Improving spatial predictions of animal resource selection to guide conservation decision making
Resource selection is often studied by ecologists interested in the environmental drivers of animal space use and movement. These studies commonly produce spatial predictions, which are of considerable utility to resource managers making habitat and population management decisions. It is thus paramo...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ecology (Durham) 2020-03, Vol.101 (3), p.1-9 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 9 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 1 |
container_title | Ecology (Durham) |
container_volume | 101 |
creator | Gerber, Brian D. Northrup, Joseph M. |
description | Resource selection is often studied by ecologists interested in the environmental drivers of animal space use and movement. These studies commonly produce spatial predictions, which are of considerable utility to resource managers making habitat and population management decisions. It is thus paramount that predictions from resource selection studies are accurate. We evaluated model building and fitting strategies for optimizing resource selection function predictions in a use-availability framework. We did so by simulating low- and high-intensity spatial sampling data that respectively predicted study area and movement-based resource selection. We compared one of the most commonly used forms of statistical regularization, Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC), with the lesser used least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). LASSO predictions were less variable and more accurate than AIC and were often best when considering additive and interacting variables. We explicitly demonstrate the predictive equivalence using the logistic and Poisson likelihoods and how it is lost when the available sample is too small. Regardless of modeling approach, interpreting the sign of coefficients as a measure of selection can be misleading when optimizing for prediction. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ecy.2953 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2327378976</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26914923</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26914923</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4053-b24831a9f9f9e0d8f0a2c0247d9885c4b4070d849b3f061125e913d367ac36df3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKAzEUhoMotlbBF1AG3LiZmttMJkspVQsFN7pwNWYyZ0rq3ExmKn1704sVBJNFDicfH-f8CF0SPCYY0zvQ6zGVETtCQyKZDCUR-BgNMSY0lHGUDNCZc0vsD-HJKRowknBMOR2i91nV2mZl6kXgWtUZVQathdzozjS1C5oiULWpfNeCa3qrIXBQwvY36Jpg0ZscAu1RsCu17eagjdsUlfrw2nN0UqjSwcX-HaHXh-nL5CmcPz_OJvfzUHMcsTCjPGFEycJfwHlSYEW1H1HkMkkizTOOhW9zmbECx4TQCCRhOYuF0izOCzZCtzuvX-ezB9ellXEaylLV0PQupYwKJhIpYo_e_EGXfrXaT-epWHIpBGe_Qm0b5ywUaWt9EnadEpxuUk996ukmdY9e74V9VkF-AH9i9kC4A75MCet_Rel08rYXXu34pesae-BpLAmXlLFvrpyU2w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2369497743</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Improving spatial predictions of animal resource selection to guide conservation decision making</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Journals</source><source>JSTOR</source><creator>Gerber, Brian D. ; Northrup, Joseph M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Gerber, Brian D. ; Northrup, Joseph M.</creatorcontrib><description>Resource selection is often studied by ecologists interested in the environmental drivers of animal space use and movement. These studies commonly produce spatial predictions, which are of considerable utility to resource managers making habitat and population management decisions. It is thus paramount that predictions from resource selection studies are accurate. We evaluated model building and fitting strategies for optimizing resource selection function predictions in a use-availability framework. We did so by simulating low- and high-intensity spatial sampling data that respectively predicted study area and movement-based resource selection. We compared one of the most commonly used forms of statistical regularization, Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC), with the lesser used least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). LASSO predictions were less variable and more accurate than AIC and were often best when considering additive and interacting variables. We explicitly demonstrate the predictive equivalence using the logistic and Poisson likelihoods and how it is lost when the available sample is too small. Regardless of modeling approach, interpreting the sign of coefficients as a measure of selection can be misleading when optimizing for prediction.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-9658</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-9170</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ecy.2953</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31840242</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley and Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>AIC ; Computer simulation ; Decision making ; Ecological monitoring ; habitat selection ; LASSO ; movement ecology ; optimal ; prediction ; Regularization ; Resource management ; resource selection function ; RSF ; Spatial data ; spatial ecology ; Statistical Reports ; Wildlife conservation</subject><ispartof>Ecology (Durham), 2020-03, Vol.101 (3), p.1-9</ispartof><rights>2019 by the Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>2019 by the Ecological Society of America.</rights><rights>2020 Ecological Society of America</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4053-b24831a9f9f9e0d8f0a2c0247d9885c4b4070d849b3f061125e913d367ac36df3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4053-b24831a9f9f9e0d8f0a2c0247d9885c4b4070d849b3f061125e913d367ac36df3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9285-9784</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26914923$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26914923$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31840242$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gerber, Brian D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Northrup, Joseph M.</creatorcontrib><title>Improving spatial predictions of animal resource selection to guide conservation decision making</title><title>Ecology (Durham)</title><addtitle>Ecology</addtitle><description>Resource selection is often studied by ecologists interested in the environmental drivers of animal space use and movement. These studies commonly produce spatial predictions, which are of considerable utility to resource managers making habitat and population management decisions. It is thus paramount that predictions from resource selection studies are accurate. We evaluated model building and fitting strategies for optimizing resource selection function predictions in a use-availability framework. We did so by simulating low- and high-intensity spatial sampling data that respectively predicted study area and movement-based resource selection. We compared one of the most commonly used forms of statistical regularization, Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC), with the lesser used least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). LASSO predictions were less variable and more accurate than AIC and were often best when considering additive and interacting variables. We explicitly demonstrate the predictive equivalence using the logistic and Poisson likelihoods and how it is lost when the available sample is too small. Regardless of modeling approach, interpreting the sign of coefficients as a measure of selection can be misleading when optimizing for prediction.</description><subject>AIC</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Ecological monitoring</subject><subject>habitat selection</subject><subject>LASSO</subject><subject>movement ecology</subject><subject>optimal</subject><subject>prediction</subject><subject>Regularization</subject><subject>Resource management</subject><subject>resource selection function</subject><subject>RSF</subject><subject>Spatial data</subject><subject>spatial ecology</subject><subject>Statistical Reports</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><issn>0012-9658</issn><issn>1939-9170</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kMtKAzEUhoMotlbBF1AG3LiZmttMJkspVQsFN7pwNWYyZ0rq3ExmKn1704sVBJNFDicfH-f8CF0SPCYY0zvQ6zGVETtCQyKZDCUR-BgNMSY0lHGUDNCZc0vsD-HJKRowknBMOR2i91nV2mZl6kXgWtUZVQathdzozjS1C5oiULWpfNeCa3qrIXBQwvY36Jpg0ZscAu1RsCu17eagjdsUlfrw2nN0UqjSwcX-HaHXh-nL5CmcPz_OJvfzUHMcsTCjPGFEycJfwHlSYEW1H1HkMkkizTOOhW9zmbECx4TQCCRhOYuF0izOCzZCtzuvX-ezB9ellXEaylLV0PQupYwKJhIpYo_e_EGXfrXaT-epWHIpBGe_Qm0b5ywUaWt9EnadEpxuUk996ukmdY9e74V9VkF-AH9i9kC4A75MCet_Rel08rYXXu34pesae-BpLAmXlLFvrpyU2w</recordid><startdate>20200301</startdate><enddate>20200301</enddate><creator>Gerber, Brian D.</creator><creator>Northrup, Joseph M.</creator><general>John Wiley and Sons, Inc</general><general>Ecological Society of America</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9285-9784</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200301</creationdate><title>Improving spatial predictions of animal resource selection to guide conservation decision making</title><author>Gerber, Brian D. ; Northrup, Joseph M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4053-b24831a9f9f9e0d8f0a2c0247d9885c4b4070d849b3f061125e913d367ac36df3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>AIC</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Ecological monitoring</topic><topic>habitat selection</topic><topic>LASSO</topic><topic>movement ecology</topic><topic>optimal</topic><topic>prediction</topic><topic>Regularization</topic><topic>Resource management</topic><topic>resource selection function</topic><topic>RSF</topic><topic>Spatial data</topic><topic>spatial ecology</topic><topic>Statistical Reports</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gerber, Brian D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Northrup, Joseph M.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gerber, Brian D.</au><au>Northrup, Joseph M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Improving spatial predictions of animal resource selection to guide conservation decision making</atitle><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle><addtitle>Ecology</addtitle><date>2020-03-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>101</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>9</epage><pages>1-9</pages><issn>0012-9658</issn><eissn>1939-9170</eissn><abstract>Resource selection is often studied by ecologists interested in the environmental drivers of animal space use and movement. These studies commonly produce spatial predictions, which are of considerable utility to resource managers making habitat and population management decisions. It is thus paramount that predictions from resource selection studies are accurate. We evaluated model building and fitting strategies for optimizing resource selection function predictions in a use-availability framework. We did so by simulating low- and high-intensity spatial sampling data that respectively predicted study area and movement-based resource selection. We compared one of the most commonly used forms of statistical regularization, Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC), with the lesser used least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). LASSO predictions were less variable and more accurate than AIC and were often best when considering additive and interacting variables. We explicitly demonstrate the predictive equivalence using the logistic and Poisson likelihoods and how it is lost when the available sample is too small. Regardless of modeling approach, interpreting the sign of coefficients as a measure of selection can be misleading when optimizing for prediction.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley and Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>31840242</pmid><doi>10.1002/ecy.2953</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9285-9784</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0012-9658 |
ispartof | Ecology (Durham), 2020-03, Vol.101 (3), p.1-9 |
issn | 0012-9658 1939-9170 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2327378976 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell Journals; JSTOR |
subjects | AIC Computer simulation Decision making Ecological monitoring habitat selection LASSO movement ecology optimal prediction Regularization Resource management resource selection function RSF Spatial data spatial ecology Statistical Reports Wildlife conservation |
title | Improving spatial predictions of animal resource selection to guide conservation decision making |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T05%3A55%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Improving%20spatial%20predictions%20of%20animal%20resource%20selection%20to%20guide%20conservation%20decision%20making&rft.jtitle=Ecology%20(Durham)&rft.au=Gerber,%20Brian%20D.&rft.date=2020-03-01&rft.volume=101&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=9&rft.pages=1-9&rft.issn=0012-9658&rft.eissn=1939-9170&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ecy.2953&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E26914923%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2369497743&rft_id=info:pmid/31840242&rft_jstor_id=26914923&rfr_iscdi=true |