Species' habitat use inferred from environmental variables at multiple scales: How much we gain from high-resolution vegetation data?

Abstract Spatial resolution of environmental data may influence the results of habitat selection models. As high-resolution data are usually expensive, an assessment of their contribution to the reliability of habitat models is of interest for both researchers and managers. We evaluated how vegetation cover datasets of different spatial resolutions influence the inferences and predictive power of multi-scale habitat selection models for the endangered brown bear populations in the Cantabrian Range (NW Spain). We quantified the relative performance of three types of datasets: (i) coarse resolution data from Corine Land Cover (minimum mapping unit of 25 ha), (ii) medium resolution data from the Forest Map of Spain (minimum mapping unit of 2.25 ha and information on forest canopy cover and tree species present in each polygon), and (iii) high-resolution Lidar data (about 0.5 points/m 2 ) providing a much finer information on forest canopy cover and height. Despite all the models performed well (AUC > 0.80), the predictive ability of multi-scale models significantly increased with spatial resolution, particularly when other predictors of habitat suitability (e.g. human pressure) were not used to indirectly filter out areas with a more degraded vegetation cover. The addition of fine grain information on forest structure (LiDAR) led to a better understanding of landscape use and a more accurate spatial representation of habitat suitability, even for a species with large spatial requirements as the brown bear, which will result in the development of more effective measures to assist endangered species conservation.

[1]  J. Keller,et al.  Improving GIS-based Wildlife-Habitat Analysis , 2014, SpringerBriefs in Ecology.

[2]  K. Bollmann,et al.  The Importance of Spatial Scale in Habitat Models: Capercaillie in the Swiss Alps , 2005, Landscape Ecology.

[3]  Marie-Josée Fortin,et al.  Seasonal and temporal changes in species use of the landscape: how do they impact the inferences from multi-scale habitat modeling? , 2015, Landscape Ecology.

[4]  M. Proctor,et al.  ESTIMATING GRIZZLY BEAR DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE RELATIVE TO HABITAT AND HUMAN INFLUENCE , 2004 .

[5]  György Büttner,et al.  Implementation andachievements of CLC2006 , 2012 .

[6]  Kevin McGarigal,et al.  Patterns in the species–environment relationship depend on both scale and choice of response variables , 2004 .

[7]  P. Poncin,et al.  Eurasian lynx habitat selection in human-modified landscape in Norway: Effects of different human habitat modifications and behavioral states , 2015 .

[8]  Clara Tattoni,et al.  Can LiDAR data improve bird habitat suitability models , 2012 .

[9]  J. Lawler,et al.  Performance of habitat suitability models for the endangered black-capped vireo built with remotely-sensed data , 2012 .

[10]  C. Niemitz,et al.  Habitat selection models for European wildcat conservation , 2008 .

[11]  Lenore Fahrig,et al.  Are ecologists conducting research at the optimal scale , 2014 .

[12]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[13]  S. Cushman,et al.  Multi Scale Habitat Relationships of Martes americana in Northern Idaho, U.S.A , 2012 .

[14]  Pilar García,et al.  Detailed model of shelter areas for the Cantabrian brown bear , 2007, Ecol. Informatics.

[15]  Santiago Saura,et al.  Scale dependence in habitat selection: the case of the endangered brown bear (Ursus arctos) in the Cantabrian Range (NW Spain) , 2014, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[16]  Miguel Delibes,et al.  Endangered Species Constrained by Natural and Human Factors: the Case of Brown Bears in Northern Spain , 2003 .

[17]  John Bell,et al.  A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models , 1997, Environmental Conservation.

[18]  J. Swenson,et al.  Terrain use by an expanding brown bear population in relation to age, recreational resorts and human settlements , 2007 .

[19]  Eve McDonald-Madden,et al.  Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions , 2013, Ecology letters.

[20]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology , 2000 .

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

[22]  Veronika Braunisch,et al.  Improved methods for measuring forest landscape structure: LiDAR complements field-based habitat assessment , 2013, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[23]  Andreas Zedrosser,et al.  Action Plan for the conservation of the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) in Europe , 2000 .

[24]  Jerald B. Johnson,et al.  Model selection in ecology and evolution. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[25]  R. McGaughey.  AND OTHER DATA USING 2 D AND 3 D VISUALIZATION TECHNIQUES , 2003 .

[26]  Joanna Grand,et al.  A Multiscale Landscape Approach to Predicting Bird and Moth Rarity Hotspots in a Threatened Pitch Pine–Scrub Oak Community , 2004 .

[27]  W. Cohen,et al.  Lidar Remote Sensing for Ecosystem Studies , 2002 .