BROADCASTS.com

Published: Feb. 25, 2021, 9:03 p.m.

Home ranges have occupied the Wildlife Management research and literature for decades; they are the bread-and-butter of most species accounts and textbooks. Various software exists computing Minimum Convex Polygons (MCPs), Kernel estimators etc. However, the validity, repeatability and transparency of these methods have been questioned by Signer et al. (2015) and others for years, while the U.S. Endangered Species ACT (ESA) or virtually any other legislation hardly use them anyways.

\n

Here I elaborate on sense and mostly non-sense of 'modern' home range work and why it fails in the wider ecology of the species during the Anthropocene when space is finite and widely used up by human industrial-related development.

\n

Citations (in reverse alphabetical order to match podcast content)

\n

Signer, J., Balkenhol, N., Ditmer, M. et al. (2015) Does estimator choice influence our ability to detect changes in home-range size?. Anim 

\n

             Biotelemetry 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-015-0051-x

\n

Signer, J. and Balkenhol, N. (2015), Reproducible home ranges (rhr): A new, user\u2010friendly R package for analyses of wildlife telemetry data. Wildl.

\n

            Soc. Bull., 39: 358-363. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.539

\n

Huettmann F. (2015) On the Relevance and Moral Impediment of Digital Data Management, Data Sharing, and Public Open Access and Open 

\n

           Source Code in (Tropical) Research: The Rio Convention Revisited Towards Mega Science and Best Professional Research Practices. In: F. 

\n

           Huettmann F. (ed.) Central American Biodiversity:  Conservation, Ecology, and a Sustainable Future. Springer New York, pages 391-418.

\n

Huettmann, F. (2009) The Global Need for, and Appreciation of, High-Quality Metadata in Biodiversity work. pp 25-28. In: E. Spehn and C. Koerner

\n

          (ed). Data Mining for Global Trends in Mountain Biodiversity. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis.

\n

Huettmann, F. (2006) Software certification in the profession of wildlife biology and conservation management: A crucial and required task for

\n

           safeguarding species and habitats worldwide. OFWIM (Organisation of Fish and Wildlife Information Managers) Newsletter 5-6.

\n

Huettmann, F. (2005) Databases and science-based management in the context of wildlife and habitat: towards a certified ISO standard for

\n

           objective decision-making for the global community by using the internet. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 466-472.

\n

Humphries G.W. and F. Huettmann (2018) Machine Learning in Wildlife Biology: Algorithms, Data Issues and Availability, Workflows, Citizen Science,

\n

            Code Sharing, Metadata and a Brief Historical Perspective. In: G. Humphries, D.R. Magness and F. Huettmann. Machine Learning for

\n

            Ecology and Sustainable Natural Resource Management. pp 3-26.

\n

Bluhm, B, D. Watts, and F. Huettmann (2010) Free Database Availability, Metadata and the Internet: An Example of Two High Latitude Components  

\n

            of the Census of Marine Life. Chapter 13, pp. 233 \u2013 244.  In: S. Cushman and F. Huettmann. Spatial Complexity, Informatics and Wildlife

\n

            Conservation. Springer Tokyo, Japan. pp. 233-244.

\n\n--- \n\nSupport this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/falk-huettmann/support