Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33954027›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

A fresh look at an old concept: home-range estimation in a tidy world.

Johannes Signer, John R Fieberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Johannes SignerWildlife Sciences, Faculty of Forestry and Forest Ecology, University of Goettingen, Göttingen, Germany.
John R FiebergDepartment of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A rich set of statistical techniques has been developed over the last several decades to estimate the spatial extent of animal home ranges from telemetry data, and new methods to estimate home ranges continue to be developed. Here we investigate home-range estimation from a computational point of view and aim to provide a general framework for computing home ranges, independent of specific estimators. We show how such a workflow can help to make home-range estimation easier and more intuitive, and we provide a series of examples illustrating how different estimators can be compared easily. This allows one to perform a sensitivity analysis to determine the degree to which the choice of estimator influences qualitative and quantitative conclusions. By providing a standardized implementation of home-range estimators, we hope to equip researchers with the tools needed to explore how estimator choice influences answers to biologically meaningful questions.

Indexed as

Animal trackingHome rangeOccurrence distributionRange distributionReproducibilityRstatSpace useTelemetry

Identifiers

PMID33954027
PMCPMC8048401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.