Home range scaling: intraspecific and comparative trends

Abstract

Intraspecific and intrasexual variation in home range size, body mass and ecological productivity is examined in three selected species of Carnivora (Felis rufus: Canis latrans; Ursus americanus), reflecting different diets. We then compare the intraspecific results with prior cross-species studies. Home range size and body mass inFelis rufus are positively and significantly correlated, similar to other comparative studies. For both intraspecific and intrasexual analyses of all three species, home range size and latitude are strongly correlated. Home range size scales with latitude more steeply as the proportion of meat increases in the diet of each species. That is, the slope of home range size on latitude is greatest in the meat-eatingFelis rufus followed by a shallower slope in the omnivorousCanis latrans and the most shallow slope in the frugivorous/folivorousUrsus americanus. These differences in slope are consistent with models of trophic level biomass change with variation in productivity, and parallel the dietary differences observed in cross-species differences in home range.

Ranging behaviour and time budgets of male wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus in different habitats and seasons

“…Similar responses to the addition of extra food have been reported in other mammals (Boutin 1990), including rodents (Ims 1987;Jones 1990;Taitt 1981). These studies, together with geographic variation in home range within species, with longitude (Gompper and Gittleman 1991) and latitude (Harestad and Bunnell 1979), lend support to a strong negative correlation between range area and habitat productivity.…”

“…Many factors may, therefore, be expected to influence the area required by individuals of a species, for example, site productivity, diet, body mass, sex, reproductive status and season. Indeed, intra-specific variation in home range area may be extensive, both temporally (Bubela et al 1991) and spatially, within (Mares and Lacher 1987) and between (Fridell and Litvaitis 1991;Gompper and Gittleman 1991) populations.…”

The effect of season, sex and feeding style on home range area versus body mass scaling in temperate ruminants

“…Considerable effort has been made to determine how the home range area (HR) of mammals scales with body mass (M) for a wide range of taxonomic groups (HR=<I>aM</I><I><SUP>b</SUP></I>; McNab 1963; Harestad and Bunnell 1979;Damuth 1981;Mace and Harvey 1983;Lindstedt et al 1986;Swihart 1986;Swihart et al 1988;Gompper and Gittleman 1991). For energetic demands the scaling coefficient (b) is expected to be 0.75 (McNab 1963).…”

Home ranges, habitat and body mass: simple correlates of home range size in ungulates

“…The variation in home range size among [45] and within species [46] was originally considered to be a function of metabolic rate. Accordingly, the scaling between body mass and home range size should be comparable to the body mass scaling of forage intake rate of approximately 0.75 at the logarithmic scale [33,47,48].…”