - 标度

KW - 核密度估计

KW - 自相关

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85087206716&origin=inward

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85087206716&origin=inward

U2 - 10.1111/cobi.13495

DO - 10.1111/cobi.13495

M3 - Article

SN - 0888-8892

VL - 34

SP - 1017

EP - 1028

JO - Conservation Biology

JF - Conservation Biology

IS - 4

ER -

Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this