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

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

SUBMITTER: Monterroso P 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3728965 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature