Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34322323›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

Lots of movement, little progress: a review of reptile home range literature.

Matthew Crane, Inês Silva, Benjamin M Marshall, Colin T Strine

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 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

Matthew CraneConservation Ecology Program, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Bangkhuntien / Bangkok, Thailand.
Inês Silva(CASUS), Center for Advanced Systems Understanding, Görlitz, Germany.
Benjamin M MarshallSchool of Biology, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.
Colin T StrineSchool of Biology, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reptiles are the most species-rich terrestrial vertebrate group with a broad diversity of life history traits. Biotelemetry is an essential methodology for studying reptiles as it compensates for several limitations when studying their natural history. We evaluated trends in terrestrial reptile spatial ecology studies focusing upon quantifying home ranges for the past twenty years. We assessed 290 English-language reptile home range studies published from 2000-2019 via a structured literature review investigating publications' study location, taxonomic group, methodology, reporting, and analytical techniques. Substantial biases remain in both location and taxonomic groups in the literature, with nearly half of all studies (45%) originating from the USA. Snakes were most often studied, and crocodiles were least often studied, while testudines tended to have the greatest within study sample sizes. More than half of all studies lacked critical methodological details, limiting the number of studies for inclusion in future meta-analyses (55% of studies lacked information on individual tracking durations, and 51% lacked sufficient information on the number of times researchers recorded positions). Studies continue to rely on outdated methods to quantify space-use (including Minimum Convex Polygons and Kernel Density Estimators), often failing to report subtleties regarding decisions that have substantial impact on home range area estimates. Moving forward researchers can select a suite of appropriate analytical techniques tailored to their research question (dynamic Brownian Bridge Movement Models for within sample interpolation, and autocorrelated Kernel Density Estimators for beyond sample extrapolation). Only 1.4% of all evaluated studies linked to available and usable telemetry data, further hindering scientific consensus. We ultimately implore herpetologists to adopt transparent reporting practices and make liberal use of open data platforms to maximize progress in the field of reptile spatial ecology.

Indexed as

BiotelemetryHome rangeOpen scienceReproducibilityReptilesSpace useSpatial ecology

Identifiers

PMID34322323
PMCPMC8300531

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.