Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 370

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Accounting for animal movement in estimation of resource selection functions: sampling and data analysis

Forester, James D., Im, Hae Kyung, Rathouz, Paul J.·2009·Ecology

Abstract

Patterns of resource selection by animal populations emerge as a result of the behavior of many individuals. Statistical models that describe these population‐level patterns of habitat use can miss important interactions between individual animals and characteristics of their local environment; however, identifying these interactions is difficult. One approach to this problem is to incorporate models of individual movement into resource selection models. To do this, we propose a model for step selection functions (SSF) that is composed of a resource‐independent movement kernel and a resource selection function (RSF). We show that standard case‐control logistic regression may be used to fit the SSF; however, the sampling scheme used to generate control points (i.e., the definition of availability) must be accommodated. We used three sampling schemes to analyze simulated movement data and found that ignoring sampling and the resource‐independent movement kernel yielded biased estimates of selection. The level of bias depended on the method used to generate control locations, the strength of selection, and the spatial scale of the resource map. Using empirical or parametric methods to sample control locations produced biased estimates under stronger selection; however, we show that the addition of a distance function to the analysis substantially reduced that bias. Assuming a uniform availability within a fixed buffer yielded strongly biased selection estimates that could be corrected by including the distance function but remained inefficient relative to the empirical and parametric sampling methods. As a case study, we used location data collected from elk in Yellowstone National Park, USA, to show that selection and bias may be temporally variable. Because under constant selection the amount of bias depends on the scale at which a resource is distributed in the landscape, we suggest that distance always be included as a covariate in SSF analyses. This approach to modeling resource selection is easily implemented using common statistical tools and promises to provide deeper insight into the movement ecology of animals.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/08-0874.1

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 370

Metadata

Authors
Forester, J. D., Im, H. K., & Rathouz, P. J.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-12
Volume
90
Issue
12
Pages
3554-3565
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2057973203
Cited by
370
References
3
FWCI
6.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Accounting for animal movement in estimation of resource selection functions: sampling and data analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/08-0874.1
The paper
Forester, J. D., Im, H. K., & Rathouz, P. J. (2009). Accounting for animal movement in estimation of resource selection functions: sampling and data analysis. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0874.1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.