CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Temporal Non-stationarity of Path-Selection Movement Models and Connectivity: An Example of African Elephants in Kruger National Park

Kaszta, Żaneta, Cushman, Samuel A., Slotow, Rob·2021·Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
DOI 10.3389/fevo.2021.553263
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Effective conservation and land management require robust understanding of how landscape features spatially and temporally affect population distribution, abundance and connectivity. This is especially important for keystone species known to shape ecosystems, such as the African elephant ( Loxodonta africana ). This work investigates monthly patterns of elephant movement and connectivity in Kruger National Park (KNP; South Africa), and their temporal relationship with landscape features over a 12-month period associated with the occurrence of a severe drought. Based on elephant locations from GPS collars with a short acquisition interval, we explored the monthly patterns of spatial-autocorrelation of elephant movement using Mantel correlograms, and we developed scale-optimized monthly path-selection movement and resistant kernel connectivity models. Our results showed high variability in patterns of autocorrelation in elephant movements across individuals and months, with a preponderance of directional movement, which we believe is related to drought induced range shifts. We also found high non-stationarity of monthly movement and connectivity models; most models exhibited qualitative similarity in the general nature of the predicted ecological relationships, but large quantitative differences in predicted landscape resistance and connectivity across the year. This suggests high variation in space-utilization and temporal shifts of core habitat areas for elephants in KNP. Even during extreme drought, rainfall itself was not a strong driver of elephant movement; elephant movements, instead, were strongly driven by selection for green vegetation and areas near waterholes and small rivers. Our findings highlight a potentially serious problem in using movement models from a particular temporal snapshot to infer general landscape effects on movement. Conservation and management strategies focusing only on certain areas identified by temporarily idiosyncratic models might not be appropriate or efficient as a guide for allocating scarce resources for management or for understanding general ecological relationships.

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 · 10.3389/fevo.2021.553263

Cites

1 of 1 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Seasonal variability in the landscape can substantially alter movement patterns.

    “For example, seasonal variability in the landscape can substantially alter movement patterns42,43, and spatial variability in movement behaviour can result in radically different estimates of landscape resistance and connectivity44,45.”

    From Connectivity modelling in conservation science: a comparative evaluation (2022) · cites this paper as [42]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 100

  1. Almasieh, 2016, Identifying habitat cores and corridors for the Iranian black bear in Iran., Ursus, 27, 18, 10.2192/URSUS-D-15-00032.1 · DOI
  2. Balkenhol, 2015, Landscape Genetics: Concepts, Methods, Applications., 10.1002/9781118525258 · DOI
  3. Barnes, 2001, Effects of large herbivores and fire on the regeneration of Acacia erioloba woodlands in Chobe National Park, Botswana., Afr. J. Ecol., 39, 340, 10.1046/j.1365-2028.2001.00325.x · DOI
  4. Bartoń, 2018, Multi-Model Inference (MuMIn). Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN), Version 1.40.4.
  5. Benhamou, 2014, Of scales and stationarity in animal movements., Ecol. Lett., 17, 261, 10.1111/ele.12225 · DOI
  6. Birkett, 2012, Animal perception of seasonal thresholds: changes in elephant movement in relation to rainfall patterns., PLoS One, 7, 10.1371/journal.pone.0038363 · DOI
  7. Borcard, 2012, Is the mantel correlogram powerful enough to be useful in ecological analysis? A simulation study., Ecology, 93, 1473, 10.1890/11-1737.1 · DOI
  8. Brits, 2002, Ecological impact of large herbivores on the woody vegetation at selected watering points on the eastern basaltic soils in the Kruger National Park., Afr. J. Ecol., 40, 53, 10.1046/j.0141-6707.2001.00344.x · DOI
  9. Buderman, 2018, Time-varying predatory behavior is primary predictor of fine-scale movement of wildland-urban cougars., Mov. Ecol., 6, 1, 10.1186/s40462-018-0140-6 · DOI
  10. Burgman, 1995, Analysis of the spatial pattern of arthropod fauna of jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) foliage using a Mantel correlogram., Aust. J. Ecol., 20, 455, 10.1111/j.1442-9993.1995.tb00561.x · DOI
  11. Burn, 2011, Global trends and factors associated with the illegal killing of elephants: a hierarchical bayesian analysis of carcass encounter data., PLoS One, 6, 10.1371/journal.pone.0024165 · DOI
  12. Burnham, 2002, Model Selection and Multimodel Inference.
  13. Cagnacci, 2010, Animal ecology meets GPS-based radiotelemetry: a perfect storm of opportunities and challenges., Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 365, 2157, 10.1098/rstb.2010.0107 · DOI
  14. Carvalho, 2016, Assessing landscape functional connectivity in a forest carnivore using path selection functions., Landsc. Ecol., 31, 1021, 10.1007/s10980-015-0326-x · DOI
  15. Compton, 2007, A resistant-kernel model of connectivity for amphibians that breed in vernal pools., Conserv. Biol., 21, 788, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00674.x · DOI · Paper page
  16. Cushman, 2006, Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus., Biol. Conserv., 128, 231, 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.031 · DOI
  17. Cushman, 2010, “Animal movement data: GPS telemetry, autocorrelation and the need for path-level analysis,” in, Spatial Complexity, Informatics, and Wildlife Conservation, 1, 10.1007/978-4-431-87771-4 · DOI
  18. Cushman, 2005, Elephants in Space and Time in space and time., OIKOS, 109, 331, 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13538.x · DOI
  19. Cushman, 2010, “Mapping landscape resistance to identify corridors and barriers for elephant movement in southern Africa,” in, Spatial Complexity, Informatics, and Wildlife Conservation, 349, 10.1007/978-4-431-87771-4_19 · DOI
  20. Cushman, 2010, Movement behavior explains genetic differentiation in American black bears., Landsc. Ecol., 25, 1613, 10.1007/s10980-010-9534-6 · DOI
  21. Cushman, 2014, Why did the bear cross the road? Comparing the performance of multiple resistance surfaces and connectivity modeling methods., Diversity, 6, 844, 10.3390/d6040844 · DOI
  22. Cushman, 2013, “Chapter 21: Biological corridors and connectivity,” in, Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2, 384, 10.1002/9781118520178.ch21 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Cushman, 2011, Limiting factors and landscape connectivity: the American marten in the Rocky Mountains., Landsc. Ecol., 26, 1137, 10.1007/s10980-011-9645-8 · DOI
  24. De Beer, 2006, Elephants and low rainfall alter woody vegetation in Etosha National Park, Namibia., J. Arid Environ., 64, 412, 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.06.015 · DOI
  25. De Beer, 2008, Do landscape heterogeneity and water distribution explain aspects of elephant home range in southern Africa’s arid savannas?, J. Arid Environ., 72, 2017, 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.07.002 · DOI
  26. De Boer, 2013, Understanding spatial differences in African elephant densities and occurrence, A continent-wide analysis., Biol. Conserv., 159, 468, 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.10.015 · DOI
  27. De Knegt, 2010, Spatial autocorrelation and the scaling of species-environment relationships., Ecology, 91, 2455, 10.1890/09-1359.1 · DOI
  28. De Knegt, 2011, The spatial scaling of habitat selection by African elephants., J. Anim. Ecol., 80, 270, 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01764.x · DOI
  29. Delsink, 2013, Biologically relevant scales in large mammal management policies., Biol. Conserv., 167, 116, 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.035 · DOI
  30. Duchesne, 2010, Mixed conditional logistic regression for habitat selection studies., J. Anim. Ecol., 79, 548, 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01670.x · DOI
  31. Elliot, Movements vary according to dispersal stage, group size, and rainfall: the case of the African lion., Ecology, 95, 2860, 10.1890/13-1793.1 · DOI
  32. Elliot, The devil is in the dispersers: predictions of landscape connectivity change with demography., J. Appl. Ecol., 51, 1169, 10.1111/1365-2664.12282 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 2002, Environmental Potential Atlas for South Africa (GIS Data)
  34. Ferreira, 2017, Elephant population growth in Kruger National Park, South Africa, under a landscape management approach., Koedoe, 59, 1, 10.4102/koedoe.v59i1.1427 · DOI
  35. Fitzgerald, 2015, “The silent killer: habitat loss and the role of african protected areas to conserve biodiversity,” in, Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness, the Foundation for Conservation, 170, 10.5822/978-1-61091-551-9_19 · DOI
  36. Fortin, 2005, Spatial Analysis: a Guide for Ecologists., 10.1017/CBO9780511542039 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Goodwin, 1998, “Spatial scaling and animal population dynamics,” in, Ecological Scale: Theory and Applications, 193
  38. Goslee, 2007, The ecodist package for dissimilarity-based analysis of ecological data., J. Stat. Softw., 22, 1, 10.18637/jss.v022.i07 · DOI
  39. Hansen, 2013, High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 850, 123, 10.1126/science.1244693 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Hearn, Evaluating scenarios of landscape change for Sunda clouded leopard connectivity in a human dominated landscape., Biol. Conserv., 222, 232, 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.04.016 · DOI
  41. Hearn, Spatio-temporal ecology of sympatric felids on Borneo. Evidence for resource partitioning?, PLoS One, 13, 10.1371/journal.pone.0200828 · DOI
  42. Hilbers, 2015, Modeling elephant-mediated cascading effects of water point closure., Ecol. Appl., 25, 402, 10.1890/14-0322.1.sm · DOI
  43. Hooten, 2017, Animal Movement: Statistical Models for Telemetry Data., 10.1201/9781315117744 · DOI
  44. Johnson, 1992, Animal movements and population-dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes., Landsc. Ecol., 7, 63, 10.1007/bf02573958 · DOI
  45. Johnson, 1980, The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference., Ecology, 61, 65, 10.2307/1937156 · DOI
  46. Kaszta, 2019, Integrating Sunda clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi) conservation into development and restoration planning in Sabah (Borneo)., Biol. Conserv., 235, 63, 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.04.001 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Kaszta, Simulating the impact of Belt and road initiative and other major developments in Myanmar on an ambassador felid, the clouded leopard, Neofelis nebulosa., Landsc. Ecol., 35, 727, 10.1007/s10980-020-00976-z · DOI
  48. Kaszta, Prioritizing habitat core areas and corridors for a large carnivore across its range., Anim. Conserv., 23, 607, 10.1111/acv.12575 · DOI
  49. Kaszta, 2018, Where buffalo and cattle meet: modelling interspecific contact risk using cumulative resistant kernels., Ecography, 41, 1, 10.1111/ecog.03039 · DOI
  50. Kaszta, 2016, Bulk feeder or selective grazer: African buffalo space use patterns based on fine-scale remotely sensed data on forage quality and quantity., Ecol. Model., 323, 115, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.12.006 · DOI
  51. Kerley, 2008, “Effects of elephants on ecosystems and biodiversity,” in, Elephant Management; a Scientific Assessment for South Africa, 146, 10.18772/22008034792.14 · DOI
  52. Landguth, 2010, Quantifying the lag time to detect barriers in landscape genetics., Mol. Ecol., 19, 4179, 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04808.x · DOI
  53. Landguth, 2012, UNICOR: a species connectivity and corridor network simulator., Ecography, 35, 9, 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.07149.x · DOI
  54. Legendre, 2012, Numerical Ecology
  55. Legrande, 1993, Spatial autocorrelation?: trouble or new paradigm?, Ecology, 74, 1659, 10.2307/1939924 · DOI
  56. Levin, 1992, The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: the Robert H. MacArthur award lecture., Ecology, 73, 1943, 10.2307/1941447 · DOI
  57. Lewis, 2011, Identifying habitat characteristics to predict highway crossing areas for black bears within a human-modified landscape., Landsc. Urban Plan., 101, 99, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.01.008 · DOI
  58. Loarie, 2009, Elephant seasonal vegetation preferences across dry and wet savannas., Biol. Conserv., 142, 3099, 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.08.021 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Macdonald, 2017, Identifying ambassador species for conservation marketing., Glob. Ecol. Conserv., 12, 204, 10.1016/j.gecco.2017.11.006 · DOI
  60. MacFadyen, 2019, Spatiotemporal distribution dynamics of elephants in response to density, rainfall, rivers and fire in Kruger National Park, South Africa., Divers. Distrib., 25, 880, 10.1111/ddi.12907 · DOI
  61. Mateo Sanchez, 2014, Scale dependence in habitat selection: the case of the endangered brown bear (Ursus arctos) in the Cantabrian Range (NW Spain)., Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 28, 1531, 10.1080/13658816.2013.776684 · DOI
  62. Mateo-Sánchez, 2015, A comparative framework to infer landscape effects on population genetic structure: are habitat suitability models effective in explaining gene flow?, Landsc. Ecol., 30, 1405, 10.1007/s10980-015-0194-4 · DOI
  63. McGarigal, Multi-scale habitat selection modeling: a review and outlook., Landsc. Ecol., 31, 1161, 10.1007/s10980-016-0374-x · DOI
  64. McGarigal, Multi-scale habitat selection modeling: introduction to the special issue., Landsc. Ecol., 31, 1157, 10.1007/s10980-016-0388-4 · DOI
  65. McRae, 2012, Where to Restore ecological connectivity? detecting barriers and quantifying restoration benefits., PLoS One, 7, 10.1371/journal.pone.0052604 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Merkle, 2018, Linking spring phenology with mechanistic models of host movement to predict disease transmission risk., J. Appl. Ecol., 55, 810, 10.1111/1365-2664.13022 · DOI
  67. Mucina, 2006, The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland
  68. Mwakiwa, 2013, Optimization of wildlife management in a large game reserve through waterpoints manipulation: a bio-economic analysis., J. Environ. Manag., 114, 352, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.029 · DOI
  69. Ndlovu, 2018, Water for African elephants (Loxodonta africana): faecal microbial loads affect use of artificial waterholes., Biol. Lett., 14, 10.1098/rsbl.2018.0360 · DOI
  70. Nettleton, 2014, Commercial Data Mining: Processing, Analysis and Modeling for Predictive Analytics Projects.
  71. Osipova, 2019, Using step-selection functions to model landscape connectivity for African elephants: accounting for variability across individuals and seasons., Anim. Conserv., 22, 35, 10.1111/acv.12432 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Otis, 1999, Autocorrelation of location estimates and the analysis of radiotracking data., J. Wildl. Manag., 63, 1039, 10.2307/3802819 · DOI
  73. Patterson, 2017, Statistical modelling of individual animal movement: an overview of key methods and a discussion of practical challenges., Adv. Stat. Anal., 101, 399, 10.1007/s10182-017-0302-7 · DOI
  74. Robson, 2018, Changes in elephant conservation management promote density-dependent habitat selection in the Kruger National Park., Anim. Conserv., 21, 302, 10.1111/acv.12393 · DOI
  75. Roever, 2013, Functional connectivity within conservation networks: delineating corridors for African elephants., Biol. Conserv., 157, 128, 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.025 · DOI
  76. Rooney, 1998, Autocorrelated data in telemetry studies: time to independence and the problem of behavioural effects., Mamm. Rev., 28, 89, 10.1046/j.1365-2907.1998.00028.x · DOI
  77. Rudnick, 2012, The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities. issues in ecology recommended citation., Issues Ecol., 16, 1
  78. Segurado, 2006, Consequences of spatial autocorrelation for niche-based models., J. Appl. Ecol., 43, 433, 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01162.x · DOI
  79. Seloana, 2017, Elephant damage to Sclerocarya birrea on different landscapes., Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv., 9, 97, 10.5897/ijbc2015.0912 · DOI
  80. Shirk, 2014, Spatiotemporal variation in resource selection: insights from the American marten (Martes americana)., Ecol. Appl., 24, 1434, 10.1890/13-1510.1 · DOI
  81. Smit, 2020, Megaherbivore response to droughts under different management regimes: lessons from a large African savanna., Afr. J. Range Forage Sci., 37, 65, 10.2989/10220119.2019.1700161 · DOI
  82. Smit, 2007, Elephants and water provision: what are the management links?, Divers. Distrib., 13, 666, 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00403.x · DOI
  83. Squires, 2013, Combining resource selection and movement behavior to predict corridors for Canada lynx at their southern range periphery., Biol. Conserv., 157, 187, 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.018 · DOI
  84. Tambosi, 2014, A framework to optimize biodiversity restoration efforts based on habitat amount and landscape connectivity., Restor. Ecol., 22, 169, 10.1111/rec.12049 · DOI
  85. Thaker, 2019, Fine-scale tracking of ambient temperature and movement reveals shuttling behavior of elephants to water., Front. Ecol. Evol., 7, 10.3389/fevo.2019.00004 · DOI
  86. Therneau, 2017, coxme: Mixed Effects Cox Models. 2015. R Packag. Version, 2.
  87. Valcu, 2010, Spatial autocorrelation: an overlooked concept in behavioral ecology., Behav. Ecol., 21, 902, 10.1093/beheco/arq107 · DOI
  88. Wasserman, 2012, Multi Scale Habitat Relationships of Martes Americana in Northern Idaho, U.S.A., 10.2737/RMRS-RP-94 · DOI
  89. Wato, 2018, Movement patterns of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) in a Semi-arid Savanna suggest that they have information on the location of dispersed water sources., Front. Ecol. Evol., 6, 10.3389/fevo.2018.00167 · DOI
  90. Wiens, 1976, Population responses to patchy environments., Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 7, 81, 10.1146/annurev.es.07.110176.000501 · DOI
  91. Wiens, 1989, Spatial scaling in ecology., Funct. Ecol., 3, 385, 10.2307/2389612 · DOI · Paper page
  92. Wittemyer, 2014, Illegal killing for ivory drives global decline in African elephants., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 111, 13117, 10.1073/pnas.1403984111 · DOI
  93. Woolley, 2009, Intraspecific strategic responses of african elephants to temporal variation in forage quality., J. Wildl. Manag., 73, 827, 10.2193/2008-412 · DOI
  94. Young, 2009, Elephant spatial use in wet and dry savannas of southern Africa., J. Zool., 278, 189, 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00568.x · DOI
  95. Zeller, Are all data types and connectivity models created equal? Validating common connectivity approaches with dispersal data., Divers. Distrib., 24, 868, 10.1111/ddi.12742 · DOI
  96. Zeller, Incorporating road crossing data into vehicle collision risk models for moose (Alces americanus) in Massachusetts, USA., Environ. Manag., 62, 518, 10.1007/s00267-018-1058-x · DOI
  97. Zeller, 2014, Sensitivity of landscape resistance estimates based on point selection functions to scale and behavioral state: pumas as a case study., Landsc. Ecol., 29, 541, 10.1007/s10980-014-9991-4 · DOI · Paper page
  98. Zeller, 2016, Using step and path selection functions for estimating resistance to movement: pumas as a case study., Landsc. Ecol., 31, 1319, 10.1007/s10980-015-0301-6 · DOI
  99. Zeller, 2019, Black bears alter movements in response to anthropogenic features with time of day and season., Mov. Ecol., 7, 1, 10.1186/s40462-019-0166-4 · DOI
  100. Ziółkowska, 2016, Assessing differences in connectivity based on habitat versus movement models for brown bears in the Carpathians., Landsc. Ecol., 31, 1863, 10.1007/s10980-016-0368-8 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kaszta, Ż., Cushman, S. A., & Slotow, R.
Venue
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2021-04-27
Volume
9
ISSN
2296-701X
DOI
10.3389/fevo.2021.553263
Cited by
32
References
1
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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