Quantifying Wildlife Home Range Changes

Abstract

In wildlife research, telemetry data are often converted to home ranges. The concept of an animal’s home range can be defined as the “. . . area traversed by the individual in its normal activities of food gathering, mating and caring for young” (Burt, 1943, pg. 351). The delineation and analysis of home ranges is common in wildlife research, and several reviews of home range studies exist (Harris et al., 1990; Laver & Kelly, 2008). Site fidelity (Edwards et al., 2009), population abundance (Trewhella et al., 1988), prey-predatory abundance (Village, 1982), impacts of human disturbance (Apps et al., 2004; Berland et al., 2008; Frair et al., 2008; Rushton et al., 2000; Thiel et al., 2008), feeding strategies (Hulbert et al., 1996) and ecological correlates of critical habitat (Tufto, 1996; Fisher, 2000) are examples of topics addressed using home range as the analysis unit. Home ranges are typically delineated with polygons. Locations within the polygon are considered part of the animal’s home range, and locations outside are not. As evidenced by the large number of home range studies, such binary approaches have been useful. However, landscape use by wildlife is spatially heterogeneous (Johnson et al., 1992; Kie et al., 2002). Edges (Yahner, 1988), disturbances (i.e., roads and forest harvesting) (Berland et al., 2008), and patch size (Kie et al., 2002) are just a few landscape features that cause heterogeneity in the geographic distribution of wildlife within home ranges. To account for spatial heterogeneity within a home range, core areas, defined as those used most frequently and likely to contain homesites, along with areas of refuge and dependable food sources (Burt, 1943) are sometimes delineated to create categories of habitat use (e.g., Samuel et al., 1985). Characterizing the spatial variation in wildlife distributions should improve our understanding of habitat use, especially in conjunction with the growing spatial extents of wildlife data sets. Arguably, the two most common approaches to demarcating a home range are the minimum convex polygon and kernel density estimation (Harris et al., 1990). The minimum convex polygon tends to overestimate home range size by including all the unused areas between outermost locations and increasing in area with large sample sizes (Borger et al., 2006a; Katajisto & Moilanen, 2006). As such, kernel density estimation is often preferred when demarcating a home range (Seaman & Powell, 1996; Marzluff et al., 2004; Borger et al., 2006a; Laver & Kelly, 2008). Although used to delineate binary home ranges, kernel density estimation generates a surface of values within the home range, which is useful for characterizing spatial variability in wildlife intensity. Kernel density surfaces are often referred to as utilization distributions as they give values that indicate higher and lower utilization of locations by individuals.