A reformulation of the selection ratio shed light on resource selection functions and leads to a unified framework for habitat selection studies.
Chamaille-Jammes, S.
Show abstract
O_LIThe selection ratio (SR), i.e. the ratio of proportional use of a habitat over proportional availability of this habitat, has for long been the standard metric of habitat selection analyses. It is easy to compute and directly estimates disproportionate use. Its apparent restriction to habitat selection analyses using categorical predictors led to the development of the resource selection functions (RSF) approach, which has now become the norm. C_LIO_LIThe RSF approach has however led to debates and confusion. For instance, what functional form can be used remains debated, and the concept of relative probability of selection is often misunderstood. C_LIO_LII propose a reformulation of the SR demonstrating that it can be estimated in a regression context, and thus even with continuous predictors. This reformulation suggests that RSF can be seen as an intermediate step in the calculation of SR. This reformulation also clarifies some longstanding debates about RSF and data-selection/fitting practices. C_LIO_LII further suggest that SR estimates the strength of habitat selection, but that the contribution of selection in determining use, which should be more directly linked to fitness than selection per se, should be estimated by another metric, the selection effect on use (SE). SE could be estimated simply as the difference between proportional use and proportional availability, and can be computed from SR and a density estimation of availability. C_LIO_LII conduct a habitat selection analysis of plains zebras to demonstrate the added-value of going beyond RSF scores and using SR estimated in a regression context, and of combining SR and SE. C_LIO_LIOverall, I highlight the inter-relation between various metrics used to study habitat selection (i.e., SR, other selection indices, RSF scores, marginality). I conclude by proposing that SR and SE can be the unifying metrics of habitat selection, as together they offer a comprehensive view on the strength of habitat selection and its effect on habitat use. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Unravelling the effects of heterogeneity in space use on estimates of connectivity and population size: Insights from spatial capture-recapture modelling 93%
- Insights on the effect of mega-carcass abundance on the population dynamics of a facultative scavenger predator and its prey 93%
- Long term trend and short-term dynamics of a willow ptarmigan population 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Multistate Ornstein-Uhlenbeck approach for practical estimation of movement and resource selection around central places 94%
- Estimating the cumulative impact and zone of influence of anthropogenic features on biodiversity 94%
- Mitigating pseudoreplication and bias in resource selection functions with autocorrelation-informed weighting 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Can overlooking "invisible landscapes" bias habitat selection estimation and population distribution projections? 95%
- A seasonal pulse of ungulate neonates influences space use by carnivores in a multi-predator, multi-prey system 93%
- Failure to meet the exchangeability assumption in Bayesian multispecies occupancy models: Implications for study design 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Inferring wildlife poaching in Southeast Asia with multispecies dynamic site-occupancy models 94%
- Predicting fine-scale distributions and emergent spatiotemporal patterns from temporally dynamic step selection simulations 94%
- Testing the ability of species distribution models to infer variable importance 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.