Mapping Resource Selection Functions in Wildlife Studies: Concerns and Recommendations.

Lillian R Morris, Kelly M Proffitt, Jason K Blackburn
Author Information
  1. Lillian R Morris: Spatial Epidemiology and Ecology Research Laboratory, Department of Geography, 3141 Turlington Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.
  2. Kelly M Proffitt: Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, 1400 South 19th Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59718.
  3. Jason K Blackburn: Spatial Epidemiology and Ecology Research Laboratory, Department of Geography, 3141 Turlington Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.

Abstract

Predicting the spatial distribution of animals is an important and widely used tool with applications in wildlife management, conservation, and population health. Wildlife telemetry technology coupled with the availability of spatial data and GIS software have facilitated advancements in species distribution modeling. There are also challenges related to these advancements including the accurate and appropriate implementation of species distribution modeling methodology. Resource Selection Function (RSF) modeling is a commonly used approach for understanding species distributions and habitat usage, and mapping the RSF results can enhance study findings and make them more accessible to researchers and wildlife managers. Currently, there is no consensus in the literature on the most appropriate method for mapping RSF results, methods are frequently not described, and mapping approaches are not always related to accuracy metrics. We conducted a systematic review of the RSF literature to summarize the methods used to map RSF outputs, discuss the relationship between mapping approaches and accuracy metrics, performed a case study on the implications of employing different mapping methods, and provide recommendations as to appropriate mapping techniques for RSF studies. We found extensive variability in methodology for mapping RSF results. Our case study revealed that the most commonly used approaches for mapping RSF results led to notable differences in the visual interpretation of RSF results, and there is a concerning disconnect between accuracy metrics and mapping methods. We make 5 recommendations for researchers mapping the results of RSF studies, which are focused on carefully selecting and describing the method used to map RSF studies, and relating mapping approaches to accuracy metrics.

Keywords

References

Ecol Evol. 2015 Mar;5(6):1354-67 [PMID: 25859339]
PeerJ. 2014 Aug 19;2:e504 [PMID: 25177532]
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Jul 27;365(1550):2303-12 [PMID: 20566506]
Ecol Evol. 2011 Oct;1(2):132-44 [PMID: 22393490]
Ecol Appl. 2015 Oct;25(7):1911-21 [PMID: 26591456]
J Appl Ecol. 2008 Oct;45(5):1382-1391 [PMID: 19330031]
Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Sep 04;280(1769):20131756 [PMID: 24004939]
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 13;8(12):e82271 [PMID: 24349241]
Mol Ecol Resour. 2014 Mar;14(2):233-48 [PMID: 24119244]
Primates. 2013 Jul;54(3):259-69 [PMID: 23400822]
Ecol Appl. 2012 Jun;22(4):1068-83 [PMID: 22827119]
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 12;8(12):e83375 [PMID: 24349498]
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Jul 27;365(1550):2157-62 [PMID: 20566493]
J Wildl Manage. 2016 Feb;80(2):235-244 [PMID: 29887642]
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9):e74663 [PMID: 24040312]
Ecol Evol. 2013 Oct;3(12):4265-77 [PMID: 24324876]
Rev Port Pneumol. 2011 Sep-Oct;17(5):232-8 [PMID: 21821389]
Prev Vet Med. 2009 Oct 1;91(2-4):197-208 [PMID: 19541377]
PLoS One. 2013 May 30;8(5):e63931 [PMID: 23750191]

Grants

  1. R01 GM117617/NIGMS NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Similar Articles

Cited By