4.3 Article

Using Multilevel Models to Quantify Heterogeneity in Resource Selection

Journal

JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Volume 75, Issue 8, Pages 1788-1796

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.212

Keywords

Cervus nippon; heirarchical models; logistic regression; multilevel modeling; Odocoileus virginianus; resource selection function

Funding

  1. Pennsylvania Game Commission
  2. National Park Service

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Models of resource selection are being used increasingly to predict or model the effects of management actions rather than simply quantifying habitat selection. Multilevel, or hierarchical, models are an increasingly popular method to analyze animal resource selection because they impose a relatively weak stochastic constraint to model heterogeneity in habitat use and also account for unequal sample sizes among individuals. However, few studies have used multilevel models to model coefficients as a function of predictors that may influence habitat use at different scales or quantify differences in resource selection among groups. We used an example with white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) to illustrate how to model resource use as a function of distance to road that varies among deer by road density at the home range scale. We found that deer avoidance of roads decreased as road density increased. Also, we used multilevel models with sika deer (Cervus nippon) and white-tailed deer to examine whether resource selection differed between species. We failed to detect differences in resource use between these two species and showed how information-theoretic and graphical measures can be used to assess how resource use may have differed. Multilevel models can improve our understanding of how resource selection varies among individuals and provides an objective, quantifiable approach to assess differences or changes in resource selection. (C) 2011 The Wildlife Society.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available