A review of home-range studies on Australian terrestrial vertebrates: Adequacy of studies, testing of hypotheses, and relevance to conservation and international studies

34Citations
Citations of this article
50Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Describing the spatial requirements of animals is central to understanding their ecology and conservation needs. I reviewed 115 studies describing the home ranges of Australian terrestrial vertebrates that were published during 2001-12. Understanding the features that characterise best practice can guide future studies. I aimed to: evaluate the adequacy of these studies, examine the use of current analysis techniques, examine the application of home-range knowledge to species' management, and examine hypotheses that seek to explain the size and location of home ranges. The reviewed studies were unevenly distributed across taxa with a majority (68%) involving mammals compared with birds (12%), reptiles (19%) and frogs (1%). Many studies had various shortcomings, suggesting that they had not fully described home ranges; many (41%) involved 10 or fewer individuals, ≤50 locations per individual (44%), and spanned periods of ≤3 months (46%). Studies of short duration risk underestimating home-range area and overlooking seasonal habitat use. Global positioning system telemetry was used in 10% of Australian studies. Many were also of short duration. Despite frequent criticism in the literature, the Minimum Convex Polygon was the most frequently used home-range estimator (84% of studies), followed by the Fixed Kernel (45% of studies). Applying knowledge of home ranges appears to be underappreciated, with only 39% of studies explicitly aiming to address management or conservation issues. Only three studies tested hypotheses that may explain home-range characteristics. Resource (food and shelter) distribution and, in one case, its heterogeneity, shaped home-range characteristics. I found that most studies use the term 'home range' in an indiscriminate way. Only 11% of studies within the international literature used qualifying terms (e.g. seasonal, annual). Tracking period is shown to influence home-range estimates. Therefore, I recommend that qualifying terms be used more frequently to avoid confusion when referring to animal home ranges.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Goldingay, R. L. (2015). A review of home-range studies on Australian terrestrial vertebrates: Adequacy of studies, testing of hypotheses, and relevance to conservation and international studies. Australian Journal of Zoology. CSIRO. https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO14060

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free