Table 2.
Home-range sizes of 14 chimpanzee communities, including Madina
(adapted from Bertolani 2013)
| Study site | Study period | Country | Anthrop. exposure | Level of habituation | Comm. size | Home range (km2) | References | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCP | GC | K95/FT95* | Other | |||||||
| Budongo | 1994–1995 | Uganda | Med | Habituated | 46 | 6.8 | – | 6.9 | – | Newton-Fisher 2003 |
| Gombe | 1975–1992 | Tanzania | Med | Habituated | 51 | 11 | – | – | – | Williams et al. 2004 |
| Tai North | 1996–1997 | Ivory Coast | Low | Habituated | 35 | 16.8 | 18.3 | 7.5* | – | Herbinger et al. 2001 |
| Tai South | 1996–1997 | Ivory Coast | Low | Habituated | 63 | 26.5 | 23.3 | 9.5* | – | Herbinger et al. 2001 |
| Tai Middle | 1996–1997 | Ivory Coast | Low | Habituated | 11 | 12.1 | 13 | 3.1* | – | Herbinger et al. 2001 |
| Ngogo | 2003–2006 | Uganda | Med | Habituated | 143 | 27.7 | 29.3 | 19.5 | – | Amsler 2009 |
| Bulindi | 2006–2008 (15 months) | Uganda | High | Semi-habituated |
25 (est) |
21 | – | – | – | McLennan 2010 |
| Kanyawara | 2007–2009 | Uganda | Med | Habituated | 48 | 27.4 | 26 | 16.2 | – | Bertolani 2013 |
| Seringbara |
2012––2013 (1 year) |
Guinea | Low (est) | Unhabituated | 100 (est) | 29 | 20.5 | 35.7a | – | Montanari 2014 |
| Madina | 2017 (6 months) | Guinea-Bissau | High (est) | Unhabituated | – | 19.2 | 15.5 | 8.5 | – | This study |
| Kahuzi | 1994-2000 | DR Congo | Low | Semi-habituated | 23 | – | 12.8 | – | – | Basabose 2005 |
| Fongoli | 2001–2004 | Senegal | Low | Semi-habituated | 32 | – | – | – | 63 | Pruetz 2006 |
| Cadique–Caiquene | 2013 (9 months) | Guinea-Bissau | High (est) | Unhabituated | 35 (est) | – | – | – | 7.9 | Bessa et al. 2015 |
| Bossou |
1995 (13 months) |
Guinea | High | Habituated | 20 | – | – | – | 15 | Yamakoshi 1998 |
Studies employed different methods to calculate home-range size, including minimum convex polygon (MCP), grid cell (GC), kernel (K) analysis, and Fourier’s transformation (FT). For the GC method, studies used 500 m × 500 m cells size, with exception of Kahuzi Biega, which used 250 m × 250 m-sized cells. All sites are classified as predominantly moist forest except for Kahuzi Biega (montane forest) and Fongoli (savanna-woodland). Degree of anthropogenic exposure was categorized as low, medium, or high according to site disturbance scores for long-term research sites (as reported in Hockings et al. 2015). Based on ratings of four different disturbance variables where one represents minimum disturbance and four represents maximum disturbance for each variable (i.e., disturbance scale of 4–16), we classify low as from 4 to 7 points, medium as 8–11 points, and high as 12–16 points. Where sites are not included in analyses by (Hockings et al. 2015), we estimate anthropogenic exposure levels based on information presented in the associated research article. We include reported habituation levels. Mean community size is given for studies covering multiple years (as per Bertolani 2013) and estimated community sizes of unhabituated communities are labeled
aAlthough not specified in Montanari (2014), this high value could be due to the choice of smoothing parameter which is least squares cross validation (i.e., a calculation for how big each cell is within the kernel and how neighboring cells influence the focal cell). If there were few data, this could have resulted in large cell sizes and stretching of the data, especially if data points were skewed towards the edge of the territory
* Fourier's transformation