↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating home range techniques: use of Global Positioning System (GPS) collar data from chacma baboons

Overview of attention for article published in Primates, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 Mendeley
Title
Evaluating home range techniques: use of Global Positioning System (GPS) collar data from chacma baboons
Published in
Primates, April 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10329-012-0307-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paula A. Pebsworth, Hanna R. Morgan, Michael A. Huffman

Abstract

Global Positioning System (GPS) collars have revolutionized the field of spatial ecology, but to date, few primate studies have used them. We fitted a free-ranging, semi-habituated, juvenile male chacma baboon (Papio hamadryas ursinus) with an automatic self-releasing GPS collar and tracked his movements for 359 days. The collar captured 4254 fixes out of 5719 programmed opportunities, a 74.4 % acquisition rate, suggesting that the collar effectively tracked this baboon in a variety of habitat types. Of the data points captured, 73.7 % were three-dimensional fixes, and of these fixes, 66.9 % were highly accurate, having a dilution of precision of less than four. We calculated home range using three protocols with three estimation methods: minimum convex polygon, fixed kernel-density estimation (KDE), and fixed r local convex hull. Using all data points and the 95 % contour, these methods created home range estimations ranging from 10.8 to 23.1 km(2) for this baboon troop. Our results indicate that the KDE output using all data locations most accurately represented our data set, as it created a continuous home range boundary that excluded unused areas and outlying, potentially exploratory data points while including all seven sleeping sites and a movement corridor. However, home range estimations generated from KDE varied from 15.4 to 18.8 km(2) depending on the smoothing parameter used. Our results demonstrated that the ad hoc smoothing parameter selection technique was a better method for our data set than either the least squares cross-validation or biased cross-validation techniques. Our results demonstrate the need for primatologists to develop a standardized reporting method which documents the tool, screening protocol, and smoothing parameter used in the creation of home range estimations in order to make comparisons that are meaningful.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Colombia 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Belize 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 160 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 23%
Student > Master 39 23%
Researcher 24 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 15 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 99 57%
Environmental Science 32 18%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 3%
Unspecified 4 2%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 20 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,445
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from Primates
#898
of 1,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,362
of 161,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Primates
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 161,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.