Abstract
Context
The legacy of human use of Mediterranean ecosystems results in spatial and temporal heterogeneity of resources for wildlife. Understanding wildlife use of these ecosystems may be improved by including information on ecosystem type, structure, and function extracted from remote sensing data.
Objectives
To assess whether we can improve our understanding of wildlife-habitat use by including information on ecosystem type, structure and function.
Methods
We tested whether remote sensing derived descriptors of ecosystem type, structure (tree cover and patch size) and function (productivity and stress) determine the habitat of stone martens (Martes foina), common genets (Genetta genetta), and European badgers (Meles meles) in southern Portugal. We linked radio-tracking data from five stone martens, five genets and eight badgers with aerial photography, and some spectra-selectivity to classify vegetation, its structure, productivity and drought stress.
Results
Statistically-derived generalized linear mixed regression models using combinations of remotely sensed descriptors of ecosystem type, structure and function, performed better than single ecosystem type descriptors.
Conclusion
Inclusion of information on ecosystem functioning in predictive models of habitat use is more informative than ecosystem type alone, suggesting functional relationships between wildlife and their habitat. However, inclusion of both ecosystem type and function maybe limited to finer spatial resolutions. Our results illustrate the untapped potential of remote sensing to provide detailed descriptors of habitat at adequate spatial scales, now that they are freely available and are systematically collected over space and time. This information adds useful insights on wildlife-habitat relationships under changing patterns of land use and climate.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Understanding the degree to which species can cope with the effect of land use and climate changes on its habitat is fundamental in ecology, conservation, and sustainability (Morrison et al. 1998; Scott et al. 2002; Boyce 2006). The last decades have seen a proliferation of modeling studies on species niche (Pulliam 2002; Guisan and Thuiller 2005), resource selection (Boyce 2006), habitat suitability (Hirzel et al. 2006; Zielinski et al. 2006), and how these relationships dictate species geographic distributions (Guisan and Zimmermann 2000; Rushton et al. 2004; Moisen et al. 2006). These inferences have shown that habitat can be described in many forms, from descriptors of ecosystem type (Scott et al. 2002), spatial and temporal structure (Zielinski et al. 2006; Santos 2010), and ecosystem functioning (Wulder et al. 2004), to inclusion of multiple (cumulative and dynamic) effects between ecosystems and climate (Tingley et al. 2012; Santos et al. 2014). This complicates both theoretical and empirical assessments as the number of variables to consider increases, as do the number of replicates needed for a comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms that link species to the ecosystems they inhabit. Understanding habitat becomes therefore highly limited by the ability to measure enough parameters and the precision at which measurements of animal behavior and their environmental context can be obtained.
Currently, much of our knowledge on species-habitat relationships comes from natural history assessments and observations, museum records, and, more recently, from non-invasive molecular approaches (Long et al. 2008), and animal locations obtained through remote assessments using technologies like VHF radio-telemetry, global positioning systems (GPS) and satellite tracking (Perras and Nebel 2012). For example, to understand large scale patterns of diversity and species distributions, museum and other type of observation records are highly valuable if they cover large spatial areas at sufficient detail (Tingley and Beissinger 2009). At this scale telemetry data becomes impractical because of inherent logistic and budget constraints of sampling large areas, except perhaps for migrating species covering large areas (for example see Aarts et al. 2008; Bischof et al. 2012). Inversely, the sparse distribution of museum data that exists at the scale of management units makes these data barely usable, except as a reference data set. At the spatial scale of management, higher precision data provided by telemetry is essential to understand the mechanisms through which species use the habitat. In fact, telemetry data can resolve the minutiae of movement, foraging and resting activities, and interactions with other species. However, these data require matching with adequate environmental context information.
Most commonly used measurements of environmental context include remote sensing descriptors of the Earth surface. These include climate variables, satellite imagery, derived land cover classifications and ecosystem function variables, and digital elevation models and their derivatives (aspect, elevation, and slope). Several authors suggested that these large scale metrics are sufficient for the goals of predicting species distributions at the national and global scales (Guisan and Zimmermann 2000; Guisan and Thuiller 2005; Meyer and Thuiller 2006). However, ultimately the management of species for which these global data sets are produced, occurs at local and regional scales. At these scales, the spatial resolution of such data sets (>1 km cell size) is often too broad to include detailed information. Since species responses to habitat are scaled to their body size (Gehring and Swihart 2003), there may be a mismatch in the spatial resolution at which a species relates to its habitat and that of some remote sensing products, especially for smaller species. A potential solution is to find imagery at appropriate spatial resolution (for example, Landsat at 30 m, or airborne aerial photography at <1–5 m). For example, Landsat data has been actively used to produce high resolution land cover maps, which have been applied to resolve wide ranging animals’ habitat use (Schadt et al. 2002; Seoane et al. 2004; Gottschalk et al. 2005; Requena-Mullor et al. 2014). Landsat can provide semi-automated land cover classifications, and a wide variety of metrics to describe ecosystem functioning (Wulder et al. 2004), which have barely been used to understand wildlife-habitat relationships (Kerr and Ostrovsky 2003). Further, Landsat data is now available at no cost, with multi-temporal resolution (see Wulder and Masek 2012 and papers in the special issue). However, for some species finer resolution aerial photographs may better match the scale at which species relate to their habitat.
Land cover classification depicts only one of the components of a species habitat—its type. While ecosystem type can be a surrogate to the type of resources available to a species, it may not be sufficient to describe all the facets that make habitat for a given species. For example, species respond to heterogeneity (Cockburn and Lidicker 1983; Pickett and Cadenasso 1995), either within (canopy cover, structure, etc.) or across (edges, gaps) the ecosystem types they inhabit, which can be estimated using remote sensing products (Seixas 2000; Turner et al. 2003; Vega-Garcia and Chuvieco 2006; Goetz et al. 2007). Species also respond to habitat quality. For example, Saba et al. (2008) showed that the foraging and nesting frequency of the worldwide population of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) is a function of resource quantity and persistence as estimated using satellite data. Habitat quality and persistence can be inferred from other satellite imagery products, including vegetation productivity (Oppelt and Mauser 2004), phenology (Di et al. 1994), and stress (Seghieri et al. 1995). Integration of these types of information (type, canopy cover, productivity and stress) can further aid understanding about why animals select given parts of the landscape for their movements and establishment of home ranges (Nielsen et al. 2005; Neumann et al. 2015).
Our goal was to understand whether ecosystem type, structure and function explained mesocarnivore habitat use. To do so we matched telemetry data to remote sensing derived descriptors of ecosystem type (land cover type), structure (canopy cover and patch size) and function (productivity and stress). More specifically we asked: (1) Which descriptors of ecosystem type, structure and function are the best to assess mesocarnivore habitat? And (2) Is there an effect of ecosystem type, structure and function on mesocarnivore use of their habitat? To answer these questions we selected an inherently heterogeneous landscape, the cork oak woodlands in the Mediterranean climates of southern Portugal. We selected as focal species three co-occurring mesocarnivores, the stone marten (Martes foina), the common genet (Genetta genetta), and the European badger (Meles meles), because these species have different patterns of habitat use (e.g. Santos and Santos-Reis 2009; Soto and Palomares 2015), at a scale that matches that of aerial photography and Landsat satellite data. The marten and the genet are arboreal and solitary, and the badger is cursorial, ground dwelling and social; all of them are nocturnal and omnivorous (Gittleman 1989). We predicted that incorporating different descriptors extracted from the Landsat imagery will be more informative than ecosystem type alone (from land cover classifications), since these species use multiple ecosystems for different resources/activities (Rosalino et al. 2004, 2005b, c; Santos-Reis et al. 2004; Santos and Beier 2008; Santos and Santos-Reis 2009), require cover for their movements and resting (Rosalino et al. 2004, 2005c; Loureiro et al. 2007), and use fruits as important food resources (Rosalino et al. 2005a; Santos et al. 2007; Rosalino and Santos-Reis 2002, 2008), all of which are features detectable by remote sensing imagery.
Methods
Study area
The study was conducted in a 20 km2 area in Serra de Grândola (Alentejo, Portugal, Fig. 1), which is part of the LTSER Montado platform (http://www.ltsermontado.pt/). The area is dominated by cork oak woodlands (Quercus suber), with patches of holm oak woodland (Q. ilex), pastures, Tasmanian blue gum plantations (Eucalyptus globulus), riparian vegetation (dominated by alder Alnus glutinosa, elm Ulmus spp., and blackberry Rubus ulmifolius), orchards (mainly pear Pyrus bourgeana, fig Ficus carica, and loquat Eryobrotia japonica), olive yards (Olea europaea) and small urban areas and scattered farms. Topography is moderate, with gentle slopes and low altitude (159–238 m). Climate is Mediterranean with Atlantic influence, with mean annual precipitation levels of 500 mm. One temporary stream—Castelhanos—runs along the eastern border of the study area. Human activity in the study area is concentrated in one small village—Santa Margarida da Serra—and several isolated farmhouses, but their effects are extended to areas where cork extraction and livestock production occur, and to hunting areas and timber-producing stands. Legacy of human presence in these ecosystems has created a heterogeneous landscape in which humans and wildlife coexist (Santos and Thorne 2010).
Animal trapping and radio-tracking
From 1997 to 2001 we conducted two animal capture campaigns: 1997–1999 for genets and stone martens and 2000–2001 for European badgers. For stone martens and genets, we set a grid of live traps (Tomahawk Live Trap Co., Wisconsin, USA) baited with canned sardines. Traps were visited daily and re-baited when necessary. For badgers we used a similar approach complemented with soft-catch leg-hold traps (Victor #2) in the vicinity of their setts. Traps were visited multiple times a day and set at sufficient distance to assure that the captured animals could not enter a sett. Captured animals were tranquilized, measured (total length, weight), sexed and aged (tooth wear), and fitted with radio collars (Telonics for genets and martens (Telonics Inc., Arizona, USA), and Biotrack for badgers (BioTrack, Dorset, UK)), and later released into their capture location (Rosalino et al. 2005b). Captured animals were handled following all the recommendations of the Animal Welfare Protocol of the European Union and with the capture permission of the Portuguese Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e Biodiversidade (ICNB).
We radio-tracked five stone martens (2 females, 3 males), five genets (2 females, 3 males), and eight European badgers (4 females, 4 males) during the study period. Animals were monitored using two types of surveys, (1) focal samples—when the animal was located continuously for 24 h or while active; and (2) daily locations, either at day or night, to obtain locations of the animal in their resting sites or when active. The first type of survey was conducted using triangulation, whereas the second was through homing-in procedures (for details see Santos-Reis et al. 2004; Rosalino et al. 2005b; Santos and Santos-Reis 2009). Radio-tracking data was entered into Tracker (Camponotus AB and Radio Location Systems AB 1994) and bearings and distances were converted to easting and northing locations. Location data was then exported to ArcGIS 10.1. (Redlands, California, USA) to extract habitat variables (see Remote sensing data). Telemetry positional errors were assumed to be 1 m when animals were inactive, and errors during activity averaged 115 ± 30 m (range 10–269 m) (Santos-Reis et al. 2004; Rosalino et al. 2004, 2005b). We took the pixel corresponding to the point at the center of the error polygon to match active locations positional errors with the minimum mapping unit of the habitat predictors (2 m for aerial photography and 30 m Landsat derived products). The alternative approach would be to create an error polygon and calculate average values for each polygon, but we opted to preserve the resolution in the remote sensing data as the analysis unit.
We used the radio-tracking data to create home ranges for each individual using the fixed kernel estimator method (Worton 1989). This method requires spatial and temporal independence of radio-tracking locations and we therefore used Moran’s I index (Moran 1950) to evaluate whether spatial autocorrelation was significant on species presence data. The index value is used to calculate the Moran’s I statistic, which tests the null hypothesis that there is no spatial autocorrelation through comparing the I statistic to a normal distribution (Cheng and Stephens 1989). This autocorrelation coefficient measures the similarity in the spatial patterns of the variables (Fortin et al. 1989) and varies from −1 (perfect negative spatial autocorrelation) to 1 (perfect positive spatial autocorrelation), with values close to 0 representing no spatial autocorrelation. We calculated temporal independence by determining the time necessary for a species to cross its home range—time to independence—and then use this value as the time lag in between consecutive locations (Swihart and Slade 1985, 1986).We used the 95 % fixed kernel to estimate species home-ranges (to avoid potential outliers in species detections) and used the home range boundary to derive a set of random locations in the same number as the independent locations used to generate the home range. This would reflect our “pseudo-absence” data for the modeling approach (see data analysis section). We call these locations as pseudo-absences, because they do not correspond to true absences (surveyed locations where the animal was not detected).
Remote sensing data
We acquired data from two sources of remotely sensed information: low-elevation aerial photography and Landsat satellite imagery. Natural color aerial photography was acquired in 1999 at 1 m resolution. Two Landsat TM scenes (30 m ground resolution) over the study area were acquired for June of 1998 and 2000. We chose only June because we wanted to match (as much as possible) the remote sensing data to the time of acquisition of the radio-tracking data (1997–2001), given the reduced availability of low cloud cover Landsat data in the archives for our study area in 1998. We used the 1998 Landsat data for genets and stone martens and the 2000 Landsat data for badgers.The Landsat scenes were preprocessed to convert from radiance to apparent reflectance using standard remote sensing tools available in ENVI v.4 (ITT, Boulder, Colorado USA). The different image dates were co-calibrated by selecting pseudo-invariant targets (very bright and very dark pixels in the image), determining the regression line between the two image dates and applying this invariant target regression to the image.
Ecosystem type: land cover type
To describe ecosystem type we used three different land cover classifications. First, aerial photography was photo-interpreted to ten main land cover classes: (1) dense (>50 % cover) cork oak woodland with and (2) without understory, (3) sparse (<50 % cover) cork oak woodland with and (4) without understory, (5) riparian vegetation, (6) pastureland, (7) orchards, (8) eucalyptus plantations, (9) reservoirs, and (10) urban areas and scattered farms. The photo-interpreted aerial photography allowed us to delineate a higher number of land cover classes, as for example the presence of riparian vegetation, grasslands and small orchards, which are often not identifiable by satellite remote sensing due to the small patch sizes of these cover types. Second, we downloaded the CORINE land cover data set (EEA 2002), which is a supervised classification of Landsat TM satellite imagery from imagery acquired in 1999 and 2000. This classification produced twenty three land cover types in Portugal, four of which were present in our study area: broad leaf forest (cork oak woodland), agroforestry, grasslands, and transition woodland-shrubland (http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-2000-clc2000-seamless-vector-database). Third, the two Landsat scenes were used to calculate the subpixel composition of each of the 30 m pixels using Linear Spectral Unmixing (LSU; Ustin et al. 1986). This algorithm has been developed and applied successfully to numerous Landsat data sets to estimate the proportions in a mixture (Ustin et al. 1993). A set of endmembers (pure pixels) from each class is required to estimate the class proportions within the pixel, and the number of endmembers must be limited to a few spectrally distinct classes to avoid redundancy. We created four endmembers, forest, grassland, bare soil and urban, which represent the variability of structural land cover types in the study area. The inclusion of an additional endmember for shrubland did not improve the separation and therefore we decided not to include it in the final analysis. Further, the grassland endmember was most often mixed with bare soil (dry grassland and soil have very similar spectral signatures, at the Landsat spectral resolution) and thus shows negative values on the final LSU results. For simplification of the results we subtracted the grassland LSU value from the soil and show results for an aggregated grassland/soil class.
Ecosystem structure: canopy cover and patch size
We used tree canopy cover as a proxy for ecosystem structure, since these species require cover for their movements and resting (Rosalino et al. 2004, 2005c; Santos-Reis et al. 2004; Loureiro et al. 2007). We used the approach developed by Carreiras et al. (2006) to derive Tree Canopy Cover (TCC). These authors related TCC to raw reflectance, tasseled cap transform bands and vegetation indices (Eq. 1). The best regression model for southern Portuguese oak woodlands used raw reflectance data from Landsat:
where b i is the Landsat TM band and i is the band number (3 through 7). The second metric of ecosystem structure was patch size. We calculated patch area for patches delineated by each classification scheme as described in the section above. We calculated the area of the polygons from the aerial photo interpretation, and for the raster classification we counted the number of pixels per class type and multiplied it per pixel size.
Ecosystem function: productivity and stress
Plant productivity describes resource quantity and quality, which is important as these species often use fruits as food resources (Rosalino and Santos-Reis 2002, 2008; Rosalino et al. 2005a; Santos et al. 2007; Loureiro et al. 2009), and it can also be a surrogate for other food resources such as rodents and insects‘abundance (Owen 1988). Previous work has shown a relation between vegetation productivity with the canopy reflectance measured by Landsat (Tucker 1979; Huete et al. 1997), especially in the red edge region (650–850 nm, Landsat bands 3 and 4; Vogelmann et al. 1993; Curran et al. 1995). This region of the electromagnetic spectrum is related to the fraction of intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (Gamon et al. 1995; Ludeke et al. 1996), and is related to the distribution of plant communities, vegetation biomass, land degradation and vegetation quality for herbivores and omnivores (Pettorelli et al. 2005; Wiegand et al. 2008). To measure productivity we calculated a suite of vegetation indices well established in the remote sensing literature (Table 1). We calculated the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), the Green NDVI (a modified version of the NDVI to account for the green reflectance peaks), the Simple Ratio Index (SRI), and the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI; Huete et al. 2002), which measure the vegetation fraction within a pixel (Tucker 1979). These indices measure the difference between the reflectance in the red and the near-infrared bands of Landsat (bands 3 and 4, respectively; and band 2 for Green NDVI). We also calculated the Atmospherically Resistant Vegetation Index (ARVI), which accounts for atmospheric interference in the reflectance values (Kaufman and Tanre 1996), the Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index (SAVI), which accounts for the soil influence in the reflectance signal (Huete et al. 1997), and the Greenness Tasseled Cap transformation (Greenness; Table 1) for the Landsat scene, which is the result of a Principal Component Analysis of the Landsat bands (Crist and Cicone 1984).
We also measured plant stress as a proxy of the persistence of habitat quality over time. Plant stress corresponds to a reduction in the concentration of photosynthetic pigments, a decrease in water content and a relative increase in woody plant material, as a result of lack of water or nutrients, adverse climatic conditions, plant diseases, and insect damage (Jackson 1986; Grime 1993). If aggravated, plant stress will result in senescence and death, which could indicate unsuitable feeding areas and potentially less suitable resting sites for the mesocarnivores (Santos-Reis et al. 2004; Loureiro et al. 2007). From a remote sensing perspective, plant stress results in changes in leaf color measured in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum (Peñuelas et al. 1995a), changes in water content measured in the water absorption features in the near-infrared (NIR) (Peñuelas et al. 1995b) and shortwave-infrared (SWIR), as well as changes in cellulose and lignin measured in the NIR (Jackson 1986). To measure changes in the pigment contents we calculated two indices of the ratio of carotenoids to chlorophyll, the Structure Insensitive Pigment Index (SIPI; Peñuelas et al. 1995a) and the Plant Senescence Reflectance Index (PSRI; Merzylak et al. 1999). To measure a relative indicator of water stress we calculated two indices of canopy water content (Table 1), the Moisture Stress Index (MSI) (Hunt and Rock 1989; Ceccato et al. 2001) and the Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) (Jackson et al. 2004). We also calculated the Wetness (water content) Tasseled Cap transformation (Table 1; Crist and Cicone 1984).
To extract the information from each of the remote sensing derived products corresponding to the animal locations we used STARSPAN (Center for Spatial Technologies and Remote Sensing; http://starspan.casil.ucdavis.edu/doku/doku.php), which allows extracting raster data overlaid with vector data.
Data analysis
The first step was to normalize all the variables to avoid model convergence problems and so that model coefficients are comparable. Normalization was done by dividing the difference between the index value at a given location and the mean index value, by the index standard deviation. Secondly, we tested for correlations between the continuous variables selected among the different sets for ecosystem type, patch size, canopy cover, productivity and stress using the Spearman’s correlation coefficient value (all r > 0.70 were considered highly correlated; Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000). Third, we selected which of the metrics of ecosystem type, structure and function best explain animal locations obtained by radio-tracking. We developed a series of univariate generalized linear mixed models (GLMM; Zuur et al. 2009) with presence and pseudo-absence data (binomial distribution and logit link function) for each of the variables reflecting ecosystem type and function (i.e., ecosystem type: aerial photo, CORINE, LSU; productivity: NDVI, NDVIg, SRI, EVI, ARVI, SAVI, Greenness; and stress: MCI, NDWI, Wetness; Table 1), and using individuals as a random factor. For ecosystem type and function (both productivity and stress), we used a multi-model selection procedure creating a model for each of the predictors, and used the Akaike’s Information Criteria (AIC; Eq. 2) to determine the best performing model (and therefore the best predictor of ecosystem type, productivity and stress) by calculating the change in AIC from model to model (ΔAIC; Eq. 3).
where L(θ) is the maximized likelihood value and k is the number of parameters. Models with ΔAIC values less than 2 have equal empirical support and were considered as best models (Burnham and Anderson 2002).We also calculated the Akaike’s weight (wi; Eq. 4) to determine if we could advocate a single top model or not.
where i is the model run, and Δ is the difference in AIC for every pair of models within the M set of models. If more than one top model was selected, we used wi to calculate model averaged coefficients. This allowed us to select the variables that best resolved animal presence; calculations were made for each species. Since all productivity and stress variables previously selected with the univariate generalized linear mixed models (see above) were highly correlated (r > 0.7) and correlated with total canopy cover, we opted to create linear combinations of the variables using Principal Component Analysis (PCA; Zuur et al. 2007). The PCA was run using the best variables to describe ecosystem type and function as selected by the univariate GLMMs. We chose to do these two steps instead of just do the PCA’s because while we expected some correlation between remote sensing indices within and among categories (for example, correlations between indices for productivity, and correlation between productivity and stress indices), we did not know how to select them. Using first the univariate approach allowed us to select among indices for each category (indices for productivity and indices for stress), and then using the PCA allowed us to include correlated indices representing different categories. Therefore, the PCA reduces the effect of multi-collinearity among indices of ecosystem productivity and stress, and ensures the orthogonality of the predictors.
We used the PCA components that accounted for more than 90 % of data variability as predictor variables in the models. We created two sets of PCA-transformed variables to indicate ecosystem function (which we equate to productivity and stress): (1) ecosystem function including Landsat-specific indices and (2) ecosystem function including only “universal indices”. For the set of Landsat-specific indices we allowed the inclusion of indices customized for Landsat data as the tasseled cap transformations as well as TCC. The tasseled cap transformations and the total canopy cover are multivariate combinations of Landsat bands, and their coefficients are sensor specific. While tasseled cap transformations have been developed for other sensors (Zhang et al. 2002; Schönert et al. 2014), and so have canopy cover algorithms (Hansen et al. 2002), here we used parameters that were Landsat-specific. For the set of “universal” indices we did not include the indices deemed Landsat specific, that is, it included all the indices in Table 1, except the tasseled cap transformations and the total canopy cover. These “universal” indices are those whose formulation is not dependent on coefficients specific for each sensor, although their calculation is still dependent on sensor specifications, such as band width. The “universal” indices values should be related across sensors, and therefore test whether this approach could be expanded to other types of data.
We used the main PCA axes, land cover type and patch size as variables to a series of GLMM models corresponding to all possible combinations of those variables. For each case, we used the multi-model selection procedure described above creating all possible combinations of predictors (ecosystem type, structure, and function). The influence of each predictor variable on the dependent variable was assessed by the significance of Wald z-statistic test, i.e., variables which tests resulted in P < 0.05 were considered to have a significant influence on the dependent variable. The influence of the predictors was also assessed by the 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) around the coefficients for each predictor variable, i.e., the influence of a predictor variable was deemed reliable when the confidence interval around the mean estimate of its coefficient did not cross zero; through the analysis of the CI we could determine if a given predictor variable had a positive (positive CI) or negative (negative CI) effect on the dependent variable. Model’s performance was evaluated by calculating the Area Under the Curve (AUC), derived from the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (van Erkel and Pattynama 1998). AUC values ~0.7 to 0.9 indicate useful applications of the model results (Manel et al. 2001). Analysis were performed in R 3.1.2 (R Core Team 2014) using the packages “ape” (Paradis et al. 2004),“lme4” (Bates et al. 2014), “AICcmodavg” (Mazerolle 2015), “MuMIn” (Barton 2015) and “pROC” (Robin et al. 2011).
Results
Animal locations, ecosystem type and resolution
We obtained a total of 3296 temporally independent locations from the radio-tracked stone martens (n = 441), genets (n = 401), and European badgers (n = 2454) during the period of the study. Spatial autocorrelation was significant for badgers (I = −0.037, P value = 0.001) and stone martens (I = −0.019, P value ≪ 0.001), but not for genets (I = 0.004, P value = 0.06).
The three land cover data sets showed consistent higher numbers of locations on forest/woodland for all the three species (Table 2). The second most used ecosystem type was dependent on the land cover classification, with the aerial photography identifying the high use of pastureland by all species, which is probably related to the CORINE grassland class. The spectral unmixing did not add much to the aerial photo and Landsat land cover classifications, because species presence was divided between forests (72–76 %) and urban areas (14–22 %; Table 2).
Animal location data and predictor variable selection
The continuous indices of productivity and stress were highly correlated. From the original set of variables and along with the land cover classifications, the univariate models selected NDVI, NDVIg, SAVI, EVI, Greenness, SIPI, and PSRI for stone marten, all variables for genet, and NDVI, SAVI, Greenness, and MSI for badger (Online Appendix 1). In Online Appendix 1 we show a list of all the variables and their ΔAIC for the univariate GLMM for each variable set (i.e. land cover, productivity and stress) and for each carnivore species. Variables were selected when ΔAIC < 2. The selected variables were combined using a PCA for Landsat only variables and for “universal variables” (see methods for the description of these two sets of candidate variables). Because PCA1 explained most of the variation in the dataset we used it for all the models, with the exception of the genet universal model where we also included PCA2 (Stone marten: Landsat PCA1 = 95 %, Universal PCA1 = 97.1 %; badger: Landsat PCA1 = 95.6 %, Universal PCA1 = 96.7 %; genet: Landsat PCA1 = 91.2 %, Universal PCA1 + PCA2 = 95.4 %; Table 3). In addition, we added patch size and TCC as metrics of ecosystem structure. These were the variables used in the competing models below.
Competing models
The competing models analysis showed that the best model for stone martens and badgers included ecosystem type, function and structure, while the model for the genet included only ecosystem type (Table 4); the effect of each of the parameters was species-specific. The presence of stone marten was significant and positively affected by dense oak woodlands with understory, grasslands, and riparian vegetation, but negatively affected by sparse oak woodland without understory and a combination of productivity and stress, and TCC—PCA1 (Table 4). PCA component loadings show a positive influence of productivity (Greenness) and canopy cover (TCC), and negative of influence of stress (PSRI) on stone marten’s presence according to the “Landsat” model. The “Universal” model PCA loadings indicate a positive association between productivity (SAVI, NDVI, NDVIg and EVI) and stone martens and a negative association with stress (PSRI and SIPI; Table 3).
The presence of badgers was significantly and positively affected by areas of dense oak woodland with understory, sparse oak without understory and orchards, and a combination of productivity (NDVI and SAVI) and stress (MSI; Table 4, Online Appendix 2). NDVI and SAVI productivity indices had a positive influence on PCA1 and stress index MSI had a negative one (Online Appendix 2). On the other hand, badger presence was negatively related to eucalyptus plantations and grassland, patch area and a combination of productivity, stress and canopy cover metrics, which indicated a negative influence of stress index MSI and a positive of productivity index Greenness and TCC on badger presence (Online Appendix 2).
The presence of genets was poorly predicted, and we only found a positive significant effect of dense oak with understorey and eucalyptus plantations. All the models were significant and had a predictive power greater than 60 % (AUC values in Table 4). Genet models have low accuracy (AUC < 0.7) and therefore should be carefully interpreted.
Discussion
Anthropogenic activities result in habitat loss and fragmentation, and changes in climate, which can produce irreversible modifications in the environmental conditions that allow the persistence of biological communities. Assessments of habitat and its use that can move beyond traditional approaches to measure habitat properties that species respond to, and that are themselves responsible for ecosystem functioning, should be of increasing value. In this study we assessed the use of remote-sensing derived information about ecosystem type, structure, and function to describe habitat use for three species of mesocarnivores. For all the studied species there was a consistent higher use of forest/woodland land cover types. Dense cork oak woodlands with understorey was the ecosystem type that all species use. In addition, stone martens and badgers can also be found in orchards, grasslands and riparian vegetation. Our results suggest that finer spatial resolution (lower pixel size) and higher categorical resolution (more land cover classes) provided better explanation of used ecosystem types. For the European badger and the stone marten, including information on ecosystem structure (patch size and canopy cover), and function (productivity and stress) substantially improved predictions of habitat use based on ecosystem type alone. No conclusive results were found for the genet.
Previous studies in the Iberian Peninsula, showed that cork oak woodlands with understory are important for badgers (Revilla et al. 2001; Virgós 2002; Rosalino et al. 2004, 2005c, 2007; Santos and Beier 2008) and stone martens (Virgós and Casanovas 1998; Virgós and Garcia 2002; Santos-Reis et al. 2004; Santos and Santos-Reis 2009). The shrub layer in these oak woodlands is removed every 3–5 years to enhance cork production and quality. Apparently, this management activity does not cause avoidance of the altered areas (Santos-Reis et al. 2004). Cork oak woodlands are a source of food for badgers, as they provide acorns which badgers consume in great quantities; in these areas badgers also find beetles (Coleoptera), one of their other main prey items (Rosalino et al. 2005a; Loureiro et al. 2009). The stone marten, as an arboreal species, utilizes the resting sites that cork oak trees provide (Santos-Reis et al. 2004). Cork oak trees live up to 250 years, and as trees senesce cavities are created in the wood (Aronson et al. 2009; Carvalho et al. 2014).
We found a high likelihood of finding stone martens in riparian vegetation and badgers in orchards, and opposing directions of influence of grasslands. There are few studies that show the importance of riparian vegetation for carnivores (Matos et al. 2008; Virgós 2001; Santos et al. 2011). In our study area, riparian areas provide water and food resources (blackberries, small mammals, cray fish etc.; Matos et al. 2008; Pereira and Rodriguez 2010), and are also attractive resting locations in the summer because of their cool microclimates (Santos-Reis et al. 2004; Loureiro et al. 2007). One of badgers main diet component are fruits which are found in orchards (Rosalino et al. 2003; Santos et al. 2007; Rosalino and Santos-Reis 2008). Many orchards are abandoned, representing a past legacy of when the area was highly productive and farms, today abandoned, were inhabited by montado workers and their families (Antrop 1993; Pinto-Correia and Fonseca 2009). Badgers seem to use these quite often and the use of these small orchard areas can probably explain the negative effect of patch size, i.e. a negative relation between the probability of badgers being presence and the size of the patch. Thus, in this landscape smaller patches such as orchards and riparian areas, have higher probability of being used by badgers than larger ones (e.g. pastureland). We found that badgers were negatively affected by grasslands while stone martens’ presence was positively related to this land cover type. This is surprising as in other areas of badger distribution grasslands are a main source of earthworms; however, in Mediterranean ecosystems earthworm consumption by European badgers is rare (Rosalino et al. 2003).
No conclusive results were found for habitat use by genets, for land cover type, structure and function. Genet model performance had relatively low AUC values (Manel et al. 2001). Genets more often found in dense cork oak woodland with understory; however, the model runs were statistically inconclusive in spite of the number of locations used for model runs being similar to those used for the stone marten and the radio-tracking occurred simultaneously for both species, eliminating potential yearly variations. Perhaps the genet is the most habitat generalist of the three species, which is potentially a result of its being a non-native species (Dobson 1998). These types of models tend to perform worse for generalist species because it becomes difficult to detect specific habitat features, as they match closely the availability represented in by the random locations (Elith et al. 2006). The genet is a naturalized non-native species and perhaps is not selecting any habitat specifically in our study area.
Our results suggest that adding information about structure (canopy cover) and function (plant productivity and stress) improved predictions of habitat use, but mostly because of ecosystem function. The PCAs used in the badger and stone marten models were mostly dictated by plant stress (with the exception of the universal model for the badger which used mostly productivity), which explains the negative and the positive relationships that our models revealed. The negative relation to plant stress is probably related to avoidance of dry (and hot) areas, especially during the summer. This could be because these areas do not confer protection against the high summer temperatures. Further, and because these results used the Universal model PCA they suggest that the use of these indices can be transferable to other sensors beyond Landsat. Despite the diluted effect of canopy cover in our models, during the summer the outer layer of cork plays an important role in the thermal isolation of resting sites during the day (Santos-Reis et al. 2004), and cover is also an important feature as species prefer to move in sheltered rather than open areas (Rosalino et al. 2004, 2005b, c).
Our analysis showed that there are some ecosystem function predictors that improved model performance more than others. NDVI (Tucker 1979) is probably one of the most widely used vegetation index in remote sensing and other applications to measure plant greenness (Ludeke et al. 1996; Pettorelli et al. 2011) but is sensitive to differences in background reflectance. To compensate for some of these errors, the soil adjusted vegetation index (SAVI) includes a parameter L (see Table 2 for formulation), which accounts for the effects of soil in the overall pixel reflectance (Huete et al. 1997). Other productivity indices are also alternative metrics to productivity to respond to the inherent limitations of NDVI. Our results showed that most models used both SAVI and NDVI (Online Appendix 1), suggesting a complementary effect of both indices. This is probably because SAVI gives better estimates of vegetation cover when soil reflectance varies considerably, complementing the information from NDVI. Other authors have also used NDVI as measures of seasonal productivity to which wildlife species may or not respond. For example, Wiegand et al. (2008) showed that NDVI estimates of seasonal productivity were linked to brown bear (Ursus arctos) population decreases in northern Spain. Despite all the benefits of NDVI, including its wide use, simplicity, easiness to understand, and reliability, it also has the disadvantage of being influenced by the underlying soil reflectance, and at high values of canopy closure NDVI reaches saturation. For example, Requena-Mullor et al. (2014) used the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI) as an alternative to NDVI to assess the effects of ecosystem function on European badger habitat use. Our results were mixed in the selection of the stress metric, while stress was an important descriptor of habitat use. PSRI and SIPI were selected for stone marten and genet models, and MSI for badger models. Plant stress can be manifested in many physiological alterations, including changes in pigment concentration, with a decrease in chlorophyll and an increase in carotenoids, a decrease in water content, and increase in woody material and leaf litter. PSRI, Pigment Sensitive Vegetation Index (Merzylak et al. 1999), and SIPI, Structure Insensitive Pigment Index (Peñuelas et al. 1995a) as the names indicate, measure changes in pigment concentrations whereas MSI (Moisture Stress Index; Hunt and Rock 1989; Ceccato et al. 2001) measures changes in moisture content. This indicates that the species may be responding to different sources of plant stress, with badger responding to water content, and stone martens and genets responding to leaf color changes and senescence. The specific mechanisms by which each species is associated with indices of plant productivity and stress is unknown, but worthy of future study.
The inclusion of ecosystem function metrics improved predictions of habitat use based on ecosystem type alone but at the expense of a reduction on spatial scale and categorical resolution of the land cover map. There is a wide range of spatial resolutions that have been used in habitat-species studies. For example, some studies looking at the influence of environmental covariates on European badgers’ presence have been based on coarser spatial resolutions than those used in our study (e.g. Revilla et al. 2000; 50 m resolution; Hammond et al. 2001—100 m resolution; Requena-Mullor et al. 2014). However, others have also used Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite images or aereal photos/on-site data for assessing habitat use or predict badgers distribution with similar resolutions to ours (e.g. Virgós and Casanovas 1999—on-site; Wright et al. 2000—30 m; Rosalino et al. 2004—2 m; Newton-Cross et al. 2007—25 m). This could lead to a mismatch between the habitat composition within the error polygon and the habitat category associated with the central point of that polygon, which may be a source of uncertainty. However, this uncertainty is inversely related with landscape heterogeneity, i.e. in more homogeneous areas the uncertainty may be low as there is a higher probability that the central point of the error polygon will represent the dominant habitat in the polygon. In highly heterogeneous areas this bias may affect results and should be considered in the analysis. Our study area is relatively homogeneous so we expect this bias not to considerably affect the results.
Our results corroborate our predictions that adding additional information on ecosystem structure, and function would be more informative than ecosystem type alone (even at finer spatial and categorical resolution), providing a unique insight into animal habitat use. The advantages of using such an approach are the inclusion of the habitat predictors that represent different ecosystem functionality and go beyond the traditional wildlife-habitat studies that reflect species use of land cover types. This insight can bring about new ways in which to describe the ecological niche of species approximating the underlying mechanisms and processes, which can be measured using indices that are applicable across a range of sensors. However, such applicability may be restricted as our second main result is that the spatial resolution of the land cover classification is very important for predicting habitat use. Therefore, these results suggest a trade-off between the inclusion of metrics of ecosystem functioning and the scale of the analysis— a spatial resolution that probably matches that of the perception abilities of mesocarnivores. The Landsat archive and analytical software are currently freely available, allowing inferences to current and past dates, and predictions into the future potential responses of species to effects of climate changes in their habitat (Santos et al. 2014). Climate change predictions for southern European countries indicate decrease in rainfall and in number of rainfall events, and increased summer temperatures (Santos et al. 2002; Reid 2006). This will likely result in changes in plant phenology and productivity, and plants will show higher stress levels, decrease in canopy cover, which are expected to affect future mesocarnivore habitat use.
References
Aarts G, MacKenzie M, McConnell B, Fedak M, Matthiopoulos J (2008) Estimating space-use and habitat preference from wildlife telemetry data. Ecography 31:140–160
Antrop M (1993) The transformation of the Mediterranean landscapes: an experience of 25 years of observations. Lands Urb Plan 24:3–13
Aronson J, Pereira JS, Pausas JG (2009) Cork oak woodlands on the edge: ecology, adaptive management, and restoration. Island Press, Washington, DC
Barton K (2015) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.13.4. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
Bischof R, Loe LE, Meisingset EL, Zimmermann B, van Moorter B, Mysterud A (2012) A migratory northern ungulate in the pursuit of Spring: jumping or surfing the green wave? Am Nat 180:407–424
Boyce M (2006) Scale for resource selection functions. Div Dist 12:269–276
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York
Carreiras JMB, Pereira JMC, Pereira JS (2006) Estimation of tree canopy cover in evergreen oak woodlands using remote sensing. For Ecol Manag 223:45–53
Carvalho F, Carvalho R, Mira A, Beja P (2014) Use of tree hollows by a Mediterranean forest carnivore. For Ecol Manag 315:54–62
Ceccato P, Flasse S, Tarantola S, Jacquemoud S, Gregoire JM (2001) Detecting vegetation leaf water content using reflectance in the optical domain. Rem Sens Environ 77:22–33
Cheng RCH, Stephens MA (1989) A goodness-of-fit test using Moran’s statistic with estimated parameters. Biometrika 76:385–392
Cockburn A, Lidicker WZ (1983) Microhabitat heterogeneity and population ecology of an herbivorous rodent, Microtus californicus. Oecologia 59:167–177
Crist EP, Cicone RC (1984) A physically-based transformation of thematic mapper data—the TM tasseled cap. IEEE Trans GeoSci Rem Sens GE 22:256–263
Curran PJ, Windman WR, Gholz HL (1995) Exploring the relationship between reflectance red edge and chlorophyll concentration in slash pine leaves. Tree Physiol 15:203–206
Di L, Rundquist DC, Han L (1994) Modelling relationships between NDVI and precipitation during vegetative growth cycles. Int J Rem Sens 15:2121–2136
Dobson M (1998) Mammal distributions in the western Mediterranean: the role of human intervention. Mamm Rev 28:77–88
Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudik M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR, Lehmann A, Li J, Lobmann G, Loisele BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, Overton JM, Peterson AT, Phillips SJ, Richardson K, Scachetti-Pereira R, Schapire RE, Soberon J, Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmermann NE (2006) Novel methods improve predictions of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151
European Environmental Agency—EEA (2002) CORINE land cover 2000 technical reference document, p 120
Fortin M-J, Drapeau P, Legendre P (1989) Spatial autocorrelation and sampling design in plant ecology. Pl Ecol 83:209–222
Gamon JA, Field CB, Goulden ML, Griffin KL, Hartley AE, Joel G, Penuelas J, Valentini R (1995) Relationships between NDVI, canopy structure, and photosynthesis in three Californian vegetation types. Ecol Appl 5:28–41
Gehring TM, Swihart RK (2003) Body size, niche breadth, and ecologically scaled responses to habitat fragmentation: mammalian predators in an agricultural landscape. Biol Cons 109:283–295
Gittleman JL (1989) Carnivore behavior, ecology and evolution. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
Goetz S, Steinberg D, Dubayah R, Blair B (2007) Laser remote sensing of canopy habitat heterogeneity as a predictor of bird species richness in an eastern temperate forest, USA. Rem Sens Environ 108:254–263
Gottschalk TK, Huettmann F, Ehlers M (2005) Thirty years of analysing and modelling avian habitat relationships using satellite imagery data: a review. Int J Rem Sens 26:2631–2656
Grime JP (1993) Stress, competition, resource dynamics and vegetation processes. In: Fowden L, Mansfield T, Stoddart J (eds) Plant adaptation to environmental stress. Chapman & Hall, London
Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009
Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Model 135:147–186
Hammond RF, McGrath G, Martin SW (2001) Irish soil and land-use classifications as predictors of numbers of badgers and badger setts. Prev Vet Med 51:137–148
Hansen MC, DeFries RS, Townshend JRG, Sohlberg R, Dimiceli C, Carroll M (2002) Towards an operational MODIS continuous field percent tree cover algorithm: examples using AVHRR and MODIS data. Rem Sens Environ 83:303–319
Hardisky MA, Klemas V, Smart RM (1983) The influence of soil-salinity, growth form, and leaf moisture on the spectral radiance of Spartina alterniflora canopies. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 49:77–83
Hirzel AH, LeLay G, Helfer V, Randin C, Guisan A (2006) Evaluating the ability of habitat suitability models to predict species presences. Ecol Model 199:142–152
Hosmer D, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New York
Huete A, Didan K, Miura T, Rodriguez E (2002) Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Rem Sen Environ 83:195–213
Huete AR, Liu H, Leeuwen KBWV (1997) A comparison of vegetation indices over a global set of TM images for EOS-MODIS. Rem Sen Environ 59:440–451
Hunt ER, Rock BN (1989) Detection of changes in leaf water content using near- and middle-infrared reflectances. Rem Sens Environ 30:43–54
Jackson RD (1986) Remote sensing of biotic and abiotic plant stress. Ann Rev Phytopathol 24:265–287
Jackson TL, Chen D, Cosh M, Li F, Anderson M, Walthall C, Doriaswamy P, Hunt ER (2004) Vegetation water content mapping using Landsat data derived normalized difference water index for corn and soybeans. Rem Sens Environ 92:475–482
Kaufman YJ, Tanre D (1996) Strategy for direct and indirect methods for correcting the aerosol effect on remote sensing: from AVHRR to EOS-MODIS. Rem Sens Environ 55:65–79
Kerr JT, Ostrovsky M (2003) From space to species: ecological applications for remote sensing. Tr Ecol Evol 18:299–305
Long RA, MacKay P, Zielinski WJ, Ray JC (2008) Noninvasive survey methods for carnivores. Island Press, Washington
Loureiro F, Bissonette JA, Macdonald DW, Santos-Reis M (2009) Temporal variation in the availability of Mediterranean food resources: do badgers Meles meles track them? Wildl Biol 15:197–206
Loureiro F, Rosalino LM, MacDonald DW, Santos-Reis M (2007) Use of multiple den sites by Eurasian badgers, Meles meles, in a Mediterranean habitat. Zool Sci 24:978–985
Ludeke MKB, Ramage PH, Kohlmaier GH (1996) The use of satellite NDVI data for the validation of global vegetation phenology models: application to the Frankfurt Biosphere Model. Ecol Model 91:255–270
Manel S, Williams HC, Ormerod SJ (2001) Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. J App Ecol 38:921–931
Matos HM, Santos MJ, Palomares F, Santos-Reis M (2008) Does riparian habitat condition influence mammalian carnivore abundance in Mediterranean ecosystems? Biodiv Conserv 18:373–386
Mazerolle MJ (2015) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2.0-3. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=AICcmodavg
Merzylak JR, Gitelson AA, Chivkunova OB, Rakitin VY (1999) Non-destructive optical detection of pigment changes during leaf senescence and fruit ripening. Physiol Plant 106:135–141
Meyer CB, Thuiller W (2006) Accuracy of resource selection functions across spatial scales. Div Dist 12:288–297
Moisen GC, Edwards-Jr TC, Osborne PE (2006) Further advances in predicting species distributions. Ecol Model 199:129–131
Moran PAP (1950) Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37:17–23
Morrison ML, Marcot BG, Mannan RW (1998) Wildlife-habitat relationships—concepts and applications. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI
Neumann W, Martinuzzi S, Estes AB, Pidgeon AM, Dettki H, Ericsson G, Radeloff V (2015) Opportunities for the application of advanced remotely-sensed data in ecological studies of terrestrial animal movement. Mov Ecol 3:8
Newton-Cross G, White PCL, Harris S (2007) Modelling the distribution of badgers Meles meles: comparing predictions from field-based and remotely derived habitat data. Mamm Rev 37:54–70
Nielsen EB, Herfindal I, Linnell JDC (2005) Can intra-specific variation in carnivore home-range size be explained using remote-sensing estimates of environmental productivity? EcoSci 12:68–75
Oppelt N, Mauser W (2004) Hyperspectral monitoring of physiological parameters of wheat during a vegetation period using AVIS data. Int J Rem Sens 25:145–159
Owen JG (1988) On productivity as a predictor of rodent and carnivore diversity. Ecology 69:1161–1165
Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K (2004) APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289–290
Peñuelas J, Baret F, Fillela I (1995a) Semi-empirical indices to assess carotenoids/chlorophyll-a ratio from leaf spectral reflectance. Photosynthetica 31:221–230
Peñuelas J, Fillela I, Biel C, Serrano L, Save R (1995b) The reflectance at the 950-970 region as an indicator of plant water status. Int J Rem Sens 14:1887–1905
Pereira M, Rodriguez A (2010) Conservation value of linear woody remnants for two forest carnivores in a Mediterranean agricultural landscape. J Appl Ecol 47:611–620
Perras M, Nebel S (2012) Satellite Telemetry and its impact on the study of animal migration. Nat Educ Knowl 3(12):4
Pettorelli N, Ryan S, Mueller T, Bunnefeld N, Jedrzejewska B, Lima M, Kausrud K (2011) The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI): unforeseen successes in animal ecology. Clim Res 46:15–27
Pettorelli N, Vik JO, Gaillard J-M, Tucker CJ, Stenseth NC (2005) Using the satellite-derived NDVI to assess ecological responses to environmental change. Tr Ecol Evol 20:503–510
Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML (1995) Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science 269:331–334
Pinto-Correia T, Fonseca AM (2009) Historical perspective of montados: the example of Évora. In: Aronson J, Pereira JS, Pausas JG (eds) Cork Oak Woodlands on the edge: ecology, adaptive management, and restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration International, Washington
Pulliam HR (2002) On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol Lett 3:349–361
R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria
Reid H (2006) Climate change and biodiversity in Europe. Conserv Soc 4:84–101
Requena-Mullor JM, López E, Castro AJ, Cabello J, Virgós E, González-Miras E, Castro H (2014) Modeling spatial distribution of European badger in arid landscapes: an ecosystem functioning approach. Landsc Ecol 29:843–855
Revilla E, Palomares F, Delibes M (2000) Defining key habitats for low density populations of Eurasian badgers in mediterranean environments. Biol Conserv 95:269–277
Revilla E, Palomares F, Delibes M (2001) Edge-core effects and the effectiveness of traditional reserves in conservation: Eurasian badgers in Doñana National Park. Conserv Biol 15:148–158
Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez J-C, Müller M (2011) pROC: an open-source package for R and S + to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 12:77
Rosalino LM, Santos-Reis M (2002) Feeding habits of the common genet Genetta genetta (Carnivora: Viverridae) in a semi-natural landscape of central Portugal. Mammal 66:195–205
Rosalino LM, Santos-Reis M (2008) Fruit consumption by carnivores in Mediterranean Europe. Mamm Rev 39:67–78
Rosalino LM, Loureiro F, Macdonald DW, Santos-Reis M (2003) Food digestibility of an Eurasian badger Meles meles with special reference to the Mediterranean region. Act Theriol 48:283–288
Rosalino LM, MacDonald DW, Santos-Reis M (2004) Spatial structure and land-cover use in a low density Mediterranean population of Eurasian badgers. Can J Zool 82:1493–1502
Rosalino LM, Loureiro F, Macdonald DW, Santos-Reis M (2005a) Dietary shifts of the badger Meles meles in Mediterranean woodlands: an opportunistic forager with seasonal specialisms. Mamm Biol 70:12–23
Rosalino LM, Macdonald DW, Santos-Reis M (2005b) Activity rhythms, movements and patterns of sett use by badgers, Meles meles, in a Mediterranean woodland. Mamm Biol 69:395–408
Rosalino LM, Macdonald DW, Santos-Reis M (2005c) Resource dispersion and badger population density in Mediterranean woodlands: is food, water or geology the limiting factor? Oikos 110:441–452
Rosalino LM, Santos MJ, Beier P, Santos-Reis M (2007) Eurasian badger habitat selection in Mediterranean environments: does scale really matter? Mammal Biol 73:189–198
Rushton SP, Ormerod SJ, Kerby KG (2004) New paradigms for modelling species distributions? J Appl Ecol 41:193–200
Saba VS, Spotila JR, Chavez FP, Misick JA (2008) Bottom-up and climatic forcing on the worldwide population of leatherback turtles. Ecol 89:1414–1427
Santos FD, Forbes K, Moita R (2002) Climate change in Portugal. Scenarios, Impacts and Adaptation Measures Lisboa, Portugal
Santos MJ (2010) Conservation planning of oak woodlands in Portugal and California: a multidisciplinary approach. Dissertation for the fulfillment of the requirements of the PhD in Ecology, University of California, Davis. USA
Santos MJ, Beier P (2008) Habitat selection by European badgers at multiple spatial scales in Portuguese Mediterranean ecosystems. Wildl Res 35:835–843
Santos MJ, Pinto BM, Santos-Reis M (2007) Is trophic niche partitioning the solution for the coexistence of carnivores in a Mediterranean landscape of SW Portugal? WebEcol 7:53–62
Santos MJ, Santos-Reis M (2009) Stone marten (Martes foina) habitat in a Mediterranean ecosystem: effects of scale, sex, and interspecific interactions. Eur J Wildl Res 56:275–286
Santos MJ, Thorne JH (2010) Comparing culture and ecology: conservation planning of oak woodlands in Mediterranean landscapes of Portugal and California. Environ Conserv 37:155–168
Santos MJ, Matos HM, Palomares F, Santos-Reis M (2011) Factors affecting mammalian carnivore use of riparian ecosystems in Mediterranean climates. J Mamm 92:1060–1069
Santos MJ, Thorne JH, Moritz C (2014) Synchronicity in elevation range shifts among small mammal and vegetation over the last century is stronger for omnivores. Ecography 37:1–13
Santos-Reis M, Santos MJ, Lourenço S, Marques JT, Pereira I, Pinto B (2004) Relationships between stone martens, genets and cork oak woodlands in Portugal. In: Harrison DJ, Fuller AK, Proulx G (eds) Martens and Fishers (Martes) in Human-altered environments: an international perspective. Springer, Berlin, pp 147–172
Schadt S, Knauer F, Kaczensky P, Revilla E, Wiegand T, Trepl L (2002) Rule-based assessment of suitable habitat and patch connectivity for the Eurasian lynx. Ecol Appl 12:1469–1483
Schönert M, Weichelt H, Zillmann E, Jürgens C (2014) Derivation of Tasseled Cap Coefficients for RapidEye data. Proc SPIE 9245:1–11
Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison ML, Haufler JB, Raphael MG, Wall WA, Samson FB (2002) Predicting species occurrences: issues of scale and accuracy. Island Press, Washington
Seghieri J, Floret C, Pontanier R (1995) Plant phenology in relation to water availability: herbaceous and woody species in the savannas of Northern Cameroon. J Trop Ecol 11:237–254
Seixas J (2000) Assessing the heterogeneity from remote sensing images: the case of desertification in southern Portugal. Int J Rem Sens 21:2645–2663
Seoane J, Bustamante J, Diaz-Delgado R (2004) Are existing vegetation maps adequate to predict bird distributions? Ecol Model 175:137–149
Soto C, Palomares F (2015) Coexistence of sympatric carnivores in relatively homogeneous Mediterranean landscapes: functional importance of habitat segregation at the fine-scale level. Oecologia 179(1):223–235
Swihart RK, Slade NA (1985) Testing for independence of observations in animal movements. Ecol 66:1176–1184
Swihart RK, Slade NA (1986) The importance of statistical power when testing for independence in animal movements. Ecology 67:255–258
Tingley MW, Beissinger SR (2009) Detecting range shifts from historical species occurrences: new perspectives on old data. Tr Ecol Evol 24:625–633
Tingley MW, Koo MS, Moritz C, Rush AC, Beissinger SR (2012) The push and pull of climate change causes heterogeneous shifts in avian elevational ranges. Global Change Biol 18:3279–3290
Tucker CJ (1979) Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring vegetation. Rem Sens Environ 8:127–150
Turner W, Spector S, Gardiner N, Fladeland M, Sterling E, Steininger M (2003) Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Tr Ecol Evol 18:306–314
Ustin SL, Adams JB, Elvidge CD, Rejmanek M, Rock BN, Smith MO, Thomas RW, Woodward RA (1986) Thematic mapper studies of semiarid shrub communities. BioScience 36:446–452
Ustin SL, Smith MO, Adams JB (1993) Remote sensing of ecological processes: a strategy for developing ecological models using spectral mixture analysis. In: Ehlringer J, Field C (eds) scaling physiological processes: leaf to globe. Academic Press, New York, pp 339–357
van Erkel AR, Pattynama PMT (1998) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis: Basic principles and applications in radiology. Eur J Rad 27:88–94
Vega-Garcia C, Chuvieco E (2006) Applying local measures of spatial heterogeneity to Landsat-TM images for predicting wildfire occurrence in Mediterranean landscapes. Lands Ecol 21:595–605
Virgós E (2001) Relative value of riparian woodlands in landscapes with different forest cover for medium-sized Iberian carnivores. Biodiv Conserv 10:1039–1049
Virgós E (2002) Are habitat generalists affected by forest fragmentation? A test with Eurasian badgers (Meles meles) in coarse-grained fragmented landscapes of central Spain. J Zool 258:313–318
Virgós E, Casanovas JG (1998) Distribution patterns of the stone marten (Martes foina) in Mediterranean mountains of central Spain. Zeitschriftfuer Saeugetierkunde 63:193–199
Virgós E, Casanovas JG (1999) Badger Meles meles sett site selection in low density Mediterranean areas of central Spain. Acta Theriol 44:173–182
Virgós E, Garcia FJ (2002) Patch occupancy by stone martens Martes foina in fragmented landscapes of central Spain: the role of fragment size, isolation and habitat structure. Acta Oecol 23:231–237
Vogelmann JE, Rock BN, Moss DM (1993) Red edge spectral measurements from sugar maple leaves. Int J Rem Sens 14:1563–1575
Wiegand T, Naves J, Garbulsky MF, Fernandez N (2008) Animal habitat quality and ecosystem functioning: exploring seasonal patterns using NDVI. Ecol Appl 78:87–103
Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164–168
Wright A, Fielding AH, Wheater CP (2000) Predicting the distribution of Eurasian badger (Meles meles) setts over an urbanized landscape: a GIS approach. Photogramm Eng Rem Sens 66:423–428
Wulder MA, Masek JG (2012) Preface to landsat legacy special issue: continuing the landsat legacy. Rem Sens Environ 122:1
Wulder MA, Hall RJ, Coops NC, Franklin SE (2004) High spatial resolution remotely sensed data for ecosystem characterization. BioScience 54:511–521
Zhang X, Schaaf C, Friedl MA, Strahler A, Gao F, Hodges J (2002) MODIS tasseled cap transformation and its utility. In: Geoscience and remote sensing symposium, IGARSS ‘02, IEEE International, pp 1063–1065
Zielinski WJ, Carroll C, Dunk JR (2006) Using landscape suitability models to reconcile conservation planning for two key forest predators. Biol Conserv 133:409–430
Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Smith GM (2007) Analysing ecological data. Springer, New York
Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York, p 574
Acknowledgments
Funding for MJS has been provided by Fulbright Commission and Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian. LMR was funded by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia and Fundo Social Europeu (III Quadro Comunitário de Apoio) (LMR: PRAXIS XXI/BD/15842/98; SFRH/BPD/35842/2007 and SFRH/BPD/101556/2014) and by the University of Aveiro (Department of Biology), CESAM (UID/AMB/50017), and FCT/MEC through national funds, and the co-funding by the FEDER, within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020. The present paper was sponsored by the Fundação para Ciência e Tecnologia project “Development of an integrated model for the management of the cork oak woodland” (PRAXIS XXI/PCNA/C/BIA/105/96) and benefited from data stored in the LTSER Montado platform developed in the frame of the project (FCT/LTER/BIA-BEC/0048/2009). The authors are grateful to Ana Filipa Alves, Bruno Miguel Pinto, Carla Marques, Clara Espírito Santo, Filipa Loureiro, Hugo Costa, Hugo Matos, Iris Pereira Caetano, João Tiago Marques, Maria João Cruz, Mário Mota, Marina Rodrigues, Sofia Lourenço, and Sónia Domingos, with whom the fieldwork was shared.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Santos, M.J., Rosalino, L.M., Santos-Reis, M. et al. Testing remotely-sensed predictors of meso-carnivore habitat use in Mediterranean ecosystems. Landscape Ecol 31, 1763–1780 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0360-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0360-3