2018
DOI: 10.1002/wsb.924
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimated mink home ranges using various home‐range estimators

Abstract: Although the American mink (Neovison vison) is a fairly common and valued semiaquatic furbearing species, studies evaluating space use by mink in North America are scarce. We implanted radiotransmitters in 8 male and 6 female mink living within 3 km of the Hudson River between Hudson Falls and Northumberland Dam, New York, USA, during 2009-2011 and estimated Minimum Convex Polygon (MCP), Minimum Bounding Circle (MBC), and Kernel Density Estimate (KDE) home ranges. We also estimated an Ecological Home Range (EH… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
19
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
(62 reference statements)
1
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Due to the complexity and diversity of home range estimation methods, and the fact that there is no standardized method evaluation (Fieberg and Börger 2012;Signer and Balkenhol 2015), it is necessary to carefully match speci c objectives with appropriate methods in analyzing home range sizes (Halbrook and Petach 2018). Previous studies con rmed that LoCoH was more preferable compared with MCP and KDE, as this model produced lower statistical error rates and could more realistically describe home range size (Getz et al 2007 terrain features would tend to prefer α-LoCoH method, but these features pose no obstacles to gorals movements; on the contrary, they were important shelters for reducing predation risk.…”
Section: Methodological Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the complexity and diversity of home range estimation methods, and the fact that there is no standardized method evaluation (Fieberg and Börger 2012;Signer and Balkenhol 2015), it is necessary to carefully match speci c objectives with appropriate methods in analyzing home range sizes (Halbrook and Petach 2018). Previous studies con rmed that LoCoH was more preferable compared with MCP and KDE, as this model produced lower statistical error rates and could more realistically describe home range size (Getz et al 2007 terrain features would tend to prefer α-LoCoH method, but these features pose no obstacles to gorals movements; on the contrary, they were important shelters for reducing predation risk.…”
Section: Methodological Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While covering large areas with widely spaced traps can remove mobile males with large home ranges [ 45 ], it is likely to miss animals that travel less. Female minks usually have smaller home ranges than males [ 24 , 26 , 46 , 47 , 48 ]. The combination of reduced trappability of females due to their movement patterns with the fact that male mink mate with multiple females suggest that trapping activities aimed at population reduction should target females.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During the last century, an extensive body of literature has been directed to describe and quantify biases arising from methods used (see e.g., Hayne 1949, 1950, Worton 1989, Harris et al 1990, Seaman et al 1999, Andrzejewski 2002, Laver and Kelly 2008, Fleming et al 2018, 2019). Comparisons of different estimators for home ranges have suggested strengths of each under different conditions (e.g., sample size, the time between measurements and autocorrelation) (Hayne 1949, Van Winkle 1975, Rose 1982, Worton 1987, Plotz et al 2016, Halbrook and Petach 2018, Noonan et al 2019, Vieira et al 2019). Further spatial and temporal heterogeneities have also been investigated (e.g., ecotypes, physical boundaries) and shown to have an effect (Ouellette and Cardille 2011, Halbrook and Petach 2018, Wszola et al 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%