Adding structure to land cover – using fractional cover to study animal habitat use

BackgroundLinking animal movements to landscape features is critical to identify factors that shape the spatial behaviour of animals. Habitat selection is led by behavioural decisions and is shaped by the environment, therefore the landscape is crucial for the analysis. Land cover classification based on ground survey and remote sensing data sets are an established approach to define landscapes for habitat selection analysis.We investigate an approach for analysing habitat use using continuous land cover information and spatial metrics. This approach uses a continuous representation of the landscape using percentage cover of a chosen land cover type instead of discrete classes. This approach, fractional cover, captures spatial heterogeneity within classes and is therefore capable to provide a more distinct representation of the landscape. The variation in home range sizes is analysed using fractional cover and spatial metrics in conjunction with mixed effect models on red deer position data in the Bohemian Forest, compared over multiple spatio–temporal scales.ResultsWe analysed forest fractional cover and a texture metric within each home range showing that variance of fractional cover values and texture explain much of variation in home range sizes. The results show a hump–shaped relationship, leading to smaller home ranges when forest fractional cover is very homogeneous or highly heterogeneous, while intermediate stages lead to larger home ranges.ConclusionThe application of continuous land cover information in conjunction with spatial metrics proved to be valuable for the explanation of home-range sizes of red deer.

[1]  Andy Liaw,et al.  Classification and Regression by randomForest , 2007 .

[2]  Douglas H. Johnson THE COMPARISON OF USAGE AND AVAILABILITY MEASUREMENTS FOR EVALUATING RESOURCE PREFERENCE , 1980 .

[3]  J. Townshend,et al.  Global Percent Tree Cover at a Spatial Resolution of 500 Meters: First Results of the MODIS Vegetation Continuous Fields Algorithm , 2003 .

[4]  Daniel E. Irwin,et al.  Estimating proportional change in forest cover as a continuous variable from multi-year MODIS data , 2008 .

[5]  Anton Fischer,et al.  Improving Transboundary Maps of Potential Natural Vegetation Using Statistical Modeling Based on Environmental Predictors , 2013, Folia Geobotanica.

[6]  Martin Wikelski,et al.  Going wild: what a global small-animal tracking system could do for experimental biologists , 2007, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[7]  C. Fonseca,et al.  Habitat use by sympatric red and roe deer in a Mediterranean ecosystem , 2012 .

[8]  Robert A. Gitzen,et al.  Analysis of Animal Space Use and Movements , 2001 .

[9]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[10]  Atle Mysterud,et al.  Temporal scales, trade-offs, and functional responses in red deer habitat selection. , 2009, Ecology.

[11]  Egidio Arai,et al.  Cover: Multitemporal fraction images derived from Terra MODIS data for analysing land cover change over the Amazon region , 2005 .

[12]  J. Townshend,et al.  A new global 1‐km dataset of percentage tree cover derived from remote sensing , 2000 .

[13]  Alan H. Strahler,et al.  Global land cover mapping from MODIS: algorithms and early results , 2002 .

[14]  Sandro Lovari,et al.  Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates. , 2006, The Journal of animal ecology.

[15]  Jean-Michel Gaillard,et al.  What shapes intra‐specific variation in home range size? A case study of female roe deer , 2009 .

[16]  Emanuel A. Fronhofer,et al.  Landscape configuration is a major determinant of home range size variation , 2015 .

[17]  A. Zuur,et al.  Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R , 2009 .

[18]  Tim Coulson,et al.  An Integrated Approach to Identify Spatiotemporal and Individual‐Level Determinants of Animal Home Range Size , 2006, The American Naturalist.

[19]  Marco Heurich,et al.  Spatio-temporal infestation patterns of Ips typographus (L.) in the Bavarian Forest National Park, Germany , 2013 .

[20]  J. Townshend,et al.  Towards an operational MODIS continuous field of percent tree cover algorithm: examples using AVHRR and MODIS data , 2002 .

[21]  W. H. Burt Territoriality and Home Range Concepts as Applied to Mammals , 1943 .

[22]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Toward an Identification of Resources Influencing Habitat Use in a Multi-Specific Context , 2011, PloS one.

[23]  S. Albon,et al.  Plant phenology and the benefits of migration in a temperate ungulate , 1992 .

[24]  G. Asner,et al.  Spectral unmixing of vegetation, soil and dry carbon cover in arid regions: Comparing multispectral and hyperspectral observations , 2002 .

[25]  Clément Calenge,et al.  The package “adehabitat” for the R software: A tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals , 2006 .

[26]  B. Worton Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies , 1989 .

[27]  Atle Mysterud,et al.  How does local weather predict red deer home range size at different temporal scales? , 2010, The Journal of animal ecology.

[28]  Eric J. Gustafson,et al.  Quantifying Landscape Spatial Pattern: What Is the State of the Art? , 1998, Ecosystems.

[29]  Jörg Müller,et al.  The European spruce bark beetle Ips typographus in a national park: from pest to keystone species , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[30]  Monica G. Turner,et al.  Scale and heterogeneity in habitat selection by elk in Yellowstone National Park , 2003 .

[31]  Damaris Zurell,et al.  Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance , 2013 .

[32]  Floris M. van Beest,et al.  What determines variation in home range size across spatiotemporal scales in a large browsing herbivore? , 2011, The Journal of animal ecology.

[33]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Textural Features for Image Classification , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[34]  S. Džeroski,et al.  Habitat suitability modelling for red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) in South-central Slovenia with classification trees , 2001 .

[35]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Habitat–performance relationships: finding the right metric at a given spatial scale , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[36]  J. M. Fryxell,et al.  Foraging theory upscaled: the behavioural ecology of herbivore movement , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[37]  Martin Herold,et al.  Some challenges in global land cover mapping : An assessment of agreement and accuracy in existing 1 km datasets , 2008 .

[38]  Steeve D. Côté,et al.  Linking habitat heterogeneity to space use by large herbivores at multiple scales: From habitat mosaics to forest canopy openings , 2012 .

[39]  John D. C. Linnell,et al.  Habitat use and ecological correlates of home range size in a small cervid : the roe deer , 1996 .

[40]  John D. C. Linnell,et al.  Can intra-specific variation in carnivore home-range size be explained using remote-sensing estimates of environmental productivity? , 2005 .

[41]  Alain F. Zuur,et al.  Comprar Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R | Zuur, Alain F. | 9780387874579 | Springer , 2009 .

[42]  Stanley M Tomkiewicz,et al.  Global positioning system and associated technologies in animal behaviour and ecological research , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.