SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2401.17389

An introduction to statistical models used to characterize species-habitat associations with animal movement data

Abstract

Understanding species-habitat associations is fundamental to ecological sciences and for species conservation. Consequently, various statistical approaches have been designed to infer species-habitat associations. Due to their conceptual and mathematical differences, these methods can yield contrasting results. We describe and compare commonly used statistical models that relate animal movement data to environmental data, including resource selection functions (RSF), step-selection functions (SSF), and hidden Markov models (HMMs). We demonstrate differences in assumptions and highlighting advantages and limitations of each method. Additionally, we provide guidance on selecting the most appropriate statistical method based on the scale of the data and intended inference. To illustrate the varying ecological insights derived from each model, we apply them to the movement track of a single ringed seal in a case study. We demonstrate that each model yields varying ecological insights. For example, while the selection coefficient values from RSFs appear to show a stronger positive relationship with prey diversity than those of the SSFs, when we accounted for the autocorrelation in the data none of these relationships with prey diversity were statistically significant. The HMM reveals variable associations with prey diversity across different behaviors. Notably, the three models identified different important areas. This case study highlights the critical significance of selecting the appropriate model as an essential step in the process of identifying species-habitat relationships and specific areas of importance. Our review provides the foundational information required for making informed decisions when choosing the most suitable statistical methods to address specific questions, such as identifying protected zones, understanding movement patterns, or studying behaviours.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Katie R. N. Florko, Ron R. Togunov, Rowenna Gryba, Evan Sidrow, Steven H. Ferguson, David J. Yurkowski, Marie Auger-Méthé. 2024-01-30. An introduction to statistical models used to characterize species-habitat associations with animal movement data. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.17389

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME