IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0014592.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic Approach to Space and Habitat Use Based on Biased Random Bridges

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Benhamou

Abstract

Background: Although habitat use reflects a dynamic process, most studies assess habitat use statically as if an animal's successively recorded locations reflected a point rather than a movement process. By relying on the activity time between successive locations instead of the local density of individual locations, movement-based methods can substantially improve the biological relevance of utilization distribution (UD) estimates (i.e. the relative frequencies with which an animal uses the various areas of its home range, HR). One such method rests on Brownian bridges (BBs). Its theoretical foundation (purely and constantly diffusive movements) is paradoxically inconsistent with both HR settlement and habitat selection. An alternative involves movement-based kernel density estimation (MKDE) through location interpolation, which may be applied to various movement behaviours but lacks a sound theoretical basis. Methodology/Principal Findings: I introduce the concept of a biased random (advective-diffusive) bridge (BRB) and show that the MKDE method is a practical means to estimate UDs based on simplified (isotropically diffusive) BRBs. The equation governing BRBs is constrained by the maximum delay between successive relocations warranting constant within-bridge advection (allowed to vary between bridges) but remains otherwise similar to the BB equation. Despite its theoretical inconsistencies, the BB method can therefore be applied to animals that regularly reorientate within their HRs and adapt their movements to the habitats crossed, provided that they were relocated with a high enough frequency. Conclusions/Significance: Biased random walks can approximate various movement types at short times from a given relocation. Their simplified form constitutes an effective trade-off between too simple, unrealistic movement models, such as Brownian motion, and more sophisticated and realistic ones, such as biased correlated random walks (BCRWs), which are too complex to yield functional bridges. Relying on simplified BRBs proves to be the most reliable and easily usable way to estimate UDs from serially correlated relocations and raw activity information.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Benhamou, 2011. "Dynamic Approach to Space and Habitat Use Based on Biased Random Bridges," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(1), pages 1-8, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0014592
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014592
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0014592
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0014592&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0014592?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Devin S. Johnson & Dana L. Thomas & Jay M. Ver Hoef & Aaron Christ, 2008. "A General Framework for the Analysis of Animal Resource Selection from Telemetry Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(3), pages 968-976, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alejandro Cholaquidis & Ricardo Fraiman & Gábor Lugosi & Beatriz Pateiro-López, 2016. "Set estimation from reflected Brownian motion," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(5), pages 1057-1078, November.
    2. Jialin Lei & Yifei Jia & Aojie Zuo & Qing Zeng & Linlu Shi & Yan Zhou & Hong Zhang & Cai Lu & Guangchun Lei & Li Wen, 2019. "Bird Satellite Tracking Revealed Critical Protection Gaps in East Asian–Australasian Flyway," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Inês Silva & Matthew Crane & Pongthep Suwanwaree & Colin Strine & Matt Goode, 2018. "Using dynamic Brownian Bridge Movement Models to identify home range size and movement patterns in king cobras," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Nicolas Perony & Claudio J Tessone & Barbara König & Frank Schweitzer, 2012. "How Random Is Social Behaviour? Disentangling Social Complexity through the Study of a Wild House Mouse Population," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-11, November.
    5. Benhamou, Simon & Riotte-Lambert, Louise, 2012. "Beyond the Utilization Distribution: Identifying home range areas that are intensively exploited or repeatedly visited," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 227(C), pages 112-116.
    6. González, Tania Marisol & González-Trujillo, Juan David & Palmer, John R.B. & Pino, Joan & Armenteras, Dolors, 2017. "Movement behavior of a tropical mammal: The case of Tapirus terrestris," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 360(C), pages 223-229.
    7. Zhang, Shen & Tang, Jinjun & Wang, Haixiao & Wang, Yinhai & An, Shi, 2017. "Revealing intra-urban travel patterns and service ranges from taxi trajectories," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 72-86.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Svetlana V. Tishkovskaya & Paul G. Blackwell, 2021. "Bayesian estimation of heterogeneous environments from animal movement data," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(6), September.
    2. James C. Russell & Ephraim M. Hanks & Murali Haran, 2016. "Dynamic Models of Animal Movement with Spatial Point Process Interactions," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 21(1), pages 22-40, March.
    3. Thomas M Newsome & Guy-Anthony Ballard & Christopher R Dickman & Peter J S Fleming & Chris Howden, 2013. "Anthropogenic Resource Subsidies Determine Space Use by Australian Arid Zone Dingoes: An Improved Resource Selection Modelling Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-11, May.
    4. Dhanushi A. Wijeyakulasuriya & Ephraim M. Hanks & Benjamin A. Shaby & Paul C. Cross, 2019. "Extreme Value-Based Methods for Modeling Elk Yearly Movements," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 24(1), pages 73-91, March.
    5. Wells, Adam G. & Blair, Colby C. & Garton, Edward O. & Rice, Clifford G. & Horne, Jon S. & Rachlow, Janet L. & Wallin, David O., 2014. "The Brownian bridge synoptic model of habitat selection and space use for animals using GPS telemetry data," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 273(C), pages 242-250.
    6. Lorenzo Fattorini & Caterina Pisani & Francesco Riga & Marco Zaccaroni, 2011. "A Permutation-based Combination of Sign Tests for Assessing Habitat Selection," Department of Economics University of Siena 622, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    7. Ephraim M. Hanks & Devin S. Johnson & Mevin B. Hooten, 2017. "Reflected Stochastic Differential Equation Models for Constrained Animal Movement," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 22(3), pages 353-372, September.
    8. Dhanushi A Wijeyakulasuriya & Elizabeth W Eisenhauer & Benjamin A Shaby & Ephraim M Hanks, 2020. "Machine learning for modeling animal movement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-30, July.
    9. Chloe Bracis & Eliezer Gurarie & Bram Van Moorter & R Andrew Goodwin, 2015. "Memory Effects on Movement Behavior in Animal Foraging," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0014592. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.