Evaluation of resource selection methods with different definitions of availability

Because resource selection is of paramount importance to ecology and management of any species, we compared 6 statistical methods of analyzing resource selection data, given the known biological requirements of radiomarked Merriam’s wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo merriami) hens with poults in the Black Hills of South Dakota. A single variable, habitat, was used for the comparisons. Hen turkeys with poults are ideal for these comparisons because poults have narrow dietary protein requirements, and habitats that meet these requirements are well documented. We also tested the effects on the statistical methods of varying the habitats considered as available. Availability of habitats was defined by 100-, 200-, and 400-m-radii buffers around individual poult locations and also as the total study area. The 6 statistical techniques gave different results because of how the methods addressed variability in habitat use of individual birds and how availability was defined. These differences made identification of a “best” technique difficult. Only 1 method (Neu’s) identified habitat selection patterns consistent with known requirements of poults at all levels of habitat availability. However, defining availability at the study-area level was generally superior to use of circular buffers. We recommend that during analyses of resource selection researchers include the study-area level of habitat availability based on the distribution of radio marked animals.

[1]  P. Mielke.  Non-metric statistical analyses: Some metric alternatives☆ , 1986 .

[2]  R. Deblinger,et al.  Birth and fawn bed site selection by pronghorns in a sagebrush-steppe community , 1991 .

[3]  J. Fleiss.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1974 .

[4]  J. Gentle,et al.  Randomization and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. , 1990 .

[5]  H. Toutenburg.  Fleiss, J. L.: Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. John Wiley & Sons, New York‐London‐Sydney‐Toronto 1973. XIII, 233 S. , 1974 .

[6]  G. D. Johnson,et al.  Feeding trials with insects in the diet of sage grouse chicks , 1990 .

[7]  James F. Wittenberger,et al.  Spatial and Temporal Scales in Habitat Selection , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[8]  Marija J. Norusis,et al.  SPSS for Windows Base System User''s Guide , 1992 .

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

[10]  W. Healy.  Turkey poult feeding activity, invertebrate abundance, and vegetation structure , 1985 .

[11]  Nicholas J. Aebischer,et al.  Compositional Analysis of Habitat Use From Animal Radio-Tracking Data , 1993 .

[12]  Charles T. Robbins,et al.  Wildlife Feeding and Nutrition , 1984 .

[13]  John Aitchison,et al.  The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data , 1986 .

[14]  R. Itami,et al.  GIS-based habitat modeling using logistic multiple regression : a study of the Mt. Graham red squirrel , 1991 .

[15]  R. Wright,et al.  MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITIONAL DATA: APPLIED COMPARISONS FAVOUR STANDARD PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS OVER AITCHISON'S LOGLINEAR CONTRAST METHOD , 1993 .

[16]  Dennis E. Jelinski.  On the use of chi-square analyses in studies of resource utilization , 1991 .

[17]  J. R. Alldredge,et al.  Comparison of some statistical techniques for analysis of resource selection , 1986 .

[18]  M. A. Rumble,et al.  Feeding ecology of Merriam's turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo merriami) in the Black Hills, South Dakota , 1996 .

[19]  A. Tamhane,et al.  Multiple Comparison Procedures , 1989 .

[20]  E. H. Bryant,et al.  A GEOMETRIC METHOD FOR EVALUATING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS OF RANDOM HABITAT UTILIZATION , 1983 .

[21]  Clyde W. Neu,et al.  A TECHNIQUE FOR ANALYSIS OF UTILIZATION- AVAILABILITY DATA' , 1974 .

[22]  Kenneth J. Berry,et al.  An extended class of permutation techniques for matched pairs , 1982 .

[23]  William F. Porter,et al.  Effects of environmental pattern on habitat preference analysis , 1987 .

[24]  B. Manly,et al.  Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. , 1994 .

[25]  Dennis M. Heisey,et al.  Analyzing Selection Experiments with Log-Linear Models , 1985 .

[26]  Timothy D. Reynolds,et al.  STUDY DESIGNS AND TESTS FOR COMPARING RESOURCE USE AND AVAILABILITY , 1990 .