The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Practical guidance on characterizing availability in resource selection functions under a use–availability design
Open accessAbstract
Habitat selection is a fundamental aspect of animal ecology, the understanding of which is critical to management and conservation. Global positioning system data from animals allow fine‐scale assessments of habitat selection and typically are analyzed in a use–availability framework, whereby animal locations are contrasted with random locations (the availability sample). Although most use–availability methods are in fact spatial point process models, they often are fit using logistic regression. This framework offers numerous methodological challenges, for which the literature provides little guidance. Specifically, the size and spatial extent of the availability sample influences coefficient estimates potentially causing interpretational bias. We examined the influence of availability on statistical inference through simulations and analysis of serially correlated mule deer GPS data. Bias in estimates arose from incorrectly assessing and sampling the spatial extent of availability. Spatial autocorrelation in covariates, which is common for landscape characteristics, exacerbated the error in availability sampling leading to increased bias. These results have strong implications for habitat selection analyses using GPS data, which are increasingly prevalent in the literature. We recommend that researchers assess the sensitivity of their results to their availability sample and, where bias is likely, take care with interpretations and use cross validation to assess robustness.
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
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
“…HABITAT-SELECTIONMODELING Article e02470; page 15 Simulation and sensitivity analyses have demonstrated that mismatch between the extent of the data generating process and analysis can lead to bias in HSAs (Northrup et al. 2013), highlighting the importance of correctly specifying spatial extent.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationZeller, K. A., McGarigal, K., Beier, P., Cushman, S. A., Vickers, T. W., & Boyce, W. M. (2014) · Landscape Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10980-014-9991-4 · Cited by 123
Dhami, B., Bhusal, A., Neupane, B., Kc, N., Lamichhane, S., Bhattarai, D., & Shrestha, B. (2023) · Global Ecology and Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02648 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Northrup, J. M., Hooten, M. B., Anderson, C. R., & Wittemyer, G.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1456-1463
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2043362185
- Cited by
- 405
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Practical guidance on characterizing availability in resource selection functions under a use–availability design. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/12-1688.1
- The paper
- Northrup, J. M., Hooten, M. B., Anderson, C. R., & Wittemyer, G. (2013). Practical guidance on characterizing availability in resource selection functions under a use–availability design. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1688.1
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.