Why did the bear cross the road? Comparing the performance of multiple resistance surfaces and connectivity modeling methods

Samuel A. Cushman, Jesse Lewis, Erin L. Landguth

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There have been few assessments of the performance of alternative resistance surfaces, and little is known about how connectivity modeling approaches differ in their ability to predict organism movements. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of four connectivity modeling approaches applied to two resistance surfaces in predicting the locations of highway crossings by American black bears in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. We found that a resistance surface derived directly from movement data greatly outperformed a resistance surface produced from analysis of genetic differentiation, despite their heuristic similarities. Our analysis also suggested differences in the performance of different connectivity modeling approaches. Factorial least cost paths appeared to slightly outperform other methods on the movement-derived resistance surface, but had very poor performance on the resistance surface obtained from multi-model landscape genetic analysis. Cumulative resistant kernels appeared to offer the best combination of high predictive performance and sensitivity to differences in resistance surface parameterization. Our analysis highlights that even when two resistance surfaces include the same variables and have a high spatial correlation of resistance values, they may perform very differently in predicting animal movement and population connectivity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)844-854
Number of pages11
JournalDiversity
Volume6
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ursidae
Aptitude
Genetic Models
roads
connectivity
road
Costs and Cost Analysis
Population
modeling
methodology
Ursus americanus
Heuristics
method
Rocky Mountain region
genetic analysis
heuristics
genetic differentiation
genetic techniques and protocols
parameterization
genetic variation

Keywords

  • American black bear
  • Functional connectivity
  • Least cost path
  • Resistant kernel
  • Synoptic connectivity modeling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology
  • Ecological Modeling
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

Why did the bear cross the road? Comparing the performance of multiple resistance surfaces and connectivity modeling methods. / Cushman, Samuel A.; Lewis, Jesse; Landguth, Erin L.

In: Diversity, Vol. 6, No. 4, 01.01.2014, p. 844-854.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0a160d3910cb4267846d5bf59ae79c91,
title = "Why did the bear cross the road? Comparing the performance of multiple resistance surfaces and connectivity modeling methods",
abstract = "There have been few assessments of the performance of alternative resistance surfaces, and little is known about how connectivity modeling approaches differ in their ability to predict organism movements. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of four connectivity modeling approaches applied to two resistance surfaces in predicting the locations of highway crossings by American black bears in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. We found that a resistance surface derived directly from movement data greatly outperformed a resistance surface produced from analysis of genetic differentiation, despite their heuristic similarities. Our analysis also suggested differences in the performance of different connectivity modeling approaches. Factorial least cost paths appeared to slightly outperform other methods on the movement-derived resistance surface, but had very poor performance on the resistance surface obtained from multi-model landscape genetic analysis. Cumulative resistant kernels appeared to offer the best combination of high predictive performance and sensitivity to differences in resistance surface parameterization. Our analysis highlights that even when two resistance surfaces include the same variables and have a high spatial correlation of resistance values, they may perform very differently in predicting animal movement and population connectivity.",
keywords = "American black bear, Functional connectivity, Least cost path, Resistant kernel, Synoptic connectivity modeling",
author = "Cushman, {Samuel A.} and Jesse Lewis and Landguth, {Erin L.}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3390/d6040844",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "844--854",
journal = "Diversity",
issn = "1424-2818",
publisher = "Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why did the bear cross the road? Comparing the performance of multiple resistance surfaces and connectivity modeling methods

AU - Cushman, Samuel A.

AU - Lewis, Jesse

AU - Landguth, Erin L.

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - There have been few assessments of the performance of alternative resistance surfaces, and little is known about how connectivity modeling approaches differ in their ability to predict organism movements. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of four connectivity modeling approaches applied to two resistance surfaces in predicting the locations of highway crossings by American black bears in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. We found that a resistance surface derived directly from movement data greatly outperformed a resistance surface produced from analysis of genetic differentiation, despite their heuristic similarities. Our analysis also suggested differences in the performance of different connectivity modeling approaches. Factorial least cost paths appeared to slightly outperform other methods on the movement-derived resistance surface, but had very poor performance on the resistance surface obtained from multi-model landscape genetic analysis. Cumulative resistant kernels appeared to offer the best combination of high predictive performance and sensitivity to differences in resistance surface parameterization. Our analysis highlights that even when two resistance surfaces include the same variables and have a high spatial correlation of resistance values, they may perform very differently in predicting animal movement and population connectivity.

AB - There have been few assessments of the performance of alternative resistance surfaces, and little is known about how connectivity modeling approaches differ in their ability to predict organism movements. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of four connectivity modeling approaches applied to two resistance surfaces in predicting the locations of highway crossings by American black bears in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. We found that a resistance surface derived directly from movement data greatly outperformed a resistance surface produced from analysis of genetic differentiation, despite their heuristic similarities. Our analysis also suggested differences in the performance of different connectivity modeling approaches. Factorial least cost paths appeared to slightly outperform other methods on the movement-derived resistance surface, but had very poor performance on the resistance surface obtained from multi-model landscape genetic analysis. Cumulative resistant kernels appeared to offer the best combination of high predictive performance and sensitivity to differences in resistance surface parameterization. Our analysis highlights that even when two resistance surfaces include the same variables and have a high spatial correlation of resistance values, they may perform very differently in predicting animal movement and population connectivity.

KW - American black bear

KW - Functional connectivity

KW - Least cost path

KW - Resistant kernel

KW - Synoptic connectivity modeling

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988336204&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988336204&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3390/d6040844

DO - 10.3390/d6040844

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84988336204

VL - 6

SP - 844

EP - 854

JO - Diversity

JF - Diversity

SN - 1424-2818

IS - 4

ER -