Abstract # 170:

Scheduled for Friday, June 21, 2013 07:00 PM-09:00 PM: Session 21 (SG Foyer ABC) Poster Presentation


S. J. Hankerson1,2 and J. M. Dietz2
1University of St. Thomas, Department of Psychology, St. Paul, MN 55105, USA, 2University of Maryland, College Park
     Home range size can be affected by many abiotic, habitat, and social factors, but estimates can also be influenced by choice of home range method and software. Previous research examines effects of method on home range and core area estimates, but few reports are available on the impact of software choice on calculations. Here, we compared home range and core area estimates for three commonly used software packages on 19 years of spatial movement data for 15 groups of golden lion tamarins. Results showed a lack of difference between the outputs of the Home Range Extension package in ArcView 3.x and adehabitat in R for both home range and core area estimates (p=.086). Home range estimates using the Animal Movement Extension in ArcView 3.x were not different from the other two programs when using the hLSCV bandwidth method (p=.147, p= .091). Core area results differed greatly in size and disjointedness between Animal Movement Extension and the other two programs (p<.001). The Animal Movement Extension produced core areas that were small but intact while the other two programs produced core areas that tended to be larger but more highly fractured. While the programs used produced comparable estimates of home range size, care needs to be taken when selecting a program for estimating core area use and when comparing results obtained from studies that used different programs.