Intra-specific variation and taxa- sampling affects the home range - body mass relationship

• Autorzy: Nilsen E. B. , Linnell J.D.C.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The relationship between home range size and body mass is a frequently studied allometric relationship. However, the results of various studies differ greatly, leading to much debate about the nature of the relationship. We argue that this confusion is not surprising, due to intra-specific variation in home range size caused by ecological variability rather than by body mass. By random resampling of different studies from within 16 Carnivora species, we show that the scaling exponent ranged from 0.30–1.54 depending on the particular studies included for each species. Of these exponents, 10% did not contain 0.75 within their confidence limits, and 5.5% did not contain 1.00. Furthermore, by randomly sub-sampling 16 species from a total sample of 58 species, we found that the scaling exponent varied between 0.18 and 2.76. Of these exponents, 42.2% did not contain 0.75 within their confidence limits, whereas 16.8% did not contain 1.00. Therefore, we strongly recommend that greater consideration be paid to intra-specific ecological variability and taxa selection when dealing with both allometry and cross-species life history studies.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Theriologica
• Rocznik: 2006
• Tom: 51
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.225-232,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Nilsen E. B.

• University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1066 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway

autor

Linnell J.D.C.

Bibliografia

• Bekoff M., Daniels T. J and Gittleman J. L. 1984. Life-history patterns and the comparative ecology of carnivores. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15: 191–232.
• Brainerd S. M. 1985. Reproductive ecology of bobcats and lynx in western Montana. MSc thesis, University of Montana: 1–85.
• Carbone C. and Gittleman J. L. 2002. A common rule for the scaling of carnivore density. Science 295: 2273–2276.
• Carbone C, Mace G. M., Roberts S. C. and MacDonald D. W. 1999. Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores. Nature 402: 286–288.
• Du Toit J. T. 1990. Home range — body mass relations: a field study on African browsing ruminants. Oecologia 85: 301–303.
• Gaston K. L. and Blackburn T. M. 2000. Pattern and process in macroecology. Blackwell Science, London: 1–392.
• Gittleman J. L. 1985. Carnivore body size: Ecological and taxonomic correlates. Oecologia 67: 540–554.
• Gittleman J. L. and Harvey P. H. 1982. Carnivore home-range size, metabolic needs and ecology. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 10: 57–63.
• Gittleman J. L and Purvis A. 1998. Body size and species-richness in carnivores and primates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B-Biological Sciences 265: 113–119.
• Gompper M. E. and Gittleman J. L. 1991. Home range scaling: intraspecific and comparative trends. Oecologia 87: 343–348.
• Grant J. W. A., Chapman C. A. and Richardson K. S. 1992. Defended versus undefended home range size of carnivores, ungulates and primates. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 31: 149–161.
• Grigione M. M., Beier P., Hopkins R. A., Neal D., Padley W. D., Schonewald C. M. and Johnson M. L. 2002. Ecological and allometric determinants of home-range size for mountain lions (Puma concolor). Animal Conservation 5: 317–324.
• Harestad A. S. and Bunnell F. L. 1979. Home range and body weight — a reevaluation. Ecology 60: 389–402.
• Haskell J. P., Ritchie M. E. and Olff H. 2002. Fractal geometry predicts varying body size scaling relationships for mammal and bird home ranges. Nature 418: 527–529.
• Herfindal I., Linnell J. D. C, Odden J., Nilsen E. B. and Andersen R. 2005. Prey density and environmental productivity explain variation in Eurasian lynx home range size at two spatial scales. Journal of Zoology, London 265: 63–71.
• Isler K., Barbour A. D. and Martin R. D. 2002. Line-fitting by rotation: A non-parametric method for bivariate allometric analysis. Biometrie Journal 44: 289–304.
• Jetz W., Carbone C, Fulford J. and Brown J. H. 2004. The scaling of animal space use. Science 306: 266–268.
• Kelt D. A. and Van Vuren D. 1999. Energetic constraints and the relationship between body size and home range area in mammals. Ecology 80: 337–340.
• Kelt D. A. and Van Vuren D. 2001. The ecology and macroecology of mammalian home range area. The American Naturalist 157: 637–645.
• Lindstedt S. L., Miller B. J. and Buskirk S. W. 1986. Home range, time, and body size in mammals. Ecology 67: 413–418.
• Lovari S., Valier P. and Lucchi M. R. 1994. Ranging behaviour and activity of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in relation to environmental variables, in a Mediterranean mixed pinewood. Journal of Zoology, London 232: 323–339.
• McLoughlin P. D. and Ferguson S. H. 2000. A hierarchical pattern of limiting factors helps explain variation in home range. Écoscience 7: 123–130.
• McLoughlin P. D., Ferguson S. H. and Messier F. 2000. Intraspecific variation in home range overlap with habitat quality: A comparison among brown bear populations. Evolutionary Ecology 14: 39–60.
• McNab B. K. 1963. Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. The American Naturalist 47: 133–140.
• Meiri S., Dayan T. and Simberloff D. 2004. Carnivores, biases and Bergmann’s rule. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 81: 579–588.
• Mysterud A., Pèrez-Barbería F. J. and Gordon I. J. 2001. The effect of season, sex and feeding style on home range area versus body mass scaling in temperate ruminants. Oecologia 127: 30–39.
• Nilsen E. B., Herfindal I. and Linnell J. D. C. 2005. Can intra-specific variation in carnivore home-range size be explained using remote sensing estimates of environmental productivity? Ecoscience 12: 68–75.
• Nunn C. L. and Barton R. A. 2000. Allometric slopes and independent contrasts: a comparative test of Kleiber’s law in primates ranging patterns. American Naturalist 156: 519–533.
• Powell R. A. 2000. Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators. [In: Research techniques in animal ecology: Controversies and consequences. L. Boitani and T. Fuller, eds]. Columbia University Press, New York: 65–110.
• Reiss M. J. 1989. The allometry of growth and reproduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1–200.
• Riska B. 1991. Regression-models in evolutionary allometry. The American Naturalist 138: 283–299.
• Schmidt-Nielsen K. 1984. Scaling: Why is animal size so important? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1–256.
• Silva M. and Downing J. A. 1995. CRC Handbook of mammalian body masses. CRC Press, Boca Raton: 1–359.
• Tigas L. A., Van Vuren D. H. and Sauvajot R. M. 2002. Behavioral responses of bobcats and coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors in urban environments. Biological Conservation 108: 299–306.
• Worton B. J. 1987. A review of models of home range for animal movement. Ecological Modelling 38: 277–298.