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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000) · doi:10.1002/0471722146 · Cited by 20,302
Wolves influence elk movements: Behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park
Fortin, D., Beyer, H. L., Boyce, M. S., Smith, D. W., Duchesne, T., & Mao, J. S. (2005) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/04-0953 · Cited by 1,351 · cited 8×
“Empirical (e.g., Fortin et al. 2005) or, as we have proposed, parametric sampling methods avoid this arbitrary choice of the domain of availability, are just as easy to implement, and have overall superior performance in SSF casecontrol analyses compared to uniform sampling.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
Cited by
Integrated step selection analysis: bridging the gap between resource selection and animal movement
Avgar, T., Potts, J. R., Lewis, M. A., & Boyce, M. S. (2016) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12528 · Cited by 594
Northrup, J. M., Vander Wal, E., Bonar, M., Fieberg, J., Laforge, M. P., Leclerc, M., Prokopenko, C. M., & Gerber, B. D. (2022) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1002/eap.2470 · Cited by 227
“…to model step length and turn-angle distributions, as opposed to resampling from the empirical distributions of turn angle and step length (Forester et al. 2009), although we note that to date there has been no assessment of the bias introduced by choosing one of these methods over the…”
BackgroundMethodTsalyuk, M., Kilian, W., Reineking, B., & Getz, W. M. (2019) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1348 · Cited by 98
Osipova, L., Okello, M. M., Njumbi, S. J., Ngene, S., Western, D., Hayward, M. W., & Balkenhol, N. (2019) · Animal Conservation · doi:10.1111/acv.12432 · Cited by 71
Sidder, S. A., D'Antonio, A., Hall, T. E., Dinkins, J. B., Bredeweg, E. M., & Monz, C. A. (2023) · Landscape and Urban Planning · doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104796 · Cited by 3
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.