Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 1319–1335 | Cite as

Using step and path selection functions for estimating resistance to movement: pumas as a case study

  • Katherine A. ZellerEmail author
  • Kevin McGarigal
  • Samuel A. Cushman
  • Paul Beier
  • T. Winston Vickers
  • Walter M. Boyce
Research Article

Abstract

Context

GPS telemetry collars and their ability to acquire accurate and consistently frequent locations have increased the use of step selection functions (SSFs) and path selection functions (PathSFs) for studying animal movement and estimating resistance. However, previously published SSFs and PathSFs often do not accommodate multiple scales or multi-scale modeling.

Objectives

We present a method that allows multiple scales to be analyzed with SSF and PathSF models. We also explore the sensitivity of model results and resistance surfaces to whether SSFs or PathSFs are used, scale, prediction framework, and GPS collar sampling interval.

Methods

We use 5-min GPS collar data from pumas (Puma concolor) in southern California to model SSFs and PathSFs at multiple scales, to predict resistance using two prediction frameworks (paired and unpaired), and to explore potential bias from GPS collar sampling intervals.

Results

Regression coefficients were extremely sensitive to scale and pumas exhibited multiple scales of selection during movement. We found PathSFs produced stronger regression coefficients, larger resistance values, and superior model performance than SSFs. We observed more heterogeneous surfaces when resistance was predicted in a paired framework compared with an unpaired framework. Lastly, we observed bias in habitat use and resistance results when using a GPS collar sampling interval longer than 5 min.

Conclusions

The methods presented provide a novel way to model multi-scale habitat selection and resistance from movement data. Due to the sensitivity of resistance surfaces to method, scale, and GPS schedule, care should be used when modeling corridors for conservation purposes using these methods.

Keywords

Puma concolor Resistance surface Connectivity Corridors Wildlife Multi-scale habitat modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank B. Compton and E. Plunkett, for assistance with computational capacity, D. Dawn, D. Krucki, C. Bell, P. Bryant, D. Stewart, and K. Krause for field assistance. We would also like to thank the following landowners/managers: The Nature Conservancy, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Orange County Parks Department, The New Irvine Ranch Conservancy, Audubon Starr Ranch Reserve, Riverside County Parks Department, and the Cleveland National Forest. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under NSF DGE-0907995, a Kaplan Graduate Award, The Nature Conservancy, Orange County Transportation Corridor Agency, The Nature Reserve of Orange County, and the McBeth Foundation.

Supplementary material

10980_2015_301_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.6 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1610 kb)

References

  1. Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, p 419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beier P, Majka D, Spencer WD (2008) Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildlife linkages. Conserv Biol 22:836–851CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown DD, LaPoint S, Kays R, Heidrich W, Kummeth F, Wikelski M (2012) Accelerometer-informed GPS telemetry: reducing the trade-off between resolution and longevity. Wildl Soc Bull 36:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burdett CL, Crooks KR, Theobald DM, Wilson KR, Boydston EE, Lyren LM, Fisher RN, Vickers TW, Morrison SA, Boyce WM (2010) Interfacing models of wildlife habitat and human development to predict the future distribution of puma habitat. Ecosphere 1:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New York. ISBN 978-0-387-22456-5Google Scholar
  6. California Department of Fish and Game (1988) A guide to wildlife habitats of California. In: Mayer KE, Laudenslayer Jr WF (eds) State of California Resources Agency. Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, p 166. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/wildlife_habitats.asp#Tree. Accessed 29 Jan 2013
  7. Compton BW, Rhymer JM, McCollough M (2002) Habitat selection by wood turtles (Clemmys insculpta): an application of paired logistic regression. Ecology 83:833–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coulon A, Morellet N, Goulard A, Cargnelutti B, Angibault JM, Hewison AJM (2008) Inferring the effects of landscape structure on roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) movements using a step selection function. Landscape Ecol 23:603–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (2006) Connectivity conservation: maintaining connections for nature. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cushman SA, Lewis JS (2010) Movement behavior explains genetic differentiation in American black bears. Landscape Ecol 25:1613–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cushman SA, Chase M, Griffin C (2010) Mapping landscape resistance to identify corridors and barriers for elephant movement in South Africa. In: Cushman SA, Huettmann (eds) Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Springer, Japan, pp 349–367. ISBN 978-4-431-87770-7Google Scholar
  12. Cushman SA, McRae B, Adriaensen F, Beier P, Shirley M, Zeller K (2013) Biological corridors and connectivity. In: Macdonald DW, Willis KJ (eds) Key topics in conservation biology 2. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, pp 384–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cushman SA, Lewis JS, Landguth EL (2014) Why did the bear cross the road? Comparing the performance of multiple resistance surfaces and connectivity modeling methods. Diversity 6:844–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 22:1068–1083CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dickson BG, Beier P (2007) Quantifying the influence of topographic position on cougar (Puma concolor) movement in southern California, USA. J Zool 271:270–277Google Scholar
  16. Dickson BG, Jenness JS, Beier P (2005) Influence of vegetation, topography, and roads on cougar movement in southern California. J Wildl Manag 69:264–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elliot NB, Cushman SA, Macdonald DW, Loveridge AJ (2014) The devil is in the dispersers: predictions of landscape connectivity change with demography. J Appl Ecol. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12282 Google Scholar
  18. Ernest HB, Vickers TW, Morrison SA, Buchalski MR, Boyce WM (2014) Fractured genetic connectivity threatens a southern California puma (Puma concolor) population. PLoS ONE 9(10):e107985. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107985 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Estrada EG, Alva JAV (2011) Package gPdtest: bootstrap goodness-of-fit test for the generalized Pareto distribution. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gPdtest/index.html. Accessed 11 Feb 2015
  20. 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
  21. Holland JD, Bert DG, Fahrig L (2004) Determining the spatial scale of species’ response to habitat. Bioscience 54:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson D (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson CJ, Nielsen SE, Merrill EH, Mcdonald TL, Boyce MS (2006) Resource selection functions based on use-availability data: theoretic motivation and evaluation methods. J Wildl Manag 70:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joly K (2005) The effects of sampling regime on the analysis of movements of overwintering female caribou in east-central Alaska. Rangifer 25:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kertson BN, Spencer RD, Marzluff JM, Hepinstall-Cymerman J, Grue CE (2011) Cougar space use and movements in the wildland-urban landscape of western Washington. Ecol Appl 21:2866–2881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewis JS, Rachlow JL, Garton EO, Vierling LA (2007) Effects of habitat on GPS collar performance: using data screening to reduce location error. J Appl Ecol 44:663–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1:255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manly BF, Mcdonald L, 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
  29. Martin AE, Fahrig L (2012) Measuring and selecting scales of effect for landscape predictors in species–habitat models. Ecol Appl 22:2277–2292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. McGarigal K, Wan H, Zeller KA, Timm BC, Cushman SA (accepted) Multi-scale habitat modeling: A review and outlook. Landscape EcolGoogle Scholar
  31. McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89:2712–2724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. McRae BH, Shah VB, Mohapatra TK (2013) Circuitscape 4 user guide. The Nature Conservancy. http://www.circuitscape.org. Accessed 19 May 2015
  33. Mills KJ, Patterson BR, Murray DL (2006) Effects of variable sampling frequencies on GPS transmitter efficiency and estimated wolf home range size and movement distance. Wildl Soc Bull 34:1463–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Norththrup JM, Hooten MB, Anderson CR Jr, Wittemyer G (2013) Practical guidance on characterizing availability in resource selection functions under a use-availability design. Ecology 94:1456–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Potts JR, Mokross K, Stouffer PC, Lewis MA (2014) Step selection techniques uncover the environmental predictors of space use patterns in flocks of Amazonian birds. Ecol Evol 24:4578–4588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 15 May 2013
  37. Reding DM, Cushman SA, Gosselink TE, Clark WR (2013) Linking movement behavior and fine-scale genetic structure to model landscape connectivity for bobcats (Lynx rufus). Landscape Ecol 28:471–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rettie WJ, McLoughlin PD (1999) Overcoming radio telemetry bias is habitat-selection studies. Can J Zool 77:1175–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Richard Y, Armstrong DP (2010) Cost distance modeling of landscape connectivity and gap-crossing ability using radio-tracking data. J Appl Ecol 47:603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roever CL, Boyce MS, Stenhouse GB (2010) Grizzly bear movements relative to roads: application of step selection functions. Ecography 33:1113–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Squires JR, DeCesare NJ, Olson LE, Kolbe JA, Hebblewhite M, Parks SA (2013) Combining resource selection and movement behavior to predict corridors for Canada lynx at their southern range periphery. Biol Conserv 157:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thurfjell H, Ciuti S, Boyce MS (2014) Applications of step-selection functions in ecology and conservation. Mov Ecol 2:4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. USDA Forest Service (2007) CalVeg: FSSDE.Eveg-Tile47A_02_v2. Pacific Southwest Region Remote Sensing Lab, McClellanGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Beest FM, Van Moorter B, Milner JM (2012) Temperature-mediated habitat use and selection by a heat-sensitive northern ungulate. Anim Behav 84:723–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vickers TW, Sanchez JN, Johnson CK, Morrison SA, Botta R, Smith T, Cohen BS, Huber PR, Ernest HB, Boyce WM (2015) Survival and mortality of pumas (Puma concolor) in a fragmented, urbanizing landscape. PlosONE. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131490
  46. Wheatley M, Johnson C (2009) Factors limiting our understanding of ecological scale. Ecol Complex 6:150–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilmers CC, Wang Y, Nickel B, Houghtaling P, Shakeri Y, Allen ML, Kermish-Wells J, Yovovich V, Williams T (2013) Scale dependent behavioral responses to human development by a large predator, the puma. PLoS ONE. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060590 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol 27:777–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Beier P, Cushman SA, Vickers TW, Boyce WM (2014) Sensitivity of landscape resistance estimates based on point selection functions to scale and behavioral state: pumas as a case study. Landscape Ecol 29:541–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine A. Zeller
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kevin McGarigal
    • 1
  • Samuel A. Cushman
    • 3
  • Paul Beier
    • 4
  • T. Winston Vickers
    • 5
  • Walter M. Boyce
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Environmental ConservationUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.PantheraNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research StationFlagstaffUSA
  4. 4.School of ForestryNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  5. 5.Wildlife Health Center, School of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of California DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations