A meta-analysis of home range studies in the context of trophic levels: Implications for policy-based conservation

Abstract

Home ranges have been widely-used as ecological tools, though using home range estimates in decision-support for conservation biology is a relatively new idea. However, trophic levels are rarely taken into consideration when estimating home range. This lapse could present issues when interpreting past studies, especially in policy-based conservation. The objectives of this study were to survey the current literature, to critically analyse published articles with home range analyses, and to compare home range size by species’ trophic level. We predicted that animals residing in higher trophic levels would have significantly larger home ranges than animals occupying lower trophic levels. We found that terrestrial carnivores had larger home ranges than terrestrial herbivores, though terrestrial mesocarnivores had the largest home ranges. We also found that aquatic herbivores had larger home ranges than both aquatic carnivores and aquatic mesocarnivores. Our results are important to consider for planning and management sectors, to avoid the implementation of ineffective conservation policies.

Imperfect detection alters the outcome of management strategies for protected areas

“…A small number of large protected areas may allow species to exist at higher population abundances, thereby reducing extinction risk (Mccarthy et al ). This issue of home range may be especially true of apex predators, which may require larger home ranges than species in lower trophic levels (Mcnab ; Fauvelle et al ). However, having a small number of protected areas may increase stochasticity, demographic and otherwise, potentially decreasing the number of species protected through extinctions (Whittaker & Fernández‐Palacios ).…”

Evaluating potential effects of solar power facilities on wildlife from an animal behavior perspective

“…Solar facilities might alter cues and predation risk assessment or disrupt normal search patterns via habitat change or construction of novel obstacles. Therefore, we must understand a species' trophic level (Fauvelle, Diepstraten, & Jessen, 2017;Moore-O'Leary et al, 2017) and the mechanisms underpinning its foraging decisions (e.g., olfactory cues; Schmitt, Shuttleworth, Ward, & Shrader, 2018) to estimate the impact of landscape alteration caused by solar facilities. Spatial knowledge, which is critical in foraging behavior, increases individual fitness (Spencer, 2012), and changes in spatial distribution of resources may impact species depending on their capacity to update such information.…”

Information use during movement regulates how fragmentation and loss of habitat affect body size

“…The model is therefore expected to be relevant at extents that approximate the home range of the (largest) species of interest and a grain size approximating the average grain of perception. In nature, home range sizes increase with body size, trophic level and are larger for flying organisms [28,73,74]. However, home range size also depends on the local environmental conditions and habitat configuration [73,75], and if these change, intraspecific changes in body size can be equally anticipated.…”

“…In nature, home range sizes increase with body size, trophic level and are larger for flying organisms [28,73,74]. However, home range size also depends on the local environmental conditions and habitat configuration [73,75], and if these change, intraspecific changes in body size can be equally anticipated.…”