Landscape Ecology

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 835–855 | Cite as

Sensitivity of resource selection and connectivity models to landscape definition

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



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.


Species-habitat relationships Resource selection function Spatial grain Thematic resolution Puma concolor Connectivity Corridor Resistance 

Supplementary material

10980_2017_489_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1028 kb)


  1. Addicott JF, Aho JM, Antolin MF, Padilla DK, Richardson JS, Soluk DA (1987) Ecological neighborhoods: scaling environmental patterns. Oikos 49:340–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander SM, Logan TB, Paquet PC (2006) Spatio-temporal co-occurrence of cougars (Felis concolor), wolves (Canis lupus) and their prey during winter: a comparison of two analytical methods. J Biogeogr 33:2001–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen ML, Elbroch LM, Casady DS, Wittmer HU (2014) Seasonal variation in the feeding ecology of pumas (Puma concolor) in northern California. Can J Zool 92:397–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton K (2016) Package MuMIn: multi-model inference. Accessed 30 April 2016
  5. Beier P (1995) Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. J Wildl Manag 59:228–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beier P, Brost B (2010) Use of land facets to plan for climate change: conserving the arenas, not the actors. Conserv Biol 24:701–710CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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:–data/tools.html
  8. 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
  9. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Burrough PA, Wilson JP, van Gaans PFM, Hansen AJ (2001) Fuzzy k-means classification of topo-climatic data as an aid to forest mapping in the Greater Yellowstone Area, USA. Landscape Ecol 16:523–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chust G, Pretus JL, Ducrot D, Ventura D (2004) Scale dependency of insect assemblages in response to landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 19:41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Compton BW, Rhymer JM, McCollough M (2002) Habitat selection by wood turtles (Clemmys insculpia): an application of paired logistic regression. Ecology 83:833–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Cushman SA, Gutzweiler K, Evans JS, McGarigal K (2010b) The gradient paradigm: a conceptual and analytical framework of landscape ecology. In: Cushman SA, Huettmann F (eds) Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Springer, New York, pp 83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2010a) Scale dependent inference in landscape genetics. Landscape Ecol 25:967–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2010b) Spurious correlations and inference in landscape genetics. Mol Ecol 19:3592–5602CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cushman SA, Lewis JS (2010) Movement behavior explains genetic differentiation in American black bears. Landscape Ecol 25:1613–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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 51:1169–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. European Environmental Agency (2010) CORINE (Coordination of information on the environment). The European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information.
  25. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Franklin J (2009) Mapping species distributions: spatial inference and prediction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–340Google Scholar
  27. Gottschalk TK, Aue B, Hotes S, Ekschmitt K (2011) Influence of grain size on species-habitat models. Ecol Model 18:3403–3412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gray M, Wilmers CC, Reed SE, Merenlender AM (2016) Landscape feature-based permeability models relate to puma occurrence. Landsc Urban Plan 147:50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guisan A, Graham CH, Elith J, Huettmann F, NCEAS Species Distribution Modelling Group (2007) Sensitivity of predictive species distribution models to change in grain size. Divers Distrib 13:332–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holland JD, Bert DG, Fahrig L (2004) Determining the spatial scale of species’ response to habitat. BioScience 54:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holmes BR, Laundré JW (2006) Use of open, edge and forest areas by pumas (Puma concolor) in winter: are pumas foraging optimally? Wildl Biol 12:201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jenks GF (1967) The data model concept in statistical mapping. Int Yearb Cartogr 7:186–190Google Scholar
  33. Jenness J (2013) DEM surface tools. Jenness Enterprises.
  34. 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: Accessed 24 August 2014
  35. 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
  36. Karl JW, Heglund PJ, Garton EO, Scott JM, Wright NM, Hutto RL (2000) Sensitivity of species habitat-relationship model performance to factors of scale. Ecol Appl 10:1690–1705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kissling WD, Fernandez N, Paruelo JM (2009) Spatial risk assessment of livestock exposure to pumas in Patagonia, Argentina. Ecography 32:807–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krishnamurthy R, Cushman SA, Sarkar MS, Malviya M, Naveeen M, Johnson JA, Sen S (2016) Multi-scale prediction of landscape resistance for tiger dispersal in central India. Landscape Ecol 31:1355–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. LandFire (2012a) Existing vegetation cover. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Accessed 21 August 2014
  40. LandFire (2012b) Existing vegetation type. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Accessed 21 August 2014
  41. Lawler JJ, O’Connor RJ, Hunsaker CT, Jones KB, Loveland TR, White D (2004) The effects of habitat resolution on models of avian diversity and distributions: a comparison of two land-cover classifications. Landscape Ecol 19:515–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1:255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MacArthur R, Recher H, Cody M (1966) On the relation between habitat selection and species diversity. Am Nat 100:319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mateo Sánchez MC, Cushman SA, Saura S (2014) Scale dependence in habitat selection: the case of the endangered brown bear (Ursus arctos) in the Cantabrian Range (NW Spain). Int J Geogr Inf Sci 28:1531–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2005) The gradient concept of landscape structure. In: Wiens J, Moss M (eds) Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 112–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McGarigal K, Wan HY, Zeller KA, Timm BC, Cushman SA (2016) Multi-scale habitat modeling: a review and outlook. Landscape Ecol 31:1161–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. McRae BH, Shah VB, Mohapatra TK (2013) Circuitscape 4 user guide. The Nature Conservancy. Accessed 19 May 2015
  50. OpenStreetMap contributors (2014) OpenStreetMap California. Accessed 16 September 2014
  51. Orange County Transportation Authority (2011) Master plan of arterial highways. Orange County Transportation Authority, Orange, California. Accessed 18 September 2014
  52. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  53. Riverside County Geographic Information Systems (2013) County static data. Riverside County Innovation Center, Riverside CA. Accessed 24 August 2014
  54. San Bernadino (2014) San Bernadino county centerlines. Accessed 18 September 2014
  55. SanGIS (2014) All roads shape file. SanGIS/SANDAG Data Warehouse. San Diego Geographic Information Source—JPA/San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Accessed 20 July 2014
  56. Seoane J, Bustamente J, Diaz-Delgado R (2004) Are existing vegetation maps adequate to predict bird distributions? Ecol Model 175:137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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
  58. 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 17:569–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. USDA Forest Service (2014) CalVeg: FSSDE. Eveg- Tile47A_02_v2. Pacific Southwest Region Remote Sensing Lab, McClellanGoogle Scholar
  61. U.S. Geological Survey (2009) National elevation dataset. EROS Sioux Falls, SD. Accessed 20 August 2014
  62. Venier LA, Pearce J, McKee JE, McKenney DW, Niemi GJ (2004) Climate and satellite-derived land cover for predicting breeding bird distribution in the Great Lakes Basin. J Biogeogr 31:315–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131490 Google Scholar
  64. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Wu J (2004) Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecol 19:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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
  68. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Beier P, Cushman SA, Vickers TW, Boyce WM (2015) Using step and path selection functions for estimating resistance to movement: pumas as a case study. Landscape Ecol 31:1319–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental ConservationUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research StationFlagstaffUSA
  3. 3.School of ForestryNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  4. 4.Wildlife Health Center, School of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of California DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations