Dear Maren:
I would love to receive a copy in pdf form of: Huck, M., Davison, J.,
Roper, T.J., 2008. Comparison of two sampling protocols and four home
range estimators using radio-tracking data from urban badgers.
Wildlife Biology 14, 467-477.
I was particularly interested in your comment:
LCH performed consistently better than FK, and is especially
appropriate for patchy study areas containing frequent no-go zones.
However, we recommend using LCH in combination with other methods to
estimate total range size, because LCH tended to produce smaller
estimates than any other method.
I don't fully understand the comment since LoCoH estimates of range
size are an increasing function of the number of local points included
in the kernel construction: that is, in a fixed k-LoCoH, fixed r-
LoCoH or adaptive a-LoCoH approach, range size estimates increase
within increasing values for the parameters k, r or a. Further, from
your abstract is not clear the MCP is the same as fixed LoCoH when k
is equal to the total number of points. Hence for k large enough,
LoCoH will give the same range estimate as MCP. In fact, I could have
called LoCoH, LCP instead of LCH but preferred "LoCoH" because of its
phonemic relationship to the work "location".
All the best and thanks for your hard work on improving AniMov.
Wayne
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Professor Wayne M. Getz
Department Environmental Science Policy & Management
140 Mulford Hall
University of California at Berkeley
CA 94720-3112, USA
Campus Visitors: My office is in 5052 VLSB
Fax: ( (1-510) 666-2352
Office: (1-510) 642-8745
Lab: (1-510) 643-1227
email: [email protected]
http://www.CNR.Berkeley.EDU/~getz/
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
AniMov mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.faunalia.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/animov
