Literature DB >> 23574332

Reconciling resource utilization and resource selection functions.

Mevin B Hooten1, Ephraim M Hanks, Devin S Johnson, Mat W Alldredge.   

Abstract

1. Analyses based on utilization distributions (UDs) have been ubiquitous in animal space use studies, largely because they are computationally straightforward and relatively easy to employ. Conventional applications of resource utilization functions (RUFs) suggest that estimates of UDs can be used as response variables in a regression involving spatial covariates of interest. 2. It has been claimed that contemporary implementations of RUFs can yield inference about resource selection, although to our knowledge, an explicit connection has not been described. 3. We explore the relationships between RUFs and resource selection functions from a hueristic and simulation perspective. We investigate several sources of potential bias in the estimation of resource selection coefficients using RUFs (e.g. the spatial covariance modelling that is often used in RUF analyses). 4. Our findings illustrate that RUFs can, in fact, serve as approximations to RSFs and are capable of providing inference about resource selection, but only with some modification and under specific circumstances. 5. Using real telemetry data as an example, we provide guidance on which methods for estimating resource selection may be more appropriate and in which situations. In general, if telemetry data are assumed to arise as a point process, then RSF methods may be preferable to RUFs; however, modified RUFs may provide less biased parameter estimates when the data are subject to location error.
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Animal Ecology © 2013 British Ecological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  kernel density estimation; space use; spatial statistics; utilization distribution

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23574332     DOI: 10.1111/1365-2656.12080

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Ecol        ISSN: 0021-8790            Impact factor:   5.091


  5 in total

1.  Accounting for location uncertainty in azimuthal telemetry data improves ecological inference.

Authors:  Brian D Gerber; Mevin B Hooten; Christopher P Peck; Mindy B Rice; James H Gammonley; Anthony D Apa; Amy J Davis
Journal:  Mov Ecol       Date:  2018-07-25       Impact factor: 3.600

2.  Possible causes of divergent population trends in sympatric African herbivores.

Authors:  Emily Bennitt; Tatjana Y Hubel; Hattie L A Bartlam-Brooks; Alan M Wilson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-12       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Local human movement patterns and land use impact exposure to zoonotic malaria in Malaysian Borneo.

Authors:  Kimberly M Fornace; Neal Alexander; Tommy R Abidin; Paddy M Brock; Tock H Chua; Indra Vythilingam; Heather M Ferguson; Benny O Manin; Meng L Wong; Sui H Ng; Jon Cox; Chris Drakeley
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 8.140

4.  Winter movement patterns of a globally endangered avian scavenger in south-western Europe.

Authors:  Jon Morant; José María Abad-Gómez; Toribio Álvarez; Ángel Sánchez; Iñigo Zuberogoitia; Pascual López-López
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Habitat selection by a predator of rodent pests is resilient to wildfire in a vineyard agroecosystem.

Authors:  Allison E Huysman; Matthew D Johnson
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 2.912

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.