Sensitivity of resource selection and connectivity models to landscape definition
The definition of the geospatial landscape is the underlying basis for species-habitat models, yet sensitivity of habitat use inference, predicted probability surfaces, and connectivity models to landscape definition has received little attention.
We evaluated the sensitivity of resource selection and connectivity models to four landscape definition choices including (1) the type of geospatial layers used, (2) layer source, (3) thematic resolution, and (4) spatial grain.
We used GPS telemetry data from pumas (Puma concolor) in southern California to create multi-scale path selection function models (PathSFs) across landscapes with 2500 unique landscape definitions. To create the landscape definitions, we identified seven geospatial layers that have been shown to influence puma habitat use. We then varied the number, sources, spatial grain, and thematic resolutions of these layers to create our suite of plausible landscape definitions. We assessed how PathSF model performance (based on AIC) was affected by landscape definition and examined variability among the predicted probability of movement surfaces, connectivity models, and road crossing locations.
We found model performance was extremely sensitive to landscape definition and identified only seven top models out of our suite of definitions (<1%). Spatial grain and the number of geospatial layers selected for a landscape definition significantly affected model performance measures, with finer grains and greater numbers of layers increasing model performance.
Given the sensitivity of habitat use inference, predicted probability surfaces, and connectivity models to landscape definition, out results indicate the need for increased attention to landscape definition in future studies.
KeywordsSpecies-habitat relationships Resource selection function Spatial grain Thematic resolution Puma concolor Connectivity Corridor Resistance
- Barton K (2016) Package MuMIn: multi-model inference. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/index.html. Accessed 30 April 2016
- Broennimann O, Petitpierre B, Randin C, Engler R, Di Cola V, Breiner F, D’Amen M, Pellissier L, Pottier J, Pio D, Garcia Mateo R, Hordijk W, Dubuis A, Scherrer D, Salamin N, Guisan A (2015) Spatial ecology miscellaneous methods. R Package available from: http://www.unil.ch/ecospat/home/menuinst/tools–data/tools.html
- Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Cushman SA, Evans JS, McGarigal K, Kiesecker JM (2010a) Toward gleasonian landscape ecology: from communities to species, from patches to pixels. Research paper RMRS-RP-84. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, COGoogle Scholar
- Cushman SA, McGarigal K, McKelvey K, Vojta CD, Reagan CM (2013) Landscape analysis for habitat monitoring. In Rowland MM, Vojta CD (tech. eds) A Technical guide for monitoring wildlife habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-89. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, pp 6-1–6-18Google Scholar
- 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
- European Environmental Agency (2010) CORINE (Coordination of information on the environment). The European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-2006-raster#tab-gis-data
- Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Franklin J (2009) Mapping species distributions: spatial inference and prediction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–340Google Scholar
- Jenks GF (1967) The data model concept in statistical mapping. Int Yearb Cartogr 7:186–190Google Scholar
- Jenness J (2013) DEM surface tools. Jenness Enterprises. http://www.jennessent.com/arcgis/surface_area.htm
- Jin S, Yang L, Danielson P, Homer C, Fry J, Xian G (2013) A comprehensive change detection method for updating the National Land Cover Database to circa 2011. Remote Sens Environ 132:159–175. Downloaded from the national map viewer: http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/. Accessed 24 August 2014
- LandFire (2012a) Existing vegetation cover. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. http://www.landfire.gov/viewer/. Accessed 21 August 2014
- LandFire (2012b) Existing vegetation type. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. http://www.landfire.gov/viewer/ Accessed 21 August 2014
- McRae BH, Shah VB, Mohapatra TK (2013) Circuitscape 4 user guide. The Nature Conservancy. http://www.circuitscape.org. Accessed 19 May 2015
- OpenStreetMap contributors (2014) OpenStreetMap California. http://download.geofabrik.de/north-america/us/california.html. Accessed 16 September 2014
- Orange County Transportation Authority (2011) Master plan of arterial highways. Orange County Transportation Authority, Orange, California. http://www.octa.net/Plans-and-Programs/GIS-Data/GIS-Data-Download/. Accessed 18 September 2014
- R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
- Riverside County Geographic Information Systems (2013) County static data. Riverside County Innovation Center, Riverside CA. http://gis.rivcoit.org/GISData.aspx. Accessed 24 August 2014
- San Bernadino (2014) San Bernadino county centerlines. http://maps.sanbag.ca.gov/website/Transportation_data.htm. Accessed 18 September 2014
- SanGIS (2014) All roads shape file. SanGIS/SANDAG Data Warehouse. San Diego Geographic Information Source—JPA/San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). http://www.sangis.org/Download_GIS_Data.htm. Accessed 20 July 2014
- Sexton JO, Song X-P, Feng M, Noojipady P, Anand A, Huang C, Kim D-H, Collins KM, Channan S, DiMiceli C, Townshend JRG (2013) Global, 30-m resolution continuous fields of tree cover: landsat-based rescaling of MODIS Vegetation Continuous Fields with lidar-based estimates of error. Int J Digit Earth. doi:10.1080/17538947.2013.786146 Google Scholar
- Tobalske C (2002) Effects of spatial scale on the predictive ability of habitat models for the green woodpecker in Switzerland. In: Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Samson F, Haufler J, Morrison M, Raphael M, Wall B (eds) Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, Covelo, pp 197–204Google Scholar
- USDA Forest Service (2014) CalVeg: FSSDE. Eveg- Tile47A_02_v2. Pacific Southwest Region Remote Sensing Lab, McClellanGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Geological Survey (2009) National elevation dataset. EROS Sioux Falls, SD. http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/. Accessed 20 August 2014