MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409522539 · doi:10.1186/s40462-025-00549-2

An introduction to statistical models used to characterize species-habitat associations with animal movement data

2025· review· en· W4409522539 on OpenAlex
Katie R. N. Florko, Ron R. Togunov, Rowenna Gryba, Evan Sidrow, Steven H. Ferguson, David J. Yurkowski, Marie Auger‐Méthé

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Ecology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British ColumbiaFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilFisheries and Oceans CanadaBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNunavut Wildlife Management BoardCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaPolar Knowledge CanadaArcticNetCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for InnovationSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaWeston Family Foundation
KeywordsStatistical inferenceStatistical modelEcologySelection (genetic algorithm)Animal ecologyInferenceHidden Markov modelModel selectionHabitatStatisticsComputer scienceMachine learningBiologyArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding species-habitat associations is fundamental to ecological sciences and for species conservation. Consequently, various statistical approaches have been designed to infer species-habitat associations. Due to their conceptual and mathematical differences, these methods can yield contrasting results. In this paper, we describe and compare commonly used statistical models that relate animal movement data to environmental data. Specifically, we examined selection functions which include resource selection function (RSF) and step-selection function (SSF), as well as hidden Markov models (HMMs) and related methods such as state-space models. We demonstrate differences in assumptions while highlighting advantages and limitations of each method. Additionally, we provide guidance on selecting the most appropriate statistical method based on the scale of the data and intended inference. To illustrate the varying ecological insights derived from each statistical model, we apply them to the movement track of a single ringed seal (Pusa hispida) in a case study. Through our case study, we demonstrate that each model yields varying ecological insights. For example, while the selection coefficient values from RSFs appear to show a stronger positive relationship with prey diversity than those of the SSFs, when we accounted for the autocorrelation in the data none of these relationships with prey diversity were statistically significant. Furthermore, the HMM reveals variable associations with prey diversity across different behaviors, for example, a positive relationship between prey diversity and a slow-movement behaviour. Notably, the three models identified different "important" areas. This case study highlights the critical significance of selecting the appropriate model as an essential step in the process of identifying species-habitat relationships and specific areas of importance. Our comprehensive review provides the foundational information required for making informed decisions when choosing the most suitable statistical methods to address specific questions, such as identifying expansive corridors or protected zones, understanding movement patterns, or studying behaviours. In addition, this study informs researchers with the necessary tools to apply these methods effectively.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it