4.5 Article

Evaluating resource selection functions

Journal

ECOLOGICAL MODELLING
Volume 157, Issue 2-3, Pages 281-300

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00200-4

Keywords

habitat selection; logistic regression; model selection; prediction; RSF; resource selection functions; validation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A resource selection function (RSF) is any model that yields values proportional to the probability of use of a resource unit. RSF models often are fitted using generalized linear models (GLMs) although a variety of statistical models might be used. Information criteria such as the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) or Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC) are tools that can be useful for selecting a model from a set of biologically plausible candidates. Statistical inference procedures, such as the likelihood-ratio test, can be used to assess whether models deviate from random null models. But for most applications of RSF models, usefulness is evaluated by how well the model predicts the location of organisms on a landscape. Predictions from RSF models constructed using presence/absence (used/ unused) data can be evaluated using procedures developed for logistic regression, such as confusion matrices, Kappa statistics, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves. However, RSF models estimated from presence/ available data create unique problems for evaluating model predictions. For presence/available models we propose a form of k-fold cross validation for evaluating prediction success. This involves calculating the correlation between RSF ranks and area-adjusted frequencies for a withheld sub-sample of data. A similar approach can be applied to evaluate predictive success for out-of-sample data. Not all RSF models are robust for application in different times or different places due to ecological and behavioral variation of the target organisms. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available