Back

Home range size and population density are negatively correlated in wild felids globally

Bugaud, N.; Anile, S.; Moraru, A.; Devillard, S.

2026-05-18 ecology
10.64898/2026.05.16.725626 bioRxiv
Show abstract

AimHome range size is a fundamental aspect of animal spatial ecology, and understanding the factors that shape it is important for conservation purposes. Several hypotheses, based on energy needs or competition, assume that home range size negatively correlates with population density. However, this pattern has been little investigated on a global scale, and it remains unclear whether it would stand at both intra- and interspecific levels. To fill this gap, we conducted a global exploration of this relationship at the level of an animal family. Location: Global. Time period: Contemporary. Major taxa studied: Wild Felidae. MethodsIndividual home range size records (n = 1022) and population density estimates (n = 1061) were retrieved from the literature for 23 felid species across the world. We first investigated the interspecific relationship by modelling the median home range size of a species as a function of its median population density. To study the intraspecific relationship, we spatially merged data points based on their spatial or temporal proximity. We then applied a mixed-effects linear model using species as a random factor. ResultsWe found that home range size was negatively associated with population density, at both interspecific (-1.323 {+/-} 0.180, p < 0.001) and intraspecific levels (-0.569 {+/-} 0.201 to - 0.537 {+/-} 0.201 depending on the merging approach, p < 0.01). Landscape features were also predictors of home range size, without confounding the effect of population density. Main conclusionsSeveral processes likely govern the relationship between home range size and population density: differences in body mass between species may drive the interspecific relationship, whereas the intraspecific pattern is probably explained by conspecific competition. Although more research is needed to quantify their relative contribution, our study highlights a worldwide ecological pattern that exists at multiple biological levels in the wild.

Matching journals

The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.1%
2
Animal Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
3
Journal of Animal Ecology
63 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 25%
4.8%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.5%
6
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.1%
7
Movement Ecology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
8
Oecologia
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
9
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.9%
10
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
11
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
12
Journal of Applied Ecology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.7%
13
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.4%
14
Conservation Genetics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
15
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
16
Landscape Ecology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
17
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
18
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
19
Oikos
74 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
20
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
21
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
22
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.6%
23
Animal Behaviour
65 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
24
Ecology Letters
121 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.5%
25
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
26
Biodiversity and Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
27
Ibis
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
28
Ecological Entomology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
29
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
30
Biotropica
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%