Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41793168›Full record

ReviewEcology2026

Clarifying space use concepts in ecology: Range vs. occurrence distributions.

Jesse M Alston, Christen H Fleming, Michael J Noonan, Marlee A Tucker, Inês Silva, Cody Folta, Thomas S B Akre, Abdullahi H Ali, Jerrold L Belant, Dean Beyer and 34 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Wild canids and felids differ in their reliance on reused travel routeways.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

44 authors.

Jesse M AlstonCenter for Advanced Systems Understanding, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Görlitz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5309-7625
Christen H FlemingDepartment of Biology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9356-6518
Michael J NoonanDepartment of Biology, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4512-0535
Marlee A TuckerDepartment of Environmental Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Inês SilvaCenter for Advanced Systems Understanding, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Görlitz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4850-6193
Cody FoltaDepartment of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA.
Thomas S B AkreConservation Ecology Center, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, Virginia, USA.
Abdullahi H AliHirola Conservation Programme, Garissa, Kenya.
Jerrold L BelantDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Dean BeyerMichigan Department of Natural Resources, Marquette, Michigan, USA.
Niels BlaumPlant Ecology and Nature Conservation, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Katrin Böhning-GaeseSenckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Frankfurt, Germany.
Rogério Cunha de PaulaNational Research Center for Carnivores Conservation, Chico Mendes Institute for the Conservation of Biodiversity, Atibaia, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1943-8320
Jasja DekkerDierecologie B.V, Arnhem, Netherlands.
Jonathan Drescher-LehmanConservation Ecology Center, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, Virginia, USA.
Nina FarwigConservation Ecology, Department of Biology, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Claudia FichtelBehavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Unit, German Primate Center, Göttingen, Germany.
Christina FischerFaunistics and Wildlife Conservation, Department of Agriculture, Ecotrophology, and Landscape Development, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Bernburg, Germany.
Adam T FordDepartment of Biology, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2509-7980
René JanssenBionet Natuuronderzoek, Stein, Netherlands.
Florian JeltschPlant Ecology and Nature Conservation, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4670-6469
Peter M KappelerBehavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Unit, German Primate Center, Göttingen, Germany.
Scott D LaPointBlack Rock Forest, Cornwall, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5499-6777
A Catherine MarkhamDepartment of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA.
E Patricia MediciLowland Tapir Conservation Initiative (LTCI), Instituto de Pesquisas Ecologicas (IPE) IUCN SSC Tapir Specialist Group (TSG), Campo Grande, Brazil.
Ronaldo Gonçalves MoratoNational Research Center for Carnivores Conservation, Chico Mendes Institute for the Conservation of Biodiversity, Atibaia, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8304-9779
Ran NathanMovement Ecology Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Edmond J. Safra Campus, Jerusalem, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5733-6715
Kirk A OlsonWildlife Conservation Society, Mongolia Program, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
Bruce D PattersonIntegrative Research Center, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2249-7260
Tyler R PetroeljeMichigan Department of Natural Resources, Marquette, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4957-6732
Emiliano Esterci RamalhoInstituto de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá, Tefé, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2088-0415
Sascha RösnerConservation Ecology, Department of Biology, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Luiz Gustavo Rodrigues Oliveira-SantosUniversidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9632-5173
Dana G SchaboConservation Ecology, Department of Biology, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Nuria SelvaInstitute of Nature Conservation Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland.
Agnieszka SergielInstitute of Nature Conservation Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland.
Orr SpiegelFaculty of Life Sciences, School of Zoology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8941-3175
Wiebke UllmannPlant Ecology and Nature Conservation, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Filip ZiębaTatra National Park, Zakopane, Poland.
Tomasz Zwijacz-KozicaTatra National Park, Zakopane, Poland.
George WittemyerDepartment of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1640-5355
William F FaganDepartment of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA.
Thomas MüllerSenckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Frankfurt, Germany.
Justin M CalabreseCenter for Advanced Systems Understanding, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Görlitz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0575-6408

Funding

Bundesministerium für Forschung, Technologie und RaumfahrtDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG-GRK 2118/1National Science Foundation eMB 2527228National Science Foundation IIBR 1915347Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2021-02758Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wissenschaft, Kultur und Tourismus
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantifying animal movements is necessary for answering a wide array of research questions in ecology and conservation biology. Consequently, ecologists have made considerable efforts to identify the best way to estimate an animal's home range, and many methods of estimating home ranges have arisen over the past half a century. Most of these methods fall into two distinct categories of estimators that have only recently been described in statistical detail: those that measure range distributions (methods such as kernel density estimation that quantify the long-run behavior of a movement process that features restricted space use) and those that measure occurrence distributions (methods such as Brownian bridge movement models and the Correlated Random Walk Library that quantify uncertainty in an animal movement path during a specific period of observation). In this paper, we use theory, simulations, and empirical analysis to demonstrate the importance of appropriately using these two categories of distributions and their estimators. Conflating range and occurrence distributions can have serious consequences for ecological inference and conservation practice. For example, in most situations, home ranges estimated using estimators of occurrence distributions are too small, and this problem is exacerbated by ongoing improvements in tracking technology that enable more frequent and more accurate data on animal movements. We encourage researchers to use estimators of range distributions to quantify home ranges and estimators of occurrence distributions to answer other questions in movement ecology, such as when and where an animal crossed a linear feature, visited a location of interest, or interacted with other animals.

Indexed as

Animal DistributionEcologyHoming BehaviorAnimalsEcosystemModels, BiologicalBrownian bridge movement modelhome rangekernel density estimationKrigingmovement ecologymovement modelspace usestochastic process modelsutilization distribution

Identifiers

PMID41793168
PMCPMC12966954

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.