ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2020
Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Too Few, Too Many, or Just Right? Optimizing Sample Sizes for Population-Level Inferences in Animal Tracking Projects.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Review
- Shelter Distribution and Type Affect Space Use of a Desert Reptile.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Ranging behaviours across ecological and anthropogenic disturbance gradients: a pan-African perspective of giraffe (Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Home range ecology of Indian rock pythons (Python molurus) in Sathyamangalam and Mudumalai Tiger Reserves, Tamil Nadu, Southern India.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Diversity and Relative Abundance of Ungulates and Other Medium and Large Mammals in Flooded Forests in the Dahomey Gap (Togo).Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Precipitation, vegetation productivity, and human impacts control home range size of elephants in dryland systems in northern Namibia.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Movement ecology of vulnerable lowland tapirs between areas of varying human disturbance.Movement ecology · 2022Article
- Animal movement ecology in India: insights from 2011-2021 and prospective for the future.PeerJ · 2022Review
- Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
79 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurately quantifying species' area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area-based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home-range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home-range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied block cross-validation to quantify bias in empirical home-range estimates. Area requirements of mammals <10 kg were underestimated by a mean approximately15%, and species weighing approximately100 kg were underestimated by approximately50% on average. Thus, we found area estimation was subject to autocorrelation-induced bias that was worse for large species. Combined with the fact that extinction risk increases as body mass increases, the allometric scaling of bias we observed suggests the most threatened species are also likely to be those with the least accurate home-range estimates. As a correction, we tested whether data thinning or autocorrelation-informed home-range estimation minimized the scaling effect of autocorrelation on area estimates. Data thinning required an approximately93% data loss to achieve statistical independence with 95% confidence and was, therefore, not a viable solution. In contrast, autocorrelation-informed home-range estimation resulted in consistently accurate estimates irrespective of mass. When relating body mass to home range size, we detected that correcting for autocorrelation resulted in a scaling exponent significantly >1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changed substantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.