Advertisement

Simulating animal movements to predict wildlife-vehicle collisions: illustrating an application of the novel R package SiMRiv

  • Lorenzo QuagliettaEmail author
  • Miguel Porto
  • Adam T. Ford
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Road Ecology

Abstract

In conservation, there is a high demand for methods to predict how animals respond to human infrastructure, such as estimating the location of road mortalities and evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Computer-based simulation models have emerged as an important tool in understanding wildlife-infrastructure interactions. Such models, however, often assume animal omniscience of the landscape yielding unrealistic movements, focus more on genetic connectivity than actual movement paths, or are case-specific and mathematically/computationally challenging to apply. Here, we illustrate the potential of SiMRiv, a novel R package for simulating spatially explicit, individual multistate (Markovian) movements incorporating landscape heterogeneity, in the subject of road ecology. In particular, we used SiMRiv to reproduce wildlife movement patterns and predict high-risk areas for road-kill, using Eurasian otters (Lutra lutra) as a model species. We compared the number of road crossings in real otter movements and null models (simulated, multistate Markovian movements) incorporating the effect of the landscape structure (here, water dependence). The number of road crossings in real and simulated movements was remarkably similar, and available limited real road-kill data supported SiMRiv’s road-kill risk predictions. Further, other emergent movement properties were also very similar in real and simulated movements. Overall, results show that SiMRiv has potential for reconstructing real wildlife movement patterns, as well as for predicting road-kill risk areas. SiMRiv constitutes a flexible, powerful, and intuitive tool to help biologists and managers to test mechanistic hypotheses on wildlife movement ecology, including those related to wildlife-vehicle interactions.

Keywords

Landscape connectivity Individual-based mechanistic movement simulation models Movement ecology Resistance Road ecology Road-kill hotspots 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the collaborators who helped with field tracking data collection, António Mira and the “Move” project for their help with the otter carcass collection and the collaboration and support to LQ’s Ph.D., the veterinarians J. Potes and J. Reis (Évora University) who surgically implanted the radio-transmitters into the otters, A. Bokkasa for his help with the proof reading, and three anonymous referees for their useful suggestions.

Funding information

In this work, we used a subsample of field tracking data collected within the framework of the Ph.D. project of LQ, for which limited funding was provided by Fundação Luis de Molina (Évora University) and supplemented by LQ’s Ph.D. fellowship. We had no specific funding for this project. ATF is supported by the National Science and Engineering Research Council and the Canada Research Chairs Program.

Supplementary material

10344_2019_1333_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Online Resource 1 (DOCX 23 kb)
10344_2019_1333_MOESM2_ESM.docx (1.5 mb)
Online Resource 2 (DOCX 1572 kb)

References

  1. Allen CH, Parrott L, Kyle C (2016) An individual-based modelling approach to estimate landscape connectivity for bighorn sheep (Oviscanadensis). PeerJ 4:e2001.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastille-Rousseau G, Murray DL, Schaefer JA, Lewis MA, Mahoney SP, Potts JR (2018) Spatial scales of habitat selection decisions: implications for telemetry-based movement modelling. Ecography 41:437–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyer HL, Gurarie E, Börger L, Panzacchi M, Basille M, Herfindal I, Van Moorter B, Lele SR, Matthiopoulos J (2016) ‘You shall not pass!’: quantifying barrier permeability and proximity avoidance by animals. J Anim Ecol 85:43–53PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Chetkiewicz CLB, Boyce MS (2009) Use of resource selection functions to identify conservation corridors. J Appl Ecol 46:1036–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clevenger AP, Barrueto M, Gunson KE, Caryl FM, Ford AT (2015) Context-dependent effects on spatial variation in deer-vehicle collisions. Ecosphere 6:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cushman SA, Lewis JS (2010) Movement behavior explains genetic differentiation in American black bears. Landsc Ecol 25:1613–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davy CM, Ford AT, Fraser KC (2017) Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conserv Lett 10:773–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dormann CF, Schymanski SJ, Cabral J, Chuine I, Graham C, Hartig F, Kearney M, Morin X, Römermann C, Schröder B, Singer A (2012) Correlation and process in species distribution models: bridging a dichotomy. J Biogeogr 39:2119–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fahrig L (2007) Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes. Funct Ecol 21:1003–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Gotelli NJ, Graves GR (1996) Null models in ecology. Smithsonian Institution PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Grant TJ, Parry HR, Zalucki MP, Bradbury SP (2018) Predicting monarch butterfly (Danausplexippus) movement and egg-laying with a spatially-explicit agent-based model: the role of monarch perceptual range and spatial memory. Ecol Model 374:37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grimm V, Revilla E, Berger U, Jeltsch F, Mooij WM, Railsback SF, Thulke H-H, Weiner J, Wiegand T, DeAngelis DL (2005) Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Science 310:987–991PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Grimm V, Berger U, Bastiansen F, Eliassen S, Ginot V, Giske J, Goss-Custard J, Grand T, Heinz SK, Huse G, Huth A (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Model 198:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hartig F, Calabrese JM, Reineking B, Wiegand T, Huth A (2011) Statistical inference for stochastic simulation models–theory and application. Ecol Lett 14:816–827PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Jaeger JA, Fahrig L (2004) Effects of road fencing on population persistence. Conserv Biol 18:1651–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kanagaraj R, Wiegand T, Kramer-Schadt S, Goyal SP (2013) Using individual-based movement models to assess inter-patch connectivity for large carnivores in fragmented landscapes. Biol Conserv 167:298–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koen EL, Bowman J, Sadowski C, Walpole AA (2014) Landscape connectivity for wildlife: development and validation of multispecies linkage maps. Methods Ecol Evol 5:626–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kool JT, Moilanen A, Treml EA (2013) Population connectivity: recent advances and new perspectives. Landsc Ecol 28:165–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Landguth EL, Hand BK, Glassy J, Cushman SA, Sawaya MA (2012) UNICOR: a species connectivity and corridor network simulator. Ecography 35:9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Landguth EL, Bearlin A, Day CC, Dunham J (2017) CDMetaPOP: an individual-based, eco-evolutionary model for spatially explicit simulation of landscape demogenetics. Methods Ecol Evol 8:4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lima SL, Zollner PA (1996) Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:131–135PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Malishev M, Bull CM, Kearney MR (2018) An individual-based model of ectotherm movement integrating metabolic and microclimatic constraints. Methods Ecol Evol 9:472–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McClure ML, Dickson BG, Nicholson KL (2017) Modeling connectivity to identify current and future anthropogenic barriers to movement of large carnivores: a case study in the American Southwest. Ecol Evol 7:3762–3772PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McRae BH, Beier P (2007) Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:19885–19890PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. McRae BH, Kavanagh DM (2011) Linkage mapper connectivity analysis software. The Nature Conservancy. http://www.circuitscape.org/linkagemapper
  27. McRae BH, Shah VB, Mohapatra TK (2013) Circuitscape 4 User Guide. The Nature Conservancy. http://www.circuitscape.org.
  28. Michelot T, Langrock R, Patterson TA (2016) moveHMM: an R package for the statistical modelling of animal movement data using hidden Markov models. Methods Ecol Evol 7:1308–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moorcroft PR, Lewis MA (2006) Mechanistic home range analysis. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Morales JM, Haydon DT, Frair J, Holsinger KE, Fryxell JM (2004) Extracting more out of relocation data: building movement models as mixtures of random walks. Ecology 85:2436–2445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mueller T, Fagan WF (2008) Search and navigation in dynamic environments–from individual behaviors to population distributions. Oikos 117:654–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nathan R, Getz WM, Revilla E, Holyoak M, Kadmon R, Saltz D, Smouse PE (2008) A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:19052–19059PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Palmer SC, Coulon A, Travis JM (2011) Introducing a ‘stochastic movement simulator’ for estimating habitat connectivity. Methods Ecol Evol 2:258–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Porto M, Quaglietta L (2017) ‘SiMRiv’ (version 1.0.1) An R package for simulation and analysis of spatially-explicit individual multi-state (animal) movements in any landscape. https://cran.r-903/project.org/web/packages/SiMRiv/vignettes/SiMRiv.pdf. 2017.
  35. Potts JR, Lewis MA (2014) How do animal territories form and change? Lessons from 20 years of mechanistic modelling. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 281(472):20140231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Potts JR, Bastille-Rousseau G, Murray DL, Schaefer JA, Lewis MA (2014) Predicting local and non-local effects of resources on animal space use using a mechanistic step selection model. Methods Ecol Evol 5:253–262PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Proctor MF, Nielsen SE, Kasworm WF, Servheen C, Radandt TG, Machutchon AG, Boyce MS (2015) Grizzly bear connectivity mapping in the Canada–United States trans-border region. J Wildl Manag 79:544–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quaglietta L (2011) Ecology and behaviour of the Eurasian otter (Lutralutra) in a Mediterranean area (Alentejo, Portugal). PhD Thesis, University of Roma “La Sapienza” [in Italian].Google Scholar
  39. Quaglietta L, Porto M (2018) SiMRiv: individual-based, spatially-explicit simulation and analysis of multi-state movements in river networks and heterogeneous landscapes. R package version 1.0.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package = SiMRiv
  40. Quaglietta L, Porto M (2019) SiMRiv: an R package for mechanistic, high-frequency simulation of individual multistate movements in rivers, heterogeneous and homogeneous spaces incorporating landscape bias. Mov Ecol 7:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-019-0154-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Quaglietta L, Martins BH, de Jongh A, Mira A, Boitani L (2012) A low-cost GPS GSM/GPRS telemetry system: performance in stationary field tests and preliminary data on wild otters (Lutralutra). PLoS One 7:e29235PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Quaglietta L, Fonseca VC, Mira A, Boitani L (2014) Sociospatial organization of a solitary carnivore, the Eurasian otter (Lutralutra). J Mammal 95:140–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Quaglietta L, Hájková P, Mira A, Boitani L (2015) Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) density estimate based on radio tracking and other data sources. Mammal Research 60:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Quaglietta L, Mira A, Boitani L (2018) Extrinsic and intrinsic factors affecting the daily rhythms of a semiaquatic carnivore in a Mediterranean environment. Hystrix Ital J Zool.  https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-00022-2017
  45. Ribeiro JW, Silveira dos Santos J, Dodonov P, Martello F, Brandão Niebuhr B, Ribeiro MC (2017) Landscape Corridors (LSCorridors): a new software package for modeling ecological corridors based on landscape patterns and species requirements. Methods Ecol Evol 8(952):1425–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rubner Y, Tomasi C, Guibas LJ (2000) The earth mover’s distance as a metric for image retrieval. Int J Comput Vis 40:99–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rytwinski T, van der Ree R, Cunnington GM, Fahrig L, Findlay CS, Houlahan J, Jaeger JAG, Soanes K, van der Grift EA (2015) Experimental study designs to improve the evaluation of road mitigation measures for wildlife. J Environ Manag 154:48–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Santos SM, Lourenço R, Mira A, Beja P (2013) Relative effects of road risk, habitat suitability, and connectivity on wildlife roadkills: the case of tawny owls (Strixaluco). PLoS One 8:e79967PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shirabe T (2018) Buffered or bundled, least-cost paths are not least-cost corridors: computational experiments on path-based and wide-path-based models for conservation corridor design and effective distance estimation. Ecol Inform 44:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Fortin MJ, McRae BH, Scribner KIM (2010) Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis. Mol Ecol 19:3576–3591PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Sutherland C, Fuller AK, Royle JA (2015) Modelling non-Euclidean movement and landscape connectivity in highly structured ecological networks. Methods Ecol Evol 6:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tang W, Bennett DA (2010) Agent-based modeling of animal movement: a review. Geogr Compass 4:682–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, With KA (2006) Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Theobald DM, Reed SE, Fields K, Soule M (2012) Connecting natural landscapes using a landscape permeability model to prioritize conservation activities in the United States. Conserv Lett 5:123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thiele JC, Kurth W, Grimm V (2012) RNETLOGO: an R package for running and exploring individual-based models implemented in NETLOGO. Methods Ecol Evol 3:480–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thiele JC, Kurth W, Grimm V (2014) Facilitating parameter estimation and sensitivity analysis of agent-based models: A cookbook using NetLogo and R. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 17:11Google Scholar
  57. Turchin P (1998) Quantitative analysis of movement: measuring and modeling population redistribution in plants and animals. Sinauer AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  58. van der Grift EA, van der Ree R, Fahrig L, Findlay S, Houlahan J, Jaeger JA, Klar N, Madriñan LF, Olson L (2013) Evaluating the effectiveness of road mitigation measures. Biodivers Conserv 22:425–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New York ISBN 0-387-95457-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilensky U (1999) NetLogo. Evanston, IL: Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling, Northwestern University. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo.
  61. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landsc Ecol 27:777–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Beier P, Vickers TW, Boyce WM (2017) Sensitivity of resource selection and connectivity models to landscape definition. Landsc Ecol 32:835–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zimmermann Teixeira F, Kindel A, Hartz SM, Mitchell S, Fahrig L (2017) When road-kill hotspots do not indicate the best sites for road-kill mitigation. J Appl Ecol 54:1544–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIBIO/InBio – Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos da Universidade do Porto, VairãoVairãoPortugal
  2. 2.CEABN/InBIO, Centro de Ecologia Aplicada “Prof Baeta Neves”, Instituto Superior de AgronomiaUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of British ColumbiaKelownaCanada

Personalised recommendations