Back

Estimating population range distributions from animal tracking data

Anand, G.; Fleming, C. H.; Krishnan, A. G.; Lamb, C. T.; Medici, E. P.; Prugh, L. R.; Calabrese, J. M.; Fagan, W. F.

2025-09-06 ecology
10.1101/2025.09.02.673746 bioRxiv
Show abstract

O_LIQuantifying the space requirements of a population is a fundamental problem in spatial ecology, particularly as it relates to the identification of important utilization areas and the designation of protected areas for conservation and wildlife management. C_LIO_LITraditionally, population space use estimation techniques scale up from the individual to the population level by aggregating individual animal tracks and then using a single pooled distribution estimator like minimum convex polygons (MCP) or kernel density estimation (KDE). These techniques fail to account for the high levels of temporal autocorrelation in modern tracking datasets, and estimates are often sensitive to the number of individuals sampled. C_LIO_LIWe introduce a new population kernel density estimator (PKDE) that accounts for temporal autocorrelation in tracking data, propagates uncertainty from the individual to the population level, accounts for inter-individual variation when scaling up to the population level, and is not highly sensitive to the number of individuals tracked. Through a combination of simulated data and empirical GPS tracking datasets from three species: (a) grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis); (b) lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris); and (c) bobcat (Lynx rufus), we demonstrate that PKDE produces minimally biased estimates of population-level space use compared to conventional methods like MCP and KDE. C_LIO_LIThe use of conventional estimators can lead to substantial underestimation of population space usage, making them unsuitable for area-based conservation planning. The statistically efficient PKDE estimator provides relatively unbiased estimates of space use with fewer individuals sampled. This method has been made available as a function in the ctmm R package. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
22.2%
2
Movement Ecology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.2%
3
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.7%
50% of probability mass above
4
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
5
Ecological Applications
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.5%
7
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.0%
8
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 11%
3.0%
9
Landscape Ecology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.3%
10
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.0%
11
Journal of Applied Ecology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.0%
12
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
13
Ecosphere
53 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
14
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
15
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 60%
1.7%
16
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 35%
1.5%
17
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 54%
0.9%
18
Ecology Letters
121 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
19
Journal of Animal Ecology
63 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
20
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
Animal Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
22
Conservation Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
23
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
24
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
25
Bioinformatics Advances
184 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
26
Ecology
70 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%