Population Ecology

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 145–157 | Cite as

Relationship between resource selection, distribution, and abundance: a test with implications to theory and conservation

  • Chris J. Johnson
  • Dale R. Seip
Original Article


Much of applied and theoretical ecology is concerned with the interactions of habitat quality, animal distribution, and population abundance. We tested a technique that uses resource selection functions (RSF) to scale animal density to the relative probability of selecting a patch of habitat. Following an accurate survey of a reference block, the habitat-based density estimator can be used to predict population abundance for other areas with no or unreliable survey data. We parameterized and tested the technique using multiple years of radiotelemetry locations and survey data collected for woodland caribou across four landscape-level survey blocks. The habitat-based density estimator performed poorly. Predictions were no better than those of a simple area estimator and in some cases deviated from the observed by a factor of 10. We developed a simulation model to investigate factors that might influence prediction success. We experimentally manipulated population density, caribou distribution, ability of animals to track carrying capacity, and precision of the estimation equation. Our simulations suggested that interactions between population density, the size of the reference block, and the pattern of distribution can lead to large discrepancies between observed and predicted population numbers. Over- or undermatching patch carrying capacity and precision of the estimator can influence predictions, but the effect is much less extreme. Although there is some empirical and theoretical evidence to support a relationship between animal abundance and resource selection, our study suggests that a number of factors can seriously confound these relationships. Habitat-based density estimators might be effective where a stable, isolated population at equilibrium is used to generate predictions for areas with similar population parameters and ecological conditions.


Caribou Estimation Habitat Population Resource selection function 



We thank M. Boyce, M. Gillingham, D. Heard, and S. Nielsen for guidance on an earlier version of this manuscript. We thank G. Watts for providing survey data. Two anonymous reviewers provided constructive comments that greatly improved the final paper.


  1. Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Thompson WL (2000) Null hypothesis testing: problems, prevalence, and an alternative. J Wildlife Manage 64:912–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apps CD, McLellan BN, Woods JG, Proctor MF (2004) Estimating grizzly bear distribution and abundance relative to habitat and human influence. J Wildlife Manage 68:138–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry SC, Welsh AH (2002) Generalized additive modelling and zero inflated count data. Ecol Model 157:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyce MS, McDonald LL (1999) Relating populations to habitat using resource selection functions. Trends Ecol Evol 14:268–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyce MS, Waller JS (2003) Grizzly bears for the Bitterroot: predicting potential abundance and distribution. Wildl Soc Bull 31:670–683Google Scholar
  6. Boyce MS, Vernier PR, Nielsen SE, Schmiegelow FKA (2002) Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol Model 157:281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calsbeek R, Sinervo B (2002) An experimental test of the ideal despotic distribution. J Anim Ecol 71:513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carbone C, Gittleman JL (2002) A common rule for scaling of carnivore density. Science 295:2273–2276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ciarniello LM, Boyce MS, Heard DC, Seip DR (2007) Components of grizzly bear habitat selection: density, habitats, roads, and mortality risk. J Wildlife Manage 71:1446–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Compton BW, Rhymer JM, McCollough M (2002) Habitat selection by wood turtles (Clemmys insculpta): an application of paired logistic regression. Ecology 83:833–843Google Scholar
  11. Crête M (1999) The distribution of deer biomass in North America supports the hypothesis of exploitable ecosystems. Ecol Lett 2:223–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeWoody YD, Feng ZL, Swihart RK (2005) Merging spatial and temporal structure within a metapopulation model. Am Nat 166:42–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elith J, Burgman MA, Regan HA (2002) Mapping epistemic uncertainties and vague concepts in predictions of species distribution. Ecol Model 157:313–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fortin D, Beyer HL, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Duchesne T, Mao JS (2005) Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 86:1320–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freckleton RP, Gill JA, Noble D, Watkinson AR (2005) Large-scale population dynamics, abundance–occupancy relationships and the scaling from local to regional population size. J Anim Ecol 74:353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaines WL, Lyons AL, Lehmkuhl JF, Raedeke KJ (2005) Landscape evaluation of female black bear habitat effectiveness and capability in the North Cascades, Washington. Biol Conserv 125:411–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grand TC, Dill LM (1999) Predation risk, unequal competitors and the ideal free distribution. Evol Ecol Res 1:389–409Google Scholar
  19. Hanski I, Gilpin M (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Biol J Linnean Soc 42:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haughland DL, Larsen KW (2004) Exploration correlates with settlement: red squirrel dispersal in contrasting habitats. J Anim Ecol 73:1024–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. He F, Gaston KJ (2000) Estimating species abundance from occurrence. Am Nat 156:553–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hobbs NT, Hanley TA (1990) Habitat evaluation: do use/availability data reflect carrying capacity? J Wildlife Manage 54:515–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoekstra JM, Boucher TM, Ricketts TH, Roberts C (2005) Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecol Lett 8:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson CJ, Parker KL, Heard DC, Gillingham MP (2002) A multiscale behavioral approach to understanding the movements of woodland caribou. Ecol Appl 12:1840–1860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson CJ, Boyce MS, Case RL, Cluff HD, Gau RJ, Gunn A, Mulders R (2005) Cumulative effects of human developments on Arctic wildlife. Wildl Monogr 160:1–36Google Scholar
  26. Johnson CJ, Nielsen SE, Merrill EH, McDonald TL, Boyce MS (2006) Resource selection functions based on use-availability data: theoretical motivation and evaluation methods. J Wildlife Manage 70:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones E (2007) Use, selection and winter foraging patterns among caribou herds in central British Columbia. M.Sc thesis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince GeorgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Kennedy M, Gray RD (1993) Can ecological theory predict the distribution of foraging animals? A critical analysis of experiments on the ideal free distribution. Oikos 68:158–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laidre KL, Jameson RJ, Jeffries SJ, Hobbs RC, Bowlby CE, VanBlaricom GR (2002) Estimates of carrying capacity for sea otters in Washington State. Wildl Soc Bull 30:1172–1181Google Scholar
  30. Loegering JP, Fraser JD (1995) Factors affecting piping plover chick survival in different brood-rearing habitats. J Wildlife Manage 59:646–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lohmus A (2003) Are certain habitats better every year? A review and case study on birds of prey. Ecography 26:545–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP (2002) Resource selection by animals. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DortrechtGoogle Scholar
  33. Mauritzen M, Belikov SE, Boltunov AN, Derocher AE, Hansen E, Ims RA, Wiig O, Yoccoz N (2003) Functional responses in polar bear habitat selection. Oikos 100:112–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McLoughlin PD, Boyce MS, Coulson T, Clutton-Brock T (2006) Lifetime reproductive success and density-dependent, multivariable resource selection. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:1449–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meidinger D, Pojar J (1991) Ecosystems of British Columbia. Special report series No. 6. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  36. Menard S (1995) Applied logistic regression analysis. Quantitative applications in the social sciences series no. 07-106. Sage University Press, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  37. Mitchell LR, Chandler CR, Carlile LD (2005) Habitat as a predictor of southern flying squirrel abundance in red-cockaded cavity clusters. J Wildlife Manage 69:418–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mooney CZ, Duval RD (1993) Bootstrapping a nonparametric approach to statistical inference. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-095, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  39. Morris DW (2003) Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 136:1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mysterud A, Ims RA (1999) Relating populations to habitats. Trends Ecol Evol 14:489–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nielsen SE, Johnson CJ, Heard DC, Boyce MS (2005) Can models of presence–absence be used to scale abundance? Two case studies considering extremes in life history. Ecography 28:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pearce J, Ferrier S (2000) Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol Model 133:225–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pearce J, Ferrier S (2001) The practical value of modelling relative abundance of species for regional conservation planning: a case study. Biol Conserv 98:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pierce CA, Block RA, Aguinis H (2004) Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educ Psychol Meas 64:916–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pulliam HR (2000) On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol Lett 3:349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Railsback SF, Stauffer HB, Harvey BC (2003) What can habitat preference models tell us? Tests using a virtual trout population. Ecol Appl 13:1580–1594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Regan HM, Colyvan M, Burgman MA (2002) A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecol Appl 12:618–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reimers E, Eftestol S, Colman JE (2003) Behavior responses of wild reindeer to direct provocation by a snowmobile or skier. J Wildlife Manage 67:747–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roloff GJ, Haufler JB (1997) Establishing population viability planning objectives based on habitat potentials. Wildl Soc Bull 25:895–904Google Scholar
  50. Rosenzweig ML (1991) Habitat selection and population interactions: the search for mechanisms. Am Nat 137:S5–S28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seip DR (1992) Factors limiting woodland caribou populations and their interrelationships with wolves and moose in southeastern British Columbia. Can J Zool 70:1494–1503Google Scholar
  52. Seip DR, Johnson CJ, Watts GS (2007) Displacement of mountain caribou from winter habitat by snowmobiles. J Wildlife Manage 71:1539–1544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stevenson SK, Coxson DS (2003) Litterfall, growth, and turnover of arboreal lichens after partial cutting in an Engelmann spruce—subalpine fir forest in north-central British Columbia. Can J Forest Res 33:2306–2320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Terry EL, McLellan BN, Watts GS (2000) Winter habitat ecology of mountain caribou in relation to forest management. J Appl Ecol 37:589–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tregenza T (1995) Building on the ideal free distribution. Adv Ecol Res 26:253–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tyler JA, Hargrove WW (1997) Predicting spatial distribution of foragers over large resource landscapes: a modeling analysis of the ideal free distribution. Oikos 79:376–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Horne B (1983) Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. J Wildlife Manage 47:893–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wittmer HU, McLellan BN, Seip DR, Young JA, Kinley TA, Watts GS, Hamilton D (2005a) Population dynamics of the endangered mountain ecotype of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in British Columbia, Canada. Can J Zool 83:407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wittmer HU, Sinclair ARE, McLellan BN (2005b) The role of predation in the decline and extirpation of woodland caribou. Oecologia 144:257–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ecosystem Science and Management ProgramUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaPrince GeorgeCanada
  2. 2.British Columbia Ministry of Forests and RangePrince GeorgeCanada

Personalised recommendations