Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp 743–763 | Cite as

Multi-level, multi-scale habitat selection by a wide-ranging, federally threatened snake

  • Javan M. Bauder
  • David R. Breininger
  • M. Rebecca Bolt
  • Michael L. Legare
  • Christopher L. Jenkins
  • Betsie B. Rothermel
  • Kevin McGarigal
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Although multi-scale approaches are commonly used to assess wildlife-habitat relationships, few studies have examined selection at multiple spatial scales within different hierarchical levels/orders of selection [sensu Johnson’s (1980) orders of selection]. Failure to account for multi-scale relationships within a single level of selection may lead to misleading inferences and predictions.

Objectives

We examined habitat selection of the federally threatened eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi) in peninsular Florida at the level of the home range (Level II selection) and individual telemetry location (Level III selection) to identify influential habitat covariates and predict relative probability of selection.

Methods

Within each level, we identified the characteristic scale for each habitat covariate to create multi-scale resource selection functions. We used home range selection functions to model Level II selection and paired logistic regression to model Level III selection.

Results

At both levels, EIS selected undeveloped upland land covers and habitat edges while avoiding urban land covers. Selection was generally strongest at the finest scales with the exception of Level II urban edge which was avoided at a broad scale indicating avoidance of urbanized land covers rather than urban edge per se.

Conclusions

Our study illustrates how characteristic scales may vary within a single level of selection and demonstrates the utility of multi-level, scale-optimized habitat selection analyses. We emphasize the importance of maintaining large mosaics of natural habitats for eastern indigo snake conservation.

Keywords

Home range selection function Habitat selection Scale Urbanization Second-order habitat selection Hierarchical habitat selection Radio telemetry Road crossing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The Orianne Society, NASA, and The Bailey Wildlife Foundation. The Archbold Biological Station and NASA at Kennedy Space Center provided logistical support. Z. Forsburg, L. Paden, and P. Barnhart assisted with data collection and many private landowners provided access to their properties. Many scientists, students, and volunteers helped search for EIS. E. Plunkett, B. Compton, K. Zeller, and J. Finn provided computational and analytical support. This study was conducted under permits from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (TE28025A-1), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (WX97328), University of Florida Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (200903450), and Archbold Biological Station Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (ABS-AUP-002-R). Comments from K. Zeller and two anonymous reviewers greatly improved this manuscript.

Supplementary material

10980_2018_631_MOESM1_ESM.docx (234 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 235 kb)

References

  1. Abrahamson WG, Johnson AF, Layne JN, Peroni PA (1984) Vegetation of the Archbold Biological Station, Florida: an example of the southern Lake Wales Ridge. Fla Sci 47:209–250Google Scholar
  2. Addicott JF, Aho JM, Antolin MF, Padilla DK, Richardson JS, Soluk DA (1987) Ecological neighborhoods: scaling environmental patterns. Oikos 49:340–346Google Scholar
  3. Anderson DP, Forester JD, Turner MG, Frair JL, Merrill EH, Fortin D, Mao JS, Boyce MS (2005) Factors influencing female home range sizes in elk (Cervus elaphus) in North American landscapes. Landscape Ecol 20:257–271Google Scholar
  4. Anderson CD, Rosenberg MS (2011) Variation in association with anthropogenic habitat edges exhibited by the Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) in St. Louis County, Missouri. J Herpetol 45:50–55Google Scholar
  5. Andrews KM, Gibbons JW (2008) Roads as catalysts of urbanization: snakes on roads face differential impacts due to inter- and intraspecific ecological attributes. In: Mitchell JC, Jung Brown RE, Bartholomew B (eds) Urban herpetology. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Salt Lake City, pp 145–153Google Scholar
  6. Anguiano MP, Diffendorfer JE (2015) Effects of fragmentation on the spatial ecology of the California kingsnake (Lampropeltis californiae). J Herpetol 49:420–427Google Scholar
  7. Auffenberg W, Franz R (1982) The status and distribution of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). In: Bury RB (ed) North American tortoises: conservation and ecology. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., pp 95–126Google Scholar
  8. Barbet-Massin M, Jiguet F, Albert CH, Thuiller W (2012) Selecting pseudo-absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many? Methods Ecol Evol 3:327–338Google Scholar
  9. Bauder JM, Barnhart P (2014) Factors affecting the accuracy and precision of triangulated radio telemetry locations of Eastern Indigo Snakes (Drymarchon couperi). Herpetol Rev 45:590–597Google Scholar
  10. Bauder JM, Breininger DR, Bolt MR, Legare ML, Jenkins CL, McGarigal K (2015) The role of the bandwidth matrix in influencing kernel home range estimates for snakes using VHF telemetry data. Wildl Res 42:437–453Google Scholar
  11. Bauder JM, Breininger DR, Bolt MR, Legare ML, Jenkins CL, Rothermel BB, McGarigal K (2016) Seasonal variation in eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi) movement patterns and space use in peninsular Florida at multiple temporal scales. Herpetologica 72:214–226Google Scholar
  12. Beatty WS, Beasley JC, Rhodes OE (2014) Habitat selection by a generalist mesopredator near its historical range boundary. Can J Zool 92:41–48Google Scholar
  13. Bellamy C, Scott C, Altringham J (2013) Multiscale, presence-only habitat suitability models: fine-resolution maps for eight bat species. J Appl Ecol 50:892–901Google Scholar
  14. Blouin-Demers G, Weatherhead PJ (2001a) An experimental test of the link between foraging, habitat selection and thermoregulation in black rat snakes Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta. J Anim Ecol 70:1006–1013Google Scholar
  15. Blouin-Demers G, Weatherhead PJ (2001b) Habitat use by black rat snakes (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta) in fragmented forests. Ecology 82:2882–2896Google Scholar
  16. Borger L, Franconi N, De Michele G, Gantz A, Meschi F, Manica A, Lovari S, Coulson T (2006) Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates. J Anim Ecol 75:1393–1405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bowyer RT, Kie JG (2006) Effects of scale on interpreting life-history characteristics of ungulates and carniovers. Divers Distrib 12:244–257Google Scholar
  18. Boyce MS (2006) Scale for resource selection functions. Divers Distrib 12:269–276Google Scholar
  19. Boyce MS, Vernier PR, Nielsen SE, Schmiegelow FKA (2002) Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol Model 157:281–300Google Scholar
  20. Breininger DR, Bolt MR, Legare ML, Drese JH, Stolen ED (2011) Factors influencing home-range sizes of eastern indigo snakes in central Florida. J Herpetol 45:484–490Google Scholar
  21. Breininger DR, Legare ML, Smith RB (2004) Eastern indigo snakes (Drymarchon couperi) in Florida: influence of edge on species viability. In: Akcakaya H, Burgman M, Kindvall O, Wood C, Sjögren-Gulve P, Hatfield J, McCarthy M (eds) Species conservation and management: case studies. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 299–311Google Scholar
  22. Breininger DR, Mazerolle MJ, Bolt MR, Legare ML, Drese JH, Hines JE (2012) Habitat fragmentation effects on annual survival of the federally protected eastern indigo snake. Anim Conserv 15:361–368Google Scholar
  23. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Castellon TD, Rothermel BB, Nomani SZ (2015) A comparison of line-transect distance sampling methods for estimating gopher tortoise population densities. Wildl Soc Bull 39:804–812Google Scholar
  25. Charland MB, Gregory PT (1995) Movements and habitat use in gravid and nongravid female garter snakes (Colubridae, Thamnophis). J Zool 236:543–561Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Croak BM, Crowther MS, Webb JK, Shine R (2013) Movements and habitat use of an endangered snake, Hoplocephalus bungaroides (Elapidae): implications for conservation. PLoS ONE 8:e61711PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 22:1068–1083PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Duong T (2007) ks: kernel density estimation and kernel discriminant analysis for multivariate data in R. J Stat Softw 21:1–16Google Scholar
  30. Duong T (2014) ks: kernel smoothing. R package version 1.9.3. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ks
  31. Enge KM, Stevenson DJ, Elliot MJ, Bauder JM (2013) The historical and current distribution of the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi). Herpetol Conserv Biol 8:288–307Google Scholar
  32. ESRI (2014) Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) Downloader 2014. http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=4dbfecc52f1442eeb368c435251591ec. Accessed 15 July 2015
  33. Fahrig L, Rytwinski T (2009) Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and synthesis. Ecol Soc 14:21Google Scholar
  34. 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 86:1320–1330Google Scholar
  35. Gaston A, Ciudad C, Mateo-Sanchez MC, Garcia-Vinas JI, Lopez-Leiva C, Fernandez-Landa A, Marchamalo M, Cuevas J, de la Fuente B, Fortin MJ, Saura S (2017) Species’ habitat use inferred from environmental variables at multiple scales: how much we gain from high-resolution vegetation data? Int J Appl Earth Obs 55:1–8Google Scholar
  36. Gehrt SD, Anchor C, White LA (2009) Home range and landscape use of coyotes in a metropolitan landscape: conflict or coexistence? J Mammal 90:1045–1057Google Scholar
  37. Giam X, Olden JD (2016) Quantifying variable importance in a multimodel inference framework. Methods Ecol Evol 7:388–397Google Scholar
  38. Graf RF, Bollmann K, Suter W, Bugmann H (2005) The importance of spatial scale in habitat models: capercaillie in the Swiss Alps. Landscape Ecol 20:703–717Google Scholar
  39. Grand J, Cushman SA (2004) A multi-scale analysis of species-environment relationships: breeding birds in a pitch pine-scrub oak (Pinus rigida-Quercus ilicifolia) community. Biol Conserv 115:173Google Scholar
  40. Gross J, Elvinger F, Hungerford LL, Gehrt SD (2012) Racoon use of the urban matrix in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area, Maryland. Urban Ecosyst 15:667–682Google Scholar
  41. Hardin JW, Hilbe JM (2003) Generalized estimating equations. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  42. Harvey DS, Weatherhead PJ (2006) A test of the hierarchical model of habitat selection using eastern massasauga rattlesnakes (Sistrurus c. catenatus). Biol Conserv 130:206–216Google Scholar
  43. Herfindal I, Tremblay JP, Hansen BB, Solberg EJ, Heim M, Saether BE (2009) Scale dependency and functional response in moose habitat selection. Ecography 32:849–859Google Scholar
  44. Holbrook JD, Squires JR, Olson LE, DeCesare NJ, Lawrence RL (2017) Understanding and predicting habitat for wildlife conservation: the case of Canada lynx at the range periphery. Ecosphere 8:e01939Google Scholar
  45. Holland JD, Bert DD, Fahrig L (2004) Determining the spatial scale of a species’ response to habitat. Bioscience 54:227–233Google Scholar
  46. Hoss SK, Guyer C, Smith LL, Schuett GW (2010) Multiscale influences of landscape composition and configuration on the spatial ecology of eastern diamond-backed rattlesnakes (Crotalus adamanteus). J Herpetol 44:110–123Google Scholar
  47. Hyslop NL, Meyers JM, Cooper RJ, Norton TM (2009) Survival of radio-implanted Drymarchon couperi (eastern indigo snake) in relation to body size and sex. Herpetologica 65:199–206Google Scholar
  48. Hyslop NL, Meyers JM, Cooper RJ, Stevenson DJ (2014) Effects of body size and sex of Drymarchon couperi (Eastern Indigo Snake) on habitat use, movements, and home range size in Georgia. J Wildl Manag 78:101–111Google Scholar
  49. Irvin E, Duren KR, Buler JJ, Jones W, Gonzon AT, Williams CK (2013) A multi-scale occupancy model for the Grasshopper Sparrow in the Mid-Atlantic. J Wildl Manag 77:1564–1571Google Scholar
  50. Johnson CJ, Nielsen SE, Merrill EH, McDonald TL, Boyce MS (2006) Resource selection functions based on use availability-data: theoretical motivation and evaluation of methods. J Wildl Manag 70:347–357Google Scholar
  51. Johnson CJ, Seip DR, Boyce MS (2004) A quantitative approach to conservation planning: using resource selection functions to map the distribution of mountain caribou at multiple spatial scales. J Appl Ecol 41:238–251Google Scholar
  52. Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71Google Scholar
  53. Kawula R (2014) Florida land cover classification system: final report. State Wildlife Grant, SWG T-13 (FWRI Grant # 6325). Center for Spatial Analysis, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida,Google Scholar
  54. Kie JG, Bowyer RT, Nicholson MC, Boroski BB, Loft ER (2002) Landscape heterogeniety at differing scales: effects on spatial distribution of mule deer. Ecology 83:530–544Google Scholar
  55. Knight GR (2010) Development of a cooperative land cover map: final report. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative Project 08009Google Scholar
  56. Knopff AA, Knopff KH, Boyce MS, St. Clair CC (2014) Flexible habitat selection by cougars in response to anthropogenic development. Biol Conserv 178:136–145Google Scholar
  57. Koenig J, Shine R, Shea G (2001) The ecology of an Australian reptile icon: how do blue-tongued lizards (Tiliqua scincoides) survive in suburbia? Wildl Res 28:215–227Google Scholar
  58. Kwiatkowski MA, Schuett GW, Repp RA, Nowak EM, Sullivan BK (2008) Does urbanization influence the spatial ecology of Gila monsters in the Sonoran Desert? J Zool 276:350–357Google Scholar
  59. Law BS, Dickman CR (1998) The use of habitat mosaics by terrestrial vertebrate fauna: implications for conservation and management. Biodivers Conserv 7:323–333Google Scholar
  60. Leblond M, Frair J, Fortin D, Dussault C, Ouellet J-P, Courtois R (2011) Assessing the influence of resource covariates at multiple spatial scales: an application to forest-dwelling caribou faced with intensive human activity. Landscape Ecol 26:1433–1446Google Scholar
  61. Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1:255–268Google Scholar
  62. Lukacs PM, Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2010) Model selection bias and Freedman’s paradox. Ann Inst Stat Math 62:117–125Google Scholar
  63. Martin AE, Fahrig L (2012) Measuring and selecting scales of effect for landscape predictors in species-habitat models. Ecol Appl 22:2277–2292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Martino JA, Poulin RG, Parker DL, Somers CM (2012) Habitat selection by grassland snakes at northern range limits: implications for conservation. J Wildl Manag 76:759–767Google Scholar
  65. Martin BT, Czesny S, Wahl DH, Grimm V (2016) Scale-dependent role of demography and dispersal on the distribution of populations in heterogeneous landscapes. Oikos 125:667–673Google Scholar
  66. Marzluff JM, Millspaugh JJ, Hurvitz P, Handcock MS (2004) Relating resources to a probabilistic measure of space use: forest fragments and Stellar’s jays. Ecology 85:1411–1427Google Scholar
  67. Mayor SJ, Schneider DC, Schaefer JA, Mahoney SP (2009) Habitat selection at multiple scales. Ecoscience 16:238–247Google Scholar
  68. McClure CJW, Rolek BW, Hill GE (2012) Predicting occupancy of wintering migratory birds: is microhabitat information necessary? Condor 114:482–490Google Scholar
  69. McGarigal K, Wan HY, Zeller KA, Timm BC, Cushman SA (2016) Multi-scale habitat selection modeling: a review and outlook. Landscape Ecol 31:1161–1175Google Scholar
  70. McNew LB, Gregory AJ, Sandercock BK (2013) Spatial heterogeneity in habitat selection: nest site selection by greater prairie-chickens. J Wildl Manag 77:791–801Google Scholar
  71. Meyer CB (2007) Does scale matter in predicting species distributions? Case study with the marbled murrelet. Ecol Appl 17:1474–1483PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Meyer CB, Thuiller W (2006) Accuracy of resource selection functions across spatial scales. Divers Distrib 12:288–297Google Scholar
  73. Mitrovich MJ, Diffendorfer JE, Fisher RN (2009) Behavioral response of the coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum) to habitat fragment size and isolation in an urban landscape. J Herpetol 43:646–656Google Scholar
  74. Moler PE (1992) Eastern indigo snake. In: Moler PE (ed) Rare and endangered biota of Florida, vol III. Amphibians and reptiles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 181–186Google Scholar
  75. Moore JA, Gillingham JC (2006) Spatial ecology and multi-scale habitat selection by a threatened rattlesnake: the eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus). Copeia 2006:742–751Google Scholar
  76. Mumme RL, Schoech SJ, Woolfenden GW, Fitzpatrick JW (2000) Life and death in the fast lane: demographic consequences of road mortality in the Florida scrub jay. Conserv Biol 14:501–512Google Scholar
  77. Myers RL, Ewel JJ (eds) (1990) Ecosystems of Florida. University of Florida Press, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  78. Nielson SE, Boyce MS, Stenhouse GB, Munro RHM (2002) Modeling grizzly bear habitats in the Yellowhead Ecosystem of Alberta: taking autocorrelation seriously. Ursus 13:45–56Google Scholar
  79. Pattishall A, Cundall D (2009) Habitat use by synurbic watersnakes (Nerodia sipedon). Herpetologica 65:183–198Google Scholar
  80. Polfus JL, Hebblewhite M, Heinemeyer K (2011) Identifying indirect habitat loss and avoidance of human infrastructure by northern mountain woodland caribou. Biol Conserv 144:2637–2646Google Scholar
  81. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  82. Reinert HK (1984) Habitat variation within sympatric snake populations. Ecology 65:1673–1682Google Scholar
  83. Reinert HK, Cundall D (1982) An improved surgical implantation method for radio-tracking snakes. Copeia 1982:702–705Google Scholar
  84. Riley SPD, Sauvajot RM, Fuller TK, York EC, Kamradt DA, Bromley C, Wayne RK (2003) Effects of urbanization and habitat fragmentation on bobcats and coyotes in southern California. Conserv Biol 17:566–576Google Scholar
  85. Row JR, Blouin-Demers G (2006) Thermal quality influences habitat selection at multiple spatial scales in milksnakes. Ecoscience 13:443–450Google Scholar
  86. Row JR, Blouin-Demers G, Weatherhead PJ (2007) Demographic effects of road mortality in black ratsnakes (Elaphe obsoleta). Biol Conserv 137:117–124Google Scholar
  87. Said S, Gaillard J-M, Duncan P, Guillon N, Guillon N, Servanty S, Pellerin M, Lefeuvre K, Martin C, van Laere G (2005) Ecological correlates of home-range size in spring–summer for female roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a deciduous woodland. J Zool 267:301–308Google Scholar
  88. Service USFaW (2008) Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon couperi 5 year review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, JacksonGoogle Scholar
  89. Shine R, Madsen T (1996) Is thermoregulation unimportant for most reptiles? An example using water pythons (Liasis fuscus) in tropical Australia. Physiol Zool 69:252–269Google Scholar
  90. Shirk AJ, Raphael MG, Cushman SA (2014) Spatiotemporal variation in resource selection: insights from the American marten (Martes americana). Ecol Appl 24:1434–1444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Speake DW, McGlincy JA, Colvin TR (1978) Ecology and management of the eastern indigo snake in Georgia: a progress report. In: Odum R andLanders L (eds), Proceedings of the Third Southeastern Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Symposium. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division Technical Bulletin WL4, Athens, pp. 64-73Google Scholar
  92. 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 157:187–195Google Scholar
  93. Steen DA, McClure CJW, Brock JC, Rudolph DC, Pierce JB, Lee JR, Humphries WJ, Gregory BB, Sutton WB, Smith LL, Baxley DL, Stevenson DJ, Guyer C (2012) Landscape-level influences of terrestrial snake occupancy within the southeastern United States. Ecol Appl 22:1084–1097PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Steiner TM, Bass OL, Jr., Kushlan JA (1983) Status of the eastern indigo snake in southern Florida national parks and vicinity. Report SFRC-83/01. National Park Service, South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead,Google Scholar
  95. Stevenson DJ, Bolt MR, Smith DJ, Enge KM, Hyslop NL, Norton TM, Dyer KJ (2010) Prey records for the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi). Southeast Nat 9:1–18Google Scholar
  96. Stevenson DJ, Dyer KJ, Willis-Stevenson BA (2003) Survey and monitoring of the eastern indigo snake in Georgia. Southeast Nat 2:393–408Google Scholar
  97. Stewart BP, Nelson TA, Laberee K, Nielsen SE, Wulder MA, Stenhouse G (2013) Quantifying grizzly bear selection of natural and anthropogenic edges. J Wildl Manag 77:957–964Google Scholar
  98. Swain HM, Martin PA (2014) Saving the Florida scrub ecosystem: translating science into conservation action. In: Levitt JN (ed) Conservation catalysts: the academy of nature’s agent. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, pp 63–96Google Scholar
  99. Therneau T (2015) A package for survival analysis in S. R package version 2.38. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival
  100. Thompson CM, McGarigal K (2002) The influence of research scale on bald eagle habitat selection along the lower Hudson River, New York (USA). Landscape Ecol 17:569–586Google Scholar
  101. Thurfjell H, Ciuti S, Boyce MS (2014) Applications of step-selection functions in ecology and conservation. Mov Ecol 2:4PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  102. Timm BC, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ganey JL (2016) Multi-scale Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) nest/roost habitat selection in Arizona and a comparison with single-scale modeling results. Landscape Ecol 31:1209–1225Google Scholar
  103. Turner WR, Wilcove DS, Swain HM (2006) Assessing the effectiveness of reserve acquisition programs in protecting rare and threatened species. Conserv Biol 20:1657–1669PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) (1990) Digital line graphs from 1:24,000-scale maps: data users guide. National Mapping Program, Technical Instructions, Data Users Guide 1. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USAGoogle Scholar
  105. U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) (2014) Hydrography: national hydrography dataset. U.S. Geologic Survey. http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html. Accessed 1 July 2015
  106. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2014) National wetlands inventory website. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed 15 June 2015Google Scholar
  107. Wheatley M, Johnson C (2009) Factors limiting our understanding of ecological scale. Ecol Complex 6:150–159Google Scholar
  108. Whitaker PB, Shine R (2000) Sources of mortality of large elapid snakes in an agricultural landscape. J Herpetol 34:121–128Google Scholar
  109. White GC, Garrott RA (1990) Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic Press Inc, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  110. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397Google Scholar
  111. 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 29:541–557Google Scholar
  112. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Beier P, Vickers TW, Boyce WM (2016) Using step and path selection functions for estimating resistance to movement: pumas as a case study. Landscape Ecol 31:1319–1335Google Scholar
  113. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol 27:777–797Google Scholar
  114. Zeller KA, Vickers TW, Ernest HB, Boyce WM (2017) Multi-level, multi-scale resource selection functions and resistance surfaces for conservation planning: pumas as a case study. PLoS ONE 12:e0179570PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  115. Zweifel-Schielly B, Kreuzer M, Ewald KC, Suter W (2009) Habitat selection by an Alpine ungulate: the significance of forage characteristics varies with scale and season. Ecography 32:103–113Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javan M. Bauder
    • 1
  • David R. Breininger
    • 2
  • M. Rebecca Bolt
    • 3
  • Michael L. Legare
    • 4
  • Christopher L. Jenkins
    • 5
  • Betsie B. Rothermel
    • 6
  • Kevin McGarigal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental ConservationUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.NASA Ecological ProgramsIntegrated Mission Support ServicesKennedy Space CenterUSA
  3. 3.NASA Ecological ProgramsIntegrated Mission Support ServicesKennedy Space CenterUSA
  4. 4.Merritt Island National Wildlife RefugeTitusvilleUSA
  5. 5.The Orianne SocietyTigerUSA
  6. 6.Archbold Biological StationVenusUSA

Personalised recommendations