Landscape Ecology

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 503–519 | Cite as

Improving habitat and connectivity model predictions with multi-scale resource selection functions from two geographic areas

  • Ho Yi WanEmail author
  • Samuel A. Cushman
  • Joseph L. Ganey
Research Article



Habitat loss and fragmentation are the most pressing threats to biodiversity, yet assessing their impacts across broad landscapes is challenging. Information on habitat suitability is sometimes available in the form of a resource selection function model developed from a different geographical area, but its applicability is unknown until tested.


We used the Mexican spotted owl as a case study to demonstrate how models developed from different geographic areas affect our predictions for habitat suitability, landscape resistance, and connectivity. We identified the most suitable habitats and core areas for dispersal and movement for the species.


We applied two multi-scale habitat selection models—a local model and a non-local model—to a broad study area in northern Arizona. We converted the models into landscape resistance surfaces and used simulations to model connectivity corridors for the species, and created composite habitat and connectivity models by averaging the local and non-local models.


While the local and the non-local models both performed well, the local model performed best in the part of the study area where it was built, but performed worse in areas that are beyond the extent of the data used to train it. The composite habitat model improved performances over both models in most cases.


With rigorous testing, multi-scale habitat selection models built on empirical data from other geographical areas can be useful. Averaging predictions of multiple models can improve performance, but the effectiveness is subject to the performance of the reference models.


Connectivity Corridor Endangered species Fragmentation Habitat loss Habitat selection Landscape resistance Mexican spotted owl Resource selection function Scale 



This project was funded by Joint Fire Sciences Project and the National Fire Plan. We thank C. Vojta, C. Aslan, and P. Fulé for their constructive comments and feedback on this project. We also thank J. Evans for his speedy response and exceptional assistance on troubleshooting and debugging spatialEco R package.

Supplementary material

10980_2019_788_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 29 kb)
10980_2019_788_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (536 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 537 kb)


  1. Ager AA, Finney MA, Kerns BK, Maffei H (2007) Modeling wildfire risk to northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) habitat in central Oregon. For Ecol Manag 246:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnosky AD, Matzke N, Tomiya S, Wogan GO, Swartz B, Quental TB, Marshall C, McGuire JL, Lindsey EL, Maguire KC, Mersey B, Ferrer EA (2011) Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrowclough GF, Groth JG, Mertz LA, Gutiérrez RJ (2006) Genetic structure of Mexican spotted owl populations in a fragmented landscape. Auk 123:1090–1102Google Scholar
  4. Beier P, Spencer W, Baldwin RF, McRae BH (2011) Toward best practices for developing regional connectivity maps. Conserv Biol 25(5):879–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellard C, Bertelsmeier C, Leadley P, Thuiller W, Courchamp F (2012) Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecol Lett 15:365–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bond ML (2016) The heat is on: spotted owls and wildfire. Reference module in earth systems and environmental sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Accessed 8 Mar 2018
  7. Boyce MS, Vernier PR, Nielsen SE, Schmiegelow FKA (2002) Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol Model 157:281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (1998) Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD, García A, Pringle RM, Palmer TM (2015) Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances 1(5):e1400253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chiono LA, Fry DL, Collins BM, Chatfield AH, Stephens SL (2017) Landscape-scale fuel treatment and wildfire impacts on carbon stocks and fire hazard in California spotted owl habitat. Ecosphere 8(1):e01648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Compton BW, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Gamble LR (2007) A resistant kernel model of connectivity for vernal pool breeding amphibians. Conserv Biol 21:788–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cushman SA, McRae B, Adriaensen F, Beier P, Shirley M, Zeller K (2013a) Biological corridors and connectivity. In: Macdonald DW, Willis KJ (eds) Key topics in conservation biology 2. Wiley, Oxford, pp 384–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cushman SA, Mersmann TJ, Moisen GG, McKelvey KS, Vojta CD (2013b) Chapter 5: using habitat models for habitat mapping and monitoring. In: Rowland MM, Vojta CD (eds) A technical guide for monitoring wildlife habitat. General Technical Report WO-89. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC, pp 5.1–5.14Google Scholar
  14. De Vos JM, Joppa LN, Gittleman JL, Stephens PR, Pimm SL (2015) Estimating the normal background rate of species extinction. Conserv Biol 29(2):452–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engler R, Guisan A, Rechsteiner L (2004) An improved approach for predicting the distribution of rare and endangered species from occurrence and pseudo-absence data. J Appl Ecol 41(2):263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans JS (2017) spatialEco. R Package version 0.0.1-7.
  17. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forsman ED, Anthony RG, Reid JA, Loschl PJ, Sovern SG, Taylor M, Biswell BL, Ellingson A, Meslow EC, Miller GS, Swindle KA, Thrailkill JA, Wagner FF, Seaman DE (2002) Natal and breeding dispersal of northern spotted owls. Wildl Monogr 149:1–35Google Scholar
  19. Frankham R (1996) Relationship of genetic variation to population size in wildlife. Conserv Biol 10(6):1500–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeman EA, Moisen G (2008) PresenceAbsence: an R package for presence-absence model analysis. J Stat Softw 23(11):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ganey JL, Apprill DL, Kyle SC, Rawlinson TA, Jonnes RS, Ward JP Jr (2014) Breeding dispersal of Mexican spotted owls in the Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico. Wilson J Ornithol 126:516–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ganey JL, Block WM, Dwyer JK, Strohmeyer BE, Jenness JS (1998) Dispersal movements and survival rates of juvenile Mexican spotted owls in northern Arizona. Wilson Bull 110:206–217Google Scholar
  23. Ganey JL, Iníguez JM, Hedwall S, Block WM, Ward JP Jr, Jonnes RS, Rawlinson TA, Kyle SC, Apprill DL (2016) Evaluating desired conditions for Mexican spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat. For Sci 62:457–462Google Scholar
  24. Ganey JL, Jenness JS (2013) An apparent case of long distance breeding dispersal by a Mexican spotted owl in New Mexico. Research Note RMRS-RN-53WWW. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  25. Ganey JL, Wan HY, Cushman SA, Vojta CD (2017) Conflicting perspectives on spotted owls, wildfire, and forest restoration. Fire Ecol 13(3):146–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ganey JL, Ward JP Jr, Willey DW (2011) Status and ecology of Mexican spotted owls in the Upper Gila Mountains Recovery Unit, Arizona and New Mexico. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-256WWW. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  27. Gates S (2002) Review of methodology of quantitative reviews using meta-analysis in ecology. J Anim Ecol 71:547–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gurevitch J, Hedges LV (1993) Meta-analysis: combining the results of independent experiments. In: Scheiner S, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 378–398Google Scholar
  29. Gutiérrez RJ, Seamans ME, Peery MZ (1996) Intermountain movement by Mexican spotted owls (Strix occidentalis lucida). Great Basin Nat 56:87–89Google Scholar
  30. Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  31. Hengl T, Sierdsema H, Radovic A, Dilo A (2009) Spatial prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence-only records: combining point pattern analysis. ENFA and regression-kriging. Ecol Model 220(24):3499–3511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones GM, Gutiérrez RJ, Tempel DJ, Whitmore SA, Berigan WJ, Peery MZ (2016) Megafires: an emerging threat to old-forest species. Front Ecol Environ 14:300–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keeley A, Beier P, Gagnon J (2016) Estimating landscape resistance from habitat suitability: effects of data source and nonlinearities. Landscape Ecol 31(9):2151–2162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keeley A, Beier P, Keeley BW, Fagan ME (2017) Habitat suitability is a poor proxy for landscape connectivity during dispersal and mating movements. Landscape Urban Plan 161:90–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keitt TH, Urban DL, Milne BT (1997) Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Ecol 1:1–17Google Scholar
  36. LANDFIRE (2001) Existing vegetation type layer, forest canopy cover layer, and digital elevation model layer. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey.
  37. Landguth EL, Hand BK, Glassy J, Cushman SA, Sawaya MA (2012) UNICOR: a species connectivity and corridor network simulator. Ecography 35(1):9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lommler M (2018) Conference presentation. In: 51st Joint Annual Meeting of the Arizona/New Mexico Chapters of the Wildlife Society and Arizona/New Mexico Chapters of the American Fisheries Society, Flagstaff, Arizona, 3 February 2018Google Scholar
  39. Mateo-Sánchez MC, Balkenhol N, Cushman SA, Pérezm T, Domínguez A, Saura S (2015a) A comparative framework to infer landscape effects on population genetic structure: are habitat suitability models effective in explaining gene flow? Landscape Ecol 30(8):1405–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mateo-Sánchez MC, Balkenhol N, Cushman SA, Pérezm T, Domínguez A, Saura S (2015b) Estimating effective landscape distances and movement corridors: comparison of habitat and genetic data. Ecosphere 6(4):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. May CA, Gutiérrez RJ (2002) Habitat associations of Mexican spotted owl nest and roost sites in central Arizona. Wilson Bull 114:457–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McClaran MP, Brady WW (1994) Arizona’s diverse vegetation and contributions to plant ecology. Rangelands 16(5):208–217Google Scholar
  43. Meiman S, Anthony R, Glenn E, Bayless T, Ellingson A, Hansen MC, Smith C (2003) Effects of commercial thinning on home-range and habitat-use patterns of a male northern spotted owl: a case study. Wildl Soc Bull 31:1254–1262Google Scholar
  44. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SL, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior RA, Börger L, Bennett DJ, Choimes A, Collen B, Day J, De Palma A, Díaz S, Echeverria-Londoño S, Edgar MJ, Feldman A, Garon M, Harrison ML, Alhusseini T, Ingram DJ, Itescu Y, Kattge J, Kemp V, Kirkpatrick L, Kleyer M, Correia DL, Martin CD, Meiri S, Novosolov M, Pan Y, Phillips HR, Purves DW, Robinson A, Simpson J, Tuck SL, Weiher E, White HJ, Ewers RM, Mace GM, Scharlemann JP, Purvis A (2015) Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Odion DC, Hanson CT, DellaSala DA, Baker WL, Bond ML (2014) Effects of fire and commercial thinning on future habitat of the northern spotted owl. Open Ecol J 7:37–51Google Scholar
  46. Peery MZ, Gutiérrez RJ, Seamans ME (1999) Habitat composition and configuration around Mexican spotted owl nest and roost sites in the Tularosa Mountains, New Mexico. J Wildl Manag 63:36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pimm SL, Jenkins CN, Abell R, Brooks TM, Gittleman JL, Joppa LN, Raven PH, Roberts CM, Sexton JO (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344(6187):1246752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. PRISM Climate Group (2014) Oregon State University.
  49. Roccaforte JP, Huffman DW, Fulé PZ, Covington WW, Chancellor WW, Stoddard MT, Crouse JE (2015) Forest structure and fuels dynamics following ponderosa pine restoration treatments, White Mountains, Arizona, USA. For Ecol Manag 337:174–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rudnick DA, Ryan SJ, Beier P, Cushman SA, Dieffenbach F, Epps CW, Gerber LR, Hartter J, Jenness JS, Kintsch J, Merenlender AM, Perkl RM, Preziosi DV, Trombulak SC (2012) The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities. Issues Ecol 16:1–20Google Scholar
  51. Seamans ME, Gutiérrez RJ (2007) Habitat selection in a changing environment: the relationship between habitat alteration and spotted owl territory occupancy and breeding dispersal. Condor 109:566–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Fortin M, McRae BH, Scribner K (2010) Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis. Mol Ecol 19(17):3576–3591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stephens SL, Miller JD, Collins BM, North MP, Keane JJ, Roberts SL (2016) Wildfire impacts on California spotted owl nesting habitat in the Sierra Nevada. Ecosphere 7(11):e01478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stockwell CA, Hendry AP, Kinnison MT (2003) Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 18(2):94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Swets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240(4857):1285–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tempel DJ, Gutiérrez RJ, Whitmore SA, Reetz MJ, Stoelting RE, Berigan WJ, Seamans ME, Peery MZ (2014) Effects of forest management on California spotted owls: implications for reducing wildfire risk in fire-prone forests. Ecol Appl 24:2089–2106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ, Collingham YC, Erasmus BFN, de Siqueira MF, Grainger A, Hannah L, Hughes L, Huntley B, van Jaarsveld AS, Midgley GF, Miles L, Ortega-Huerta MA, Peterson AT, Phillips OL, Williams SE (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Timm BC, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ganey JL (2016) Multi-scale Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) nest/roost habitat selection in Arizona and a comparison with single-scale modeling results. Landscape Ecol 31(6):1209–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2014) Final environmental impact statement for the four-forest restoration initiative, vol 1. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Coconino and Kaibab National Forests, Coconino County, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  61. U.S. Department of Interior (1993) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to list the Mexican Spotted Owl as a threatened species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fed Regis 58:14248–14271Google Scholar
  62. U.S. Department of Interior (2012) Final recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), first revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, AlbuquerqueGoogle Scholar
  63. Waltz AEM, Stoddard MT, Kalies EL, Springer JD, Huffman DW, Sánchez Meador A (2014) Effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments: assessing metrics of forest resiliency and wildfire severity after the Wallow Fire, AZ. For Ecol Manag 334:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wan HY (2018) Habitat, connectivity, and gene flow of Mexican spotted owl in southwestern forests. Dissertation, Northern Arizona UniversityGoogle Scholar
  65. Wan HY, Ganey JL, Vojta CD, Cushman SA (2018) Managing emerging threats to spotted owls. J Wildl Manag 82(4):682–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wan HY, McGarigal K, Ganey JL, Lauret V, Timm BC, Cushman SA (2017) Meta-replication reveals nonstationarity in multi-scale habitat selection of Mexican Spotted Owl. Condor 119(4):641–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Willey DW, van Riper IIIC (2000) First-year movements by juvenile Mexican spotted owls in the canyonlands of Utah. J Raptor Res 34:1–7Google Scholar
  68. Willey DW, van Riper IIIC (2007) Home range characteristics of Mexican spotted owls in the canyonlands of Utah. J Raptor Res 41:10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Young A, Clarke G (2000) Genetics, demography and viability of fragmented populations, vol 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 35–53Google Scholar
  70. Zaniewski AE, Lehmann A, Overton JM (2002) Predicting species spatial distributions using presence-only data: a case study of native New Zealand ferns. Ecol Model 157:261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Beier P, Vickers TW, Boyce WM (2017) Sensitivity of resource selection and connectivity models to landscape definition. Landscape Ecol 32:835–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol 27:777–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ziegler JP, Hoffman C, Battaglia M, Mell W (2017) Spatially explicit measurements of forest structure and fire behavior following restoration treatments in dry forests. For Ecol Manage 386:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Earth Sciences and Environmental SustainabilityNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  2. 2.Rocky Mountain Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations