Search

Home range behaviour is a common pattern of space use, having fundamental consequences for ecological processes. However, a general mechanistic explanation is still lacking. Research is split into three separate areas of inquiry - movement models based on random walks, individual-based models based on optimal foraging theory, and a statistical modelling approach - which have developed without much productive contact. Here we review recent advances in modelling home range behaviour, focusing particularly on the problem of identifying mechanisms that lead to the emergence of stable home ranges from unbounded movement paths. We discuss the issue of spatiotemporal scale, which is rarely considered in modelling studies, as well as highlighting the need to consider more closely the dynamical nature of home ranges. Recent methodological and theoretical advances may soon lead to a unified approach, however, conceptually unifying our understanding of linkages among home range behaviour and ecological or evolutionary processes.

1. Although the home range is a fundamental ecological concept, there is considerable debate over how it is best measured. There is a substantial literature concerning the precision and accuracy of all commonly used home range estimation methods; however, there has been considerably less work concerning how estimates vary with sampling regime, and how this affects statistical inferences. 2. We propose a new procedure, based on a variance components analysis using generalized mixed effects models to examine how estimates vary with sampling regime. 3. To demonstrate the method we analyse data from one study of 32 individually marked roe deer and another study of 21 individually marked kestrels. We subsampled these data to simulate increasingly less intense sampling regimes, and compared the performance of two kernel density estimation (KDE) methods, of the minimum convex polygon (MCP) and of the bivariate ellipse methods. 4. Variation between individuals and study areas contributed most to the total variance in home range size. Contrary to recent concerns over reliability, both KDE methods were remarkably efficient, robust and unbiased: 10 fixes per month, if collected over a standardized number of days, were sufficient for accurate estimates of home range size. However, the commonly used 95% isopleth should be avoided; we recommend using isopleths between 90 and 50%. 5. Using the same number of fixes does not guarantee unbiased home range estimates: statistical inferences differ with the number of days sampled, even if using KDE methods. 6. The MCP method was highly inefficient and results were subject to considerable and unpredictable biases. The bivariate ellipse was not the most reliable method at low sample sizes. 7. We conclude that effort should be directed at marking more individuals monitored over long periods at the expense of the sampling rate per individual. Statistical results are reliable only if the whole sampling regime is standardized. We derive practical guidelines for field studies and data analysis.

Animal home range use is a central focus of ecological research. However, how and why home range size varies between individuals is not well studied or understood for most species. We develop a hierarchical analytical approach--using generalized linear mixed-effects modeling of time series of home range sizes--that allows variance in home range size to be decomposed into components due to variation in temporal, spatial, and individual-level processes, also facilitating intra- and interspecific comparative analyses. We applied the approach to data from a roe deer population radiotracked in central Italy. Over multiple timescales, temporal variation is explained by photoperiod and climate and spatial variation by the distribution of habitat types and spatial variance in radiotracking error. Differences between individuals explained a substantial amount of variance in home range size, but only a relatively minor part was explained by the individual attributes of sex and age. We conclude that the choice of temporal scale at which data are collected and the definition of home range can significantly influence biological inference. We suggest that the appropriate choice of scale and definition requires a good understanding of the ecology and life history of the study species. Our findings contrast with several common assumptions about roe deer behavior.