FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   >>  
ore, in my study, home ranges with nine or more peripheral points were considered to be adequately studied. Data for eighteen cottontails that had been studied sufficiently to determine the full extent of their home ranges were used to calculate minimum, maximum, and average home range by each of five methods (Table 1). The methods used by Schwartz (1941), Dalke and Sime (1938) and Allen (1939) yielded results which were lower than any others, presumably because only live-trap data were used and because straight lines were used to connect traps in which cottontails were captured. The "composite method" was considered the most reliable because it utilized all data gathered for each individual and because with this method the home range boundaries were drawn to enclose all areas in which the cottontail lived and excluded all areas in which the cottontail was not known to have been. The method used by Fitch (1949) agreed most closely with the "composite method" and suggests to me that the home range of animals can be estimated with reasonable accuracy by this method when field observation or trailing are not feasible. The composite method is superior to others for studying the home range and movements of cottontails. Of the individuals whose entire home ranges had been thoroughly studied, nine males had home ranges of between 4.72 acres and 12.19 acres with an average of 8.92 acres; nine females had home ranges of between 2.42 acres and 12.62 acres with an average of 7.76 acres. The average size of home range for both sexes was 8.34 acres (Table 1). TABLE 1.--HOME RANGES, IN ACRES, OF 18 COTTONTAILS ON THE RESERVATION IN 1956, COMPUTED BY FIVE DIFFERENT METHODS. ======================================================================= | | Number of | Average | Maximum | Minimum Method | Sex | individuals| area | area | area ----------------------+-----+------------+---------+---------+--------- Allen (1939), | (M) | 9 | 2.00 | 6.78 | .30 Dalke and Sime (1938) | (F) | 9 | 2.54 | 7.20 | .35 and Schwartz (1941) | all | 18 | 2.27 | 7.20 | .30 +-----+------------+---------+---------+--------- | (M) | 9 | 4.01 | 12.89 | 1.05 Fitch (1947) | (F) | 9 | 5.68 | 11.50 | 1.84 | all | 18 | 4.85 | 12.89 | 1.0
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   >>  



Top keywords:

method

 

ranges

 
average
 

studied

 

composite

 

cottontails

 

cottontail

 
individuals
 

considered

 

Schwartz


methods

 

RANGES

 

females

 
METHODS
 
Method
 

COMPUTED

 

RESERVATION

 
Maximum
 

Minimum

 

Average


Number
 

DIFFERENT

 
COTTONTAILS
 

results

 

yielded

 

captured

 

connect

 

straight

 

maximum

 
minimum

peripheral

 

points

 

adequately

 
eighteen
 

calculate

 
extent
 
sufficiently
 

determine

 

reliable

 
observation

trailing

 
accuracy
 
estimated
 

reasonable

 

feasible

 

movements

 

studying

 
superior
 
animals
 

enclose