, Volume 185, Issue 3, pp 415–425 | Cite as

Not accounting for interindividual variability can mask habitat selection patterns: a case study on black bears

  • Rémi Lesmerises
  • Martin-Hugues St-LaurentEmail author
Behavioral ecology –original research


Habitat selection studies conducted at the population scale commonly aim to describe general patterns that could improve our understanding of the limiting factors in species–habitat relationships. Researchers often consider interindividual variation in selection patterns to control for its effects and avoid pseudoreplication by using mixed-effect models that include individuals as random factors. Here, we highlight common pitfalls and possible misinterpretations of this strategy by describing habitat selection of 21 black bears Ursus americanus. We used Bayesian mixed-effect models and compared results obtained when using random intercept (i.e., population level) versus calculating individual coefficients for each independent variable (i.e., individual level). We then related interindividual variability to individual characteristics (i.e., age, sex, reproductive status, body condition) in a multivariate analysis. The assumption of comparable behavior among individuals was verified only in 40% of the cases in our seasonal best models. Indeed, we found strong and opposite responses among sampled bears and individual coefficients were linked to individual characteristics. For some covariates, contrasted responses canceled each other out at the population level. In other cases, interindividual variability was concealed by the composition of our sample, with the majority of the bears (e.g., old individuals and bears in good physical condition) driving the population response (e.g., selection of young forest cuts). Our results stress the need to consider interindividual variability to avoid misinterpretation and uninformative results, especially for a flexible and opportunistic species. This study helps to identify some ecological drivers of interindividual variability in bear habitat selection patterns.


Individual habitat selection pattern Intrinsic characteristic Multivariate analyses Random slope coefficient 



We thank C. Dussault, S. Gravel, D. Grenier, C. Harvey and G. Lupien for bear captures, as well as A. Bérubé-Deschênes, K. Bédard, N. Bradette, C. Chicoine, J. Fillion, M. Leclerc, J.-P. Marcoux, M. Serra-David and F. Taillefer for their assistance in the field. We also thank A. Caron for statistical advice, and D. Beauchesne, J. Martin, P. Legagneux, K. Malcolm, P. and M. Fast and three anonymous reviewers for useful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Author contribution statement

Conceived and designed the experiments: R.L. M.H.S.L. Performed the experiments: R.L. MHSL. Analyzed the data: R.L. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: M.H.S.L. Wrote the paper: R.L., M.H.S.L. Coordinated the funding of the project: M.H.S.L. Prepared, validated and submitted the capture protocol to the Canadian Council on Animal Care: M.H.S.L.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

Black bear captures were conducted by the technicians of the Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec (hereafter MFFP) in June and July 2011 and 2012. All manipulations were approved by the Animal Welfare Committees of the MFFP and of the Université du Québec à Rimouski (certificate #2011-30).


This project was funded by the Fonds de recherche du Québec—Nature et technologies and the Fonds de recherche forestière du Saguenay–Lac-St-Jean (Grant #2011-FS-141452 to M.-H. St-Laurent), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant #386661-2010 to M.-H. St-Laurent), the Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec, Resolu Forest Products Inc. and the Université du Québec à Rimouski.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Adriaenssens B, Johnsson JI (2013) Natural selection, plasticity and the emergence of a behavioural syndrome in the wild. Ecol Lett 16:47–55. doi: 10.1111/ele.12011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Angeloni L, Schlaepfer MA, Lawler JJ, Crooks KR (2008) A reassessment of the interface between conservation and behaviour. Anim Behav 75:731–737. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bastille-Rousseau G, Fortin D, Dussault C, Courtois R, Ouellet J-P (2011) Foraging strategies by omnivores: are black bears actively searching for ungulate neonates or are they simply opportunistic predators? Ecography 34:588–596. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06517.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benson JF, Mahoney PJ, Patterson BR (2015) Spatiotemporal variation in selection of roads influences mortality risk for canids in an unprotected landscape. Oikos 124:1664–1673. doi: 10.1111/oik.01883 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergmüller R, Taborsky M (2010) Animal personality due to social niche specialisation. Trends Ecol Evol 25:504–511. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.06.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyce MS, Vernier PR, Nielsen SE, Schmiegelow FKA (2002) Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol Model 157:281–300. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00200-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Careau V, Thomas D, Humphries MM, Réale D (2008) Energy metabolism and animal personality. Oikos 117:641–653. doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2008.16513.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cattet MRL, Caulkett NA, Obbard ME, Stenhouse GB (2002) A body-condition index for ursids. Can J Zool 80:1156–1161. doi: 10.1139/z02-103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chicoine C (2014) Estimation des densités d’ours noirs par CMR et génotypage des poils: améliorations et perspectives liées au suivi télémétrique GPS. MSc Thesis, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, p 92Google Scholar
  10. Courbin N, Fortin D, Dussault C, Fargeot V, Courtois R (2013) Multi-trophic resource selection function enlightens the behavioural game between wolves and their prey. J Anim Ecol 82:1062–1071 doi: 10.1111/1365.2656.12093 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. DeCesare NJ, Hebblewhite M, Schmiegelow F, Hervieux D, McDermid GJ, Neufeld L, Bradley M, Whittington J, Smith KG, Morgantini LE, Wheatley M, Musiani M (2012) Transcending scale dependence in identifying habitat with resource selection functions. Ecol Appl 22:1068–1083. doi: 10.1890/11-1610.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dingemanse NJ, Dochtermann NA (2013) Quantifying individual variation in behaviour: mixed-effect modelling approaches. J Anim Ecol 82:39–54. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dingemanse NJ, Both C, Drent PJ, van Oers K, van Noordwijk AJ (2002) Repeatability and heritability of exploratory behaviour in great tits from the wild. Anim Behav 64:929–938. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2002.2006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dochtermann NA, Dingemanse NJ (2013) Behavioral syndromes as evolutionary constraints. Behav Ecol 24:806–811. doi: 10.1093/beheco/art002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duchesne T, Fortin D, Courbin N (2010) Mixed conditional logistic regression for habitat selection studies. J Anim Ecol 79:548–555. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01670.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Duckworth RA (2010) Evolution of personality: developmental constraints on behavioral flexibility. Auk 127:752–758. doi: 10.1525/auk.2010.127.4.752 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duckworth RA, Badyaev AV (2007) Coupling of dispersal and aggression facilitates the rapid range expansion of a passerine bird. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:15017–15022. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706174104 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Eagle TC, Pelton MR (1983) Seasonal nutrition of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National park. Int C Bear 5:94–101Google Scholar
  19. Elowe KD, Dodge WE (1989) Factors affecting black bear reproductive success and cub survival. J Wildl Manage 53:962–968. doi: 10.2307/3809596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farley SD, Robbins CT (1995) Lactation, hibernation, and mass dynamics of American black bears and grizzly bears. Can J Zool 73:2216–2222. doi: 10.1139/z95-262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feil R, Fraga MF (2012) Epigenetics and the environment: emerging patterns and implications. Nat Rev Genet 13:97–109. doi: 10.1038/nrg3142 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Fieberg J, Matthiopoulos J, Hebblewhite M, Boyce MS, Frair JL (2010) Correlation and studies of habitat selection: problem, red herring or opportunity? Phil Trans R Soc B 365:2233–2244. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0079 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Fortin D, Morris DW, McLoughlin PD (2008) Habitat selection and the evolution of specialists in heterogeneous environments. Isr J Ecol Evol 54:311–328. doi: 10.1560/IJEE.54.3-4.311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gillies CS, Hebblewhite M, Nielsen SE, Krawchuk MA, Aldridge CL, Frair JL, Saher DJ, Stevens CE, Jerde CL (2006) Application of random effects to the study of resource selection by animals. J Anim Ecol 75:887–898. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01106.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Graham MH (2003) Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 84:2809–2815. doi: 10.1890/02-3114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hadfield JD (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Softw 33:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hadfield JD, Wilson AJ, Garant D, Sheldon BC, Kruuk LEB (2010) The Misuse of BLUP in ecology and evolution. Am Nat 175:116–125. doi: 10.1086/648604 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hebblewhite M, Merrill E (2008) Modelling wildlife–human relationships for social species with mixed-effects resource selection models. J Appl Ecol 45:834–844. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01466.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hooten MB, Hobbs NT (2015) A guide to Bayesian model selection for ecologists. Ecol Monogr 85:3–28. doi: 10.1890/14-0661.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jaenike J, Holt RD (1991) Genetic variation for habitat preference: evidence and explanations. Am Nat 137:S67–S90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71. doi: 10.2307/1937156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson JC, Sih A (2007) Fear, food, sex and parental care: a syndrome of boldness in the fishing spider, Dolomedes triton. Anim Behav 74:1131–1138. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.02.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Klar N, Fernández N, Kramer-Schadt S, Herrmann M, Trinzen M, Büttner I, Niemitz C (2008) Habitat selection models for European wildcat conservation. Biol Cons 141:308–319. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koper N, Manseau M (2009) Generalized estimating equations and generalized linear mixed-effects models for modelling resource selection. J Appl Ecol 46:590–599. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01642.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Latham ADM, Latham MC, Boyce MS (2011) Habitat selection and spatial relationships of black bears (Ursus americanus) with woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in northeastern Alberta. Can J Zool 89:267–277. doi: 10.1139/z10-115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leclerc M, Vander Wal E, Zedrosser A, Swenson JE, Kindberg J, Pelletier F (2015) Quantifying consistent individual differences in habitat selection. Oecologia. doi: 10.1007/s00442-015-3500-6 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. LeCount AL (1987) Causes of black bear cub mortality. Bears: Biol Manage 7:75–82. doi: 10.2307/3872610 Google Scholar
  38. Lesmerises R, Rebouillat L, Dussault C, St-Laurent M-H (2015) Linking GPS telemetry surveys and scat analyses helps explain variability in black bear foraging strategies. PLoS ONE 10:e0129857. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129857 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Łomnicki A (1999) Individual-based models and the individual-based approach to population ecology. Ecol Model 115:191–198. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3800(98)00192-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP (2002) Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  41. Mitchell MS, Powell RA (2003) Response of black bears to forest management in the southern Appalachian Mountains. J Wildl Manage 67:692–705. doi: 10.2307/3802676 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mohr CO (1947) Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. Am Midl Nat 37:223–249. doi: 10.2307/2421652 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morris DW (2003) How can we apply theories of habitat selection to wildlife conservation and management? Wildl Res 30:303–319. doi: 10.1071/WR02028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mosnier A, Ouellet J-P, Courtois R (2008) Black bear adaptation to low productivity in the boreal forest. Ecoscience 15:485–497. doi: 10.2980/15-4-3100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nielsen SE, Shafer ABA, Boyce MS, Stenhouse GB (2013) Does learning or instinct shape habitat selection? PLoS ONE 8(1):e53721. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053721 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Northrup JM, Anderson CR Jr, Wittemyer G (2015) Quantifying spatial habitat loss from hydrocarbon development through assessing habitat selection patterns of mule deer. Glob Change Biol 21:3961–3970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Noyce KV, Kannowski PB, Riggs MR (1997) Black bears as ant-eaters: seasonal associations between bear myrmecophagy and ant ecology in north-central Minnesota. Can J Zool 75:1671–1686. doi: 10.1139/z97-794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Økland RH (1999) On the variation explained by ordination and constrained ordination axes. J Veg Sci 10:131–136. doi: 10.2307/3237168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H (2013) Package “vegan.” Community Ecol Package Version 2Google Scholar
  50. Orians GH, Wittenberger JF (1991) Spatial and temporal scales in habitat selection. Am Nat 137:S29–S49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Powell RA, Zimmerman JW, Seaman DE (1997) Ecology and behaviour of North American black bears: home ranges, habitat, and social organization. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Prokopenko CM, Boyce MS, Avgar T (2017) Characterizing wildlife behavioural responses to roads using integrated step selection analysis. J Appl Ecol (early view). doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12768 Google Scholar
  53. Pruitt JN, Riechert SE (2009) Sex matters: sexually dimorphic fitness consequences of a behavioural syndrome. Anim Behav 78:175–181. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.04.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  55. Rogers LL (1987) Effects of food supply and kinship on social behavior, movements, and population growth of black bears in northeastern Minnesota. Wildl Monogr 97:3–72Google Scholar
  56. Rosenzweig ML (1981) A theory of habitat selection. Ecology 62:327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rosenzweig ML (1991) Habitat selection and population interactions: the search for mechanism. Am Nat 137:S5–S28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sih A, Bell A, Johnson JC (2004) Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.04.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Sih A, Cote J, Evans M, Fogarty S, Pruitt J (2012) Ecological implications of behavioural syndromes. Ecol Lett 15:278–289. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01731.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith BR, Blumstein DT (2008) Fitness consequences of personality: a meta-analysis. Behav Ecol 19:448–455. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arm144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith BR, Blumstein DT (2010) Behavioral types as predictors of survival in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Behav Ecol 21:919–926. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arq084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Van Der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc Stat Methodol 64:583–639. doi: 10.1111/1467-9868.00353 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sweeney K, Gadd RDH, Hess ZL, McDermott DR, MacDonald L, Cotter P, Armagost F, Chen JZ, Berning AW, DiRienzo N, Pruitt JN (2013) Assessing the effects of rearing environment, natural selection, and developmental stage on the emergence of a behavioral syndrome. Ethology 119:436–447. doi: 10.1111/eth.12081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wolf M, Weissing FJ (2012) Animal personalities: consequences for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 27:452–461. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.05.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Young DD, Beecham JJ (1986) Black bear habitat use at Priest Lake, Idaho. Int C Bear 6:73–80. doi: 10.2307/3872808 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de Biologie, Chimie et GéographieUniversité du Québec à Rimouski, Centre for Northern StudiesRimouskiCanada
  2. 2.Département de Biologie, Chimie et GéographieUniversité du Québec à Rimouski, Centre for Northern Studies, Centre for Forest ResearchRimouskiCanada

Personalised recommendations