Estimating home-range size: when to include a third dimension?

Authors

  • Pedro Monterroso,

    Corresponding author
    1. Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
    2. Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos (IREC CSIC-UCLM-JCCM), Ciudad Real, Spain
    • CIBIO Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Inbio – Laboratório Associado, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Vairão, Portugal
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Neftalí Sillero,

    1. Centro de Investigação em Ciências Geo-Espaciais (CICGE), Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Ciências, Observatório Astronómico Prof. Manuel de Barros, Vila Nova de Gaia, Porto, Portugal
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Luís Miguel Rosalino,

    1. Universidade de Lisboa, Centro de Biologia Ambiental, Faculdade de Ciências de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
    2. Laboratório de Ecologia Isotópica/CENA/Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brasil
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Filipa Loureiro,

    1. Universidade de Lisboa, Centro de Biologia Ambiental, Faculdade de Ciências de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Paulo Célio Alves

    1. CIBIO Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Inbio – Laboratório Associado, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Vairão, Portugal
    2. Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
    3. University of Montana Wildlife Biology Program, College of Forestry and Conservation, Missoula, Montana
    Search for more papers by this author

Correspondence

Pedro Monterroso, CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto. Campus Agrário de Vairão, 4485 - 661 Vairão, Portugal. Tel: (+351) 252660428; Fax: (+315) 252661780; E-mail: pmonterroso@cibio.up.pt

Abstract

Most studies dealing with home ranges consider the study areas as if they were totally flat, working only in two dimensions, when in reality they are irregular surfaces displayed in three dimensions. By disregarding the third dimension (i.e., topography), the size of home ranges underestimates the surface actually occupied by the animal, potentially leading to misinterpretations of the animals' ecological needs. We explored the influence of considering the third dimension in the estimation of home-range size by modeling the variation between the planimetric and topographic estimates at several spatial scales. Our results revealed that planimetric approaches underestimate home-range size estimations, which range from nearly zero up to 22%. The difference between planimetric and topographic estimates of home-ranges sizes produced highly robust models using the average slope as the sole independent factor. Moreover, our models suggest that planimetric estimates in areas with an average slope of 16.3° (±0.4) or more will incur in errors ≥5%. Alternatively, the altitudinal range can be used as an indicator of the need to include topography in home-range estimates. Our results confirmed that home-range estimates could be significantly biased when topography is disregarded. We suggest that study areas where home-range studies will be performed should firstly be scoped for its altitudinal range, which can serve as an indicator for the need for posterior use of average slope values to model the surface area used and/or available for the studied animals.

Ancillary