1993
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-1558-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Resource Selection by Animals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

4
836
0
17

Year Published

2001
2001
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,000 publications
(976 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
4
836
0
17
Order By: Relevance
“…As such, after visual comparison with kernel-based methods, we determined that the 100% minimum convex polygon (MCP) was the appropriate method to delineate moose home ranges. According to the resource selection literature it is more correct to include unused areas than to exclude areas that are known to be used by moose (Porter and Church 1987;Manly et al 2002;Land et al 2008). Excluding areas known to be used by radio-collared individuals is problematic from a resource selection perspective (Porter and Church 1987;Manly et al 2002).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As such, after visual comparison with kernel-based methods, we determined that the 100% minimum convex polygon (MCP) was the appropriate method to delineate moose home ranges. According to the resource selection literature it is more correct to include unused areas than to exclude areas that are known to be used by moose (Porter and Church 1987;Manly et al 2002;Land et al 2008). Excluding areas known to be used by radio-collared individuals is problematic from a resource selection perspective (Porter and Church 1987;Manly et al 2002).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the resource selection literature it is more correct to include unused areas than to exclude areas that are known to be used by moose (Porter and Church 1987;Manly et al 2002;Land et al 2008). Excluding areas known to be used by radio-collared individuals is problematic from a resource selection perspective (Porter and Church 1987;Manly et al 2002). Thus, we generated 100% MCP seasonal home ranges (n=133) and a composite home range using all location data for moose monitored≥1 year (n=16) using the Animal Movement Analysis (Hooge and Eichenlaub 2000) for ArcView 3.3 (ESRI, Redlands, California) ( Table 1).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…RSFs provide a tool to estimate animal preference for, or avoidance of, certain habitats and linear structures such as roads and power lines, at multiple scales (Johnson 1980;Manly et al 2002;Polfus et al 2011). We developed RSF-models with a use-availability design (Manly et al 2002) to evaluate whether the wind farm construction phase affected the reindeer habitat selection.…”
Section: Habitat Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In many studies, animals are radiotracked or visually observed and the resulting locations are used to analyse habitat selection (Manly et al 2002). Hence, the variable of main interest is of categorical nature, representing the habitat type selected by an animal at a specific measurement time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%