Modeling resource selection using polytomous logistic regression and kernel density estimates
- 139 Downloads
- 4 Citations
Abstract
Wildlife resource selection studies typically compare used to available resources; selection or avoidance occurs when use is disproportionately greater or less than availability. Comparing used to available resources is problematic because results are often greatly influenced by what is considered available to the animal. Moreover, placing relocation points within resource units is often difficult due to radiotelemetry and mapping errors. Given these problems, we suggest that an animal’s resource use be summarized at the scale of the home range (i.e., the spatial distribution of all point locations of an animal) rather than by individual points that are considered used or available. To account for differences in use-intensity throughout an animal’s home range, we model resource selection using kernel density estimates and polytomous logistic regression. We present a case study of elk (Cervus elaphus) resource selection in South Dakota to illustrate the procedure. There are several advantages of our proposed approach. First, resource availability goes undefined by the investigator, which is a difficult and often arbitrary decision. Instead, the technique compares the intensity of animal use throughout the home range. This technique also avoids problems with classifying locations rigidly as used or unused. Second, location coordinates do not need to be placed within mapped resource units, which is problematic given mapping and telemetry error. Finally, resource use is considered at an appropriate scale for management because most wildlife resource decisions are made at the level of the patch. Despite the advantages of this use-intensity procedure, future research should address spatial autocorrelation and develop spatial models for ordered categorical variables.
Keywords
Fixed kernel Habitat use Polytomous logistic regressionPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Beardah CC, Baxter MJ (1995) MATLAB routines for kernel density estimation and the graphical representation of archaeological data. Anelecta Prehistorica Leidensia 28. Leiden University, Rapenburg, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Burnham KP and Anderson DR (2002). Model selection and inference: a practical information theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York Google Scholar
- Cooper AB and Millspaugh JJ (1999). The application of discrete choice models to wildlife resource selection studies. Ecology 80: 566–575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cross CL and Petersen CE (2002). Modeling snake microhabitat from radiotelemetry studies using polytomous logistic regression. J Herptel 35: 590–597 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Erickson WP, McDonald TL, Gerow KG, Howlin S and Kern JW (2001). Statistical issues in resource selection studies with radio-marked animals. In: Millspaugh, JJ and Marzluff, JM (eds) Radio tracking and animal populations, pp 209–242. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego Google Scholar
- Garton EO, Wisdom MJ, Leban FA and Johnson BK (2001). Experimental design for radiotelemetry studies. In: Millspaugh, JJ and Marzluff, JM (eds) Radio tracking and animal populations, pp 15–42. Academic Press, Inc, San Diego Google Scholar
- Gitzen RA and Millspaugh JJ (2003). Evaluation of least squares cross validation bandwidth selection options for kernel estimation. Wildlife Soc Bull 31: 823–831 Google Scholar
- Hosmer DW and Lemeshow S (2000). Applied logistic regression. John Wiley and Sons, New York Google Scholar
- Keating KA and Cherry S (2004). Use and interpretation of logistic regression in habitat-selection studies. J Wildlife Manage 68: 774–789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kernohan BJ, Gitzen RA and Millspaugh JJ (2001). Analysis of animal space use and movements. In: Millspaugh, JJ and Marzluff, JM (eds) Radio tracking and animal populations, pp 104–106. Academic Press, Inc., San Diago Google Scholar
- Loader CR (1999). Local regression and likelihood. Springer-Verlag, New York Google Scholar
- 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, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Marzluff JM, Knick S and Millspaugh JJ (2001). High-tech behavioral ecology. In: Millspaugh, JJ and Marzluff, JM (eds) Radio tracking and animal populations., pp 309–326. Academic Press Inc., San Diego Google Scholar
- Marzluff JM, Millspaugh JJ, Hurvitz P and Handcock MS (2004). Resource utilization by an avian nest predator: relating resources to a probabilistic measure of animal space use. Ecology 85: 1411–1427 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nams VO (1989). Effects of radiotelemetry error on sample size and bias when testing for habitat selection. Can J Zool 67: 1631–1636 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- North MP and Reynolds JH (1996). Microhabitat analysis using radiotelemetry locations and polytomous logistic regression. J Wildlife Manage 60: 639–653 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Seaman DE, Millspaugh JJ, Kernohan BJ, Brundige GC, Raedeke KJ and Gitzen RA (1999). Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates. J Wildlife Manage 63: 739–747 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Silverman BW (1986). Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall, London Google Scholar
- Terrell GR and Scott DW (1992). Variable kernel density estimation. Annal Stat 20: 1236–1265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Venables WN and Ripley BD (2002). Modern applied statistics with S. Springer-Verlag, New York Google Scholar
- Wand MP and Jones MC (1995). Kernel smoothing. Chapman and Hall, London Google Scholar
- White GC and Garrott RA (1986). Effects of biotelemetry triangulation error on detecting habitat selection. J Wildlife Manage 50: 509–513 CrossRefGoogle Scholar