What Is the Proper Method to Delineate Home Range of an Animal Using Today’s Advanced GPS Telemetry Systems: The Initial Step

Abstract

The formal concept of an animal’s home range, or derivations thereof, has been around for over half a century (Burt 1943). Within this time frame there have been countless published studies reporting home range estimators with no consensus for any single technique (Withey et al., 2001; Laver & Kelly 2008). Recent advances in global positioning system (GPS) technology for monitoring home range and movements of wildlife have resulted in locations that are numerous, more precise than very high frequency (VHF) systems, and often are autocorrelated in space and time. Along with these advances, researchers are challenged with understanding the proper methods to assess size of home range or migratory movements of various species. The most acceptable method of home-range analysis with uncorrelated locations, kernel-density estimation (KDE), has been lauded by some for use with GPS technology (Kie et al., 2010) while criticized by others for errors in proper bandwidth selection (Hemson et al., 2005) and violation of independence assumptions (Swihart & Slade 1985b). The issue of autocorrelation or independence in location data has been dissected repeatedly by users of KDE for decades (Swihart & Slade 1985a; Worton 1995, but see Fieberg 2007) and can be especially problematic with data collected with GPS technology. Recently, alternative methods were developed to address the issues with bandwidth selection for KDE and autocorrelated GPS data. Brownian bridge movement models (BBMM), which incorporate time between successive locations into the utilization distribution estimation, were recommended for use with serially correlated locations collected with GPS technology (Bullard 1999; Horne et al., 2007). The wrapped Cauchy distribution KDE was also introduced to incorporate a temporal dimension into the KDE (Keating & Cherry 2009). Improvements were developed in bandwidth selection for KDE