Publication:

Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements

Date

Date

Date
2020
Journal Article
Published version
cris.lastimport.scopus2025-06-05T03:33:22Z
cris.lastimport.wos2025-07-23T01:30:19Z
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Zurich
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-26T17:18:48Z
dc.date.available2020-10-26T17:18:48Z
dc.date.issued2020-08-01
dc.description.abstract

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.

dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cobi.13495
dc.identifier.issn0888-8892
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85087206716
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.zora.uzh.ch/handle/20.500.14742/173230
dc.identifier.wos000540800500001
dc.language.isoeng
dc.subjectEcology
dc.subjectEcology
dc.subjectEvolution
dc.subjectBehavior and Systematics
dc.subjectNature and Landscape Conservation
dc.subject.ddc300 Social sciences, sociology & anthropology
dc.title

Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements

dc.typearticle
dcterms.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitleConservation Biology
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.number4
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublishernameWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pageend1028
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pagestart1017
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume34
dspace.entity.typePublicationen
uzh.contributor.affiliationConservation and Research Center (National Zoo), University of Maryland
uzh.contributor.affiliationConservation and Research Center (National Zoo), University of Maryland
uzh.contributor.affiliationSenckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Radboud University Nijmegen
uzh.contributor.affiliationNorth Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences, North Carolina State University
uzh.contributor.affiliationNational Zoo
uzh.contributor.affiliationUniversity of California, Davis, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
uzh.contributor.affiliationNOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center
uzh.contributor.affiliationCentre for Conservation and Research, University of Zurich
uzh.contributor.authorNoonan, Michael J
uzh.contributor.authorFleming, Christen H
uzh.contributor.authorTucker, Marlee A
uzh.contributor.authorKays, Roland
uzh.contributor.authorHarrison, Autumn‐Lynn
uzh.contributor.authorCrofoot, Margaret C
uzh.contributor.authoret al
uzh.contributor.authorPastorini, Jennifer
uzh.contributor.correspondenceYes
uzh.contributor.correspondenceNo
uzh.contributor.correspondenceNo
uzh.contributor.correspondenceNo
uzh.contributor.correspondenceNo
uzh.contributor.correspondenceNo
uzh.contributor.correspondenceNo
uzh.contributor.correspondenceNo
uzh.document.availabilitypublished_version
uzh.eprint.datestamp2020-10-26 17:18:48
uzh.eprint.lastmod2025-07-23 02:05:42
uzh.eprint.statusChange2020-10-26 17:18:48
uzh.harvester.ethYes
uzh.harvester.nbNo
uzh.identifier.doi10.5167/uzh-191093
uzh.jdb.eprintsId17693
uzh.oastatus.unpaywallhybrid
uzh.oastatus.zoraHybrid
uzh.publication.citationNoonan, Michael J; Fleming, Christen H; Tucker, Marlee A; Kays, Roland; Harrison, Autumn‐Lynn; Crofoot, Margaret C; et al; Pastorini, Jennifer (2020). Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements. Conservation Biology, 34(4):1017-1028.
uzh.publication.freeAccessAtdoi
uzh.publication.originalworkoriginal
uzh.publication.publishedStatusfinal
uzh.scopus.impact44
uzh.scopus.subjectsEcology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
uzh.scopus.subjectsEcology
uzh.scopus.subjectsNature and Landscape Conservation
uzh.workflow.doajuzh.workflow.doaj.false
uzh.workflow.eprintid191093
uzh.workflow.fulltextStatuspublic
uzh.workflow.revisions49
uzh.workflow.rightsCheckkeininfo
uzh.workflow.sourceCrossRef:10.1111/cobi.13495
uzh.workflow.statusarchive
uzh.wos.impact39
Files

Original bundle

Name:
Noonan-20-Area-Mammals.pdf
Size:
4.23 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Publication available in collections: