The search result changed since you submitted your search request. Documents might be displayed in a different sort order.
  • search hit 4 of 18
Back to Result List

A comprehensive analysis of autocorrelation and bias in home range estimation

  • Home range estimation is routine practice in ecological research. While advances in animal tracking technology have increased our capacity to collect data to support home range analysis, these same advances have also resulted in increasingly autocorrelated data. Consequently, the question of which home range estimator to use on modern, highly autocorrelated tracking data remains open. This question is particularly relevant given that most estimators assume independently sampled data. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of autocorrelation on home range estimation. We base our study on an extensive data set of GPS locations from 369 individuals representing 27 species distributed across five continents. We first assemble a broad array of home range estimators, including Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) with four bandwidth optimizers (Gaussian reference function, autocorrelated‐Gaussian reference function [AKDE], Silverman's rule of thumb, and least squares cross‐validation), Minimum Convex Polygon, and Local ConvexHome range estimation is routine practice in ecological research. While advances in animal tracking technology have increased our capacity to collect data to support home range analysis, these same advances have also resulted in increasingly autocorrelated data. Consequently, the question of which home range estimator to use on modern, highly autocorrelated tracking data remains open. This question is particularly relevant given that most estimators assume independently sampled data. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of autocorrelation on home range estimation. We base our study on an extensive data set of GPS locations from 369 individuals representing 27 species distributed across five continents. We first assemble a broad array of home range estimators, including Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) with four bandwidth optimizers (Gaussian reference function, autocorrelated‐Gaussian reference function [AKDE], Silverman's rule of thumb, and least squares cross‐validation), Minimum Convex Polygon, and Local Convex Hull methods. Notably, all of these estimators except AKDE assume independent and identically distributed (IID) data. We then employ half‐sample cross‐validation to objectively quantify estimator performance, and the recently introduced effective sample size for home range area estimation ( N̂ area ) to quantify the information content of each data set. We found that AKDE 95% area estimates were larger than conventional IID‐based estimates by a mean factor of 2. The median number of cross‐validated locations included in the hold‐out sets by AKDE 95% (or 50%) estimates was 95.3% (or 50.1%), confirming the larger AKDE ranges were appropriately selective at the specified quantile. Conversely, conventional estimates exhibited negative bias that increased with decreasing N̂ area. To contextualize our empirical results, we performed a detailed simulation study to tease apart how sampling frequency, sampling duration, and the focal animal's movement conspire to affect range estimates. Paralleling our empirical results, the simulation study demonstrated that AKDE was generally more accurate than conventional methods, particularly for small N̂ area. While 72% of the 369 empirical data sets had >1,000 total observations, only 4% had an N̂ area >1,000, where 30% had an N̂ area <30. In this frequently encountered scenario of small N̂ area, AKDE was the only estimator capable of producing an accurate home range estimate on autocorrelated data.show moreshow less

Export metadata

Additional Services

Search Google Scholar Statistics
Metadaten
Author details:Michael J. Noonan, Marlee A. Tucker, Christen H. Fleming, Thomas S. Akre, Susan C. Alberts, Abdullahi H. Ali, Jeanne Altmann, Pamela Castro Antunes, Jerrold L. Belant, Dean Beyer, Niels BlaumORCiDGND, Katrin Boehning-Gaese, Laury Cullen Jr, Rogerio Cunha de Paula, Jasja Dekker, Jonathan Drescher-Lehman, Nina Farwig, Claudia Fichtel, Christina FischerORCiD, Adam T. Ford, Jacob R. Goheen, Rene Janssen, Florian JeltschORCiDGND, Matthew Kauffman, Peter M. Kappeler, Flavia Koch, Scott LaPoint, A. Catherine Markham, Emilia Patricia Medici, Ronaldo G. Morato, Ran Nathan, Luiz Gustavo R. Oliveira-Santos, Kirk A. Olson, Bruce D. Patterson, Agustin Paviolo, Emiliano Estero Ramalho, Sascha Rosner, Dana G. Schabo, Nuria SelvaORCiD, Agnieszka SergielORCiD, Marina Xavier da Silva, Orr SpiegelORCiD, Peter ThompsonORCiD, Wiebke UllmannORCiDGND, Filip Zieba, Tomasz Zwijacz-Kozica, William F. Fagan, Thomas Mueller, Justin M. Calabrese
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1344
ISSN:0012-9615
ISSN:1557-7015
Title of parent work (English):Ecological monographs : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.
Publisher:Wiley
Place of publishing:Hoboken
Publication type:Article
Language:English
Date of first publication:2018/11/29
Publication year:2018
Release date:2021/02/16
Tag:animal movement; kernel density estimation; local convex hull; minimum convex polygon; range distribution; space use; telemetry; tracking data
Volume:89
Issue:2
Number of pages:21
Funding institution:US NSF Advances in Biological Informatics program [ABI-1458748]; Smithsonian Institution CGPS grant; Deutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftGerman Research Foundation (DFG) [DFG-GRK 2118/1]; Robert Bosch Foundation; NASANational Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) [NNX15AV92A]
Organizational units:Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät / Institut für Biochemie und Biologie
DDC classification:5 Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik / 57 Biowissenschaften; Biologie / 570 Biowissenschaften; Biologie
Peer review:Referiert
Publishing method:Open Access / Bronze Open-Access
Accept ✔
This website uses technically necessary session cookies. By continuing to use the website, you agree to this. You can find our privacy policy here.