Home range estimation is routine practice in ecological research. While advances in animal tracking technology have increased our capacity to collect data to support home range analysis, these same advances have also resulted in increasingly autocorrelated data. Consequently, the question of which home range estimator to use on modern, highly autocorrelated tracking data remains open. This question is particularly relevant given that most estimators assume independently sampled data. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of autocorrelation on home range estimation. We base our study on an extensive data set of GPS locations from 369 individuals representing 27 species distributed across five continents. We first assemble a broad array of home range estimators, including Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) with four bandwidth optimizers (Gaussian reference function, autocorrelated‐Gaussian reference function [AKDE], Silverman's rule of thumb, and least squares cross‐validation), Minimum Convex Polygon, and Local Convex Hull methods. Notably, all of these estimators except AKDE assume independent and identically distributed (IID) data. We then employ half‐sample cross‐validation to objectively quantify estimator performance, and the recently introduced effective sample size for home range area estimation ( <!--${MathJax: TeX-AMS-MML_HTMLorMML}--> ${\widehat{\mathrm{N}}}_{\mathrm{area}}$) to quantify the information content of each data set. We found that AKDE 95% area estimates were larger than conventional IID‐based estimates by a mean factor of 2. The median number of cross‐validated locations included in the hold‐out sets by AKDE 95% (or 50%) estimates was 95.3% (or 50.1%), confirming the larger AKDE ranges were appropriately selective at the specified quantile. Conversely, conventional estimates exhibited negative bias that increased with decreasing <!--${MathJax: TeX-AMS-MML_HTMLorMML}--> ${\widehat{\mathrm{N}}}_{\mathrm{area}}$. To contextualize our empirical results, we performed a detailed simulation study to tease apart how sampling frequency, sampling duration, and the focal animal's movement conspire to affect range estimates. Paralleling our empirical results, the simulation study demonstrated that AKDE was generally more accurate than conventional methods, particularly for small <!--${MathJax: TeX-AMS-MML_HTMLorMML}--> ${\widehat{\mathrm{N}}}_{\mathrm{area}}$. While 72% of the 369 empirical data sets had >1,000 total observations, only 4% had an <!--${MathJax: TeX-AMS-MML_HTMLorMML}--> ${\widehat{\mathrm{N}}}_{\mathrm{area}}$ >1,000, where 30% had an <!--${MathJax: TeX-AMS-MML_HTMLorMML}--> ${\widehat{\mathrm{N}}}_{\mathrm{area}}$ <30. In this frequently encountered scenario of small <!--${MathJax: TeX-AMS-MML_HTMLorMML}--> ${\widehat{\mathrm{N}}}_{\mathrm{area}}$, AKDE was the only estimator capable of producing an accurate home range estimate on autocorrelated data.

Modern tracking devices allow for the collection of high‐volume animal tracking data at improved sampling rates over very‐high‐frequency radiotelemetry. Home range estimation is a key output from these tracking datasets, but the inherent properties of animal movement can lead traditional statistical methods to under‐ or overestimate home range areas. The autocorrelated kernel density estimation (AKDE) family of estimators was designed to be statistically efficient while explicitly dealing with the complexities of modern movement data: autocorrelation, small sample sizes and missing or irregularly sampled data. Although each of these estimators has been described in separate technical papers, here we review how these estimators work and provide a user‐friendly guide on how they may be combined to reduce multiple biases simultaneously. We describe the magnitude of the improvements offered by these estimators and their impact on home range area estimates, using both empirical case studies and simulations, contrasting their computational costs. Finally, we provide guidelines for researchers to choose among alternative estimators and anRscript to facilitate the application and interpretation of AKDE home range estimates.

COVID-19 lockdowns in early 2020 reduced human mobility, providing an opportunity to disentangle its effects on animals from those of landscape modifications. Using GPS data, we compared movements and road avoidance of 2300 terrestrial mammals (43 species) during the lockdowns to the same period in 2019. Individual responses were variable with no change in average movements or road avoidance behavior, likely due to variable lockdown conditions. However, under strict lockdowns 10-day 95th percentile displacements increased by 73%, suggesting increased landscape permeability. Animals’ 1-hour 95th percentile displacements declined by 12% and animals were 36% closer to roads in areas of high human footprint, indicating reduced avoidance during lockdowns. Overall, lockdowns rapidly altered some spatial behaviors, highlighting variable but substantial impacts of human mobility on wildlife worldwide.

Accurately quantifying species’ area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area‐based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home‐range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home‐range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied block cross‐validation to quantify bias in empirical home‐range estimates. Area requirements of mammals 1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changed substantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum.