Improving studies of resource selection by understanding resource use

SUMMARY Understanding the resource needs of animals is critical to their management and conservation. Resource utilization functions (RUFs) provide a framework to investigate animal-resource relationships by characterizing variation in the amount of resource use. In this context a ‘resource’ is any aspect of a species’ fundamental niche that can be mapped throughout the area of investigation (such as study area or home range). Extensive global positioning system (GPS) data from 17 cougars (Puma concolor) demonstrate the utility and potential challenges of estimating RUFs within the home range for far-ranging species. Ninety-nine per cent utilization distributions (UDs) estimated using bivariate plug in, univariate leastsquares cross-validation and reference bandwidth selection methods were compared. Distance to water, per cent clear-cut and regenerating forest, and slope were used to estimate cougar RUFs. UDs derived from GPS data were more refined, and plug-in UDs were least similar to UDs derived from other bandwidths. RUFs were resilient to variation in the smoothing parameter, with all methods yielding coefficients that largely reflected observations of foraging ecology and behaviour. Cougars were individualistic, but use was generally positively associated with the presence of regenerating forest and inversely associated with steep slopes. Advances in technology allow for greater accuracy and resolution of the UD, but software improvements and spatially explicit information on animal behaviour are needed to better understand resource use.

[1]  Gordon B. Stenhouse,et al.  Removing GPS collar bias in habitat selection studies , 2004 .

[2]  Chris J. Johnson,et al.  Resource Selection Functions Based on Use–Availability Data: Theoretical Motivation and Evaluation Methods , 2006 .

[3]  Gary C. White,et al.  Autocorrelation of location estimates and the analysis of radiotracking data , 1999 .

[4]  P. Beier,et al.  INFLUENCE OF VEGETATION, TOPOGRAPHY, AND ROADS ON COUGAR MOVEMENT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA , 2005 .

[5]  S. Lele A New Method for Estimation of Resource Selection Probability Function , 2009 .

[6]  Michael D. Samuel,et al.  Home range: a weighted normal estimate and tests of underlying assumptions , 1985 .

[7]  Joshua J. Millspaugh,et al.  High-Tech Behavioral Ecology: Modeling the Distribution of Animal Activities to Better Understand Wildlife Space Use and Resource Selection , 2001 .

[8]  Joshua J. Millspaugh,et al.  Models for planning wildlife conservation in large landscapes , 2009 .

[9]  Brett G. Dickson,et al.  Home-range and habitat selection by adult cougars in southern California , 2002 .

[10]  Robert A. Gitzen,et al.  Bandwidth Selection for Fixed-Kernel Analysis of Animal Utilization Distributions , 2006 .

[11]  W. V. Winkle COMPARISON OF SEVERAL PROBABILISTIC HOME-RANGE MODELS' , 1975 .

[12]  Joel s. Brown,et al.  ASSESSING EFFECTS OF PREDATION RISK ON FORAGING BEHAVIOR OF MULE DEER , 2001 .

[13]  Bryan F. J. Manly,et al.  Resource Selection by Animals , 1993, Springer Netherlands.

[14]  G. Koehler,et al.  Seasonal Resource Use among Mountain Lions, Bobcats, and Coyotes , 1991 .

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

[16]  L. Mech,et al.  Handbook of animal radio-tracking , 1983 .

[17]  B. Silverman Density estimation for statistics and data analysis , 1986 .

[18]  Donna Delparte,et al.  Effects of radio‐collar position and orientation on GPS radio‐collar performance, and the implications of PDOP in data screening , 2005 .

[19]  Christian Rutz,et al.  A quick guide to video-tracking birds , 2008, Biology Letters.

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

[21]  Kimberly G. Smith,et al.  A multivariate model of female black bear habitat use for a geographic information system , 1993 .

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

[23]  Robert A. Gitzen,et al.  Analysis of Resource Selection Using Utilization Distributions , 2006 .

[24]  J. Marzluff,et al.  RESPONSES OF AMERICAN CROW POPULATIONS TO CAMPGROUNDS IN REMOTE NATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPES , 2004 .

[25]  Joshua J. Millspaugh,et al.  THE APPLICATION OF DISCRETE CHOICE MODELS TO WILDLIFE RESOURCE SELECTION STUDIES , 1999 .

[26]  J. Withey,et al.  Multi-scale use of lands providing anthropogenic resources by American Crows in an urbanizing landscape , 2009, Landscape Ecology.

[27]  J. Marzluff,et al.  Species-Specific Survival and Relative Habitat Use in an Urban Landscape During the Postfledging Period , 2009 .

[28]  J. Kie,et al.  A Comparison of Two Modeling Approaches for Evaluating Wildlife–Habitat Relationships , 2009 .

[29]  D. Pierce,et al.  BLACK BEAR HOME-RANGE SIZES IN WASHINGTON: CLIMATIC, VEGETATIVE, AND SOCIAL INFLUENCES , 2003 .

[30]  Zhihai He,et al.  A new 'view' of ecology and conservation through animal-borne video systems. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[31]  P. Krausman,et al.  Influence of topography and GPS fix interval on GPS collar performance , 2005 .

[32]  J. Squires,et al.  Effect of forest canopy on GPS-based movement data , 2005 .

[33]  Joshua J. Millspaugh,et al.  RELATING RESOURCES TO A PROBABILISTIC MEASURE OF SPACE USE: FOREST FRAGMENTS AND STELLER'S JAYS , 2004 .

[34]  M. Alberti,et al.  Predicting land cover change and avian community responses in rapidly urbanizing environments , 2008, Landscape Ecology.

[35]  Lee A. Vierling,et al.  Effects of habitat on GPS collar performance: using data screening to reduce location error , 2007 .

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