Estimating encounter-habitat relationships with scale-integrated resource selection functions.

Encounters between animals occur when animals are close in space and time. Encounters are important in many ecological processes including sociality, predation and disease transmission. Despite this, there is little theory regarding the spatial distribution of encounters and no formal framework to relate environmental characteristics to encounters. The probability of encounter could be estimated with resource selection functions (RSFs) by comparing locations where encounters occurred to available locations where they may have occurred, but this estimate is complicated by the hierarchical nature of habitat selection. We developed a method to relate resources to the relative probability of encounter based on a scale-integrated habitat selection framework. This framework integrates habitat selection at multiple scales to obtain an appropriate estimate of availability for encounters. Using this approach, we related encounter probabilities to landscape resources. The RSFs describe habitat associations at four scales, home ranges within the study area, areas of overlap within home ranges, locations within areas of overlap, and encounters compared to other locations, which can be combined into a single scale-integrated RSF. We apply this method to intraspecific encounter data from two species: white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and elk (Cervus elaphus) and interspecific encounter data from a two-species system of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and coyote (Canis latrans). Our method produced scale-integrated RSFs that represented the relative probability of encounter. The predicted spatial distribution of encounters obtained based on this scale-integrated approach produced distributions that more accurately predicted novel encounters than a naïve approach or any individual scale alone. Our results highlight the importance of accounting for the conditional nature of habitat selection in estimating the habitat associations of animal encounters as opposed to 'naïve' comparisons of encounter locations with general availability. This method has direct relevance for testing hypotheses about the relationship between habitat and social or predator-prey behaviour and generating spatial predictions of encounters. Such spatial predictions may be vital for understanding the distribution of encounters driving disease transmission, predation rates and other population and community-level processes.

Carnivore space use behaviors reveal variation in responses to human land modification.

BACKGROUND: Spatial behavior, including home-ranging behaviors, habitat selection, and movement, can be extremely informative in estimating how animals respond to landscape heterogeneity. Responses in these spatial behaviors to features such as human land modification and resources can highlight a species' spatial strategy to maximize fitness and minimize mortality. These strategies can vary on spatial, temporal, and individual scales, and the combination of behaviors on these scales can lead to very different strategies among species. METHODS: Harnessing the variation present at these scales, we characterized how species may respond to stimuli in their environments ranging from broad- to fine-scale spatial responses to human modification in their environment. Using 15 bobcat-years and 31 coyote-years of GPS data from individuals inhabiting a landscape encompassing a range of human land modification, we evaluated the complexity of both species' responses to human modification on the landscape through their home range size, habitat selection, and functional response behaviors, accounting for annual, seasonal, and diel variation. RESULTS: Bobcats and coyotes used different strategies in response to human modification in their home ranges, with bobcats broadly expanding their home range with increases in human modification and displaying temporal consistency in functional response in habitat selection across both season and time of day. Meanwhile, coyotes did not expand their home ranges with increased human modification, but instead demonstrated fine-scale responses to human modification with habitat selection strategies that sometimes varied by time of day and season, paired with functional responses in selection behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: These differences in response to habitat, resources, and human modification between the two species highlighted the variation in spatial behaviors animals can use to exist in anthropogenic environments. Categorizing animal spatial behavior based on these spatiotemporal responses and individual variation can help in predicting how a species will respond to future change based on their current spatial behavior.