Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40247418›Full record

ReviewMovement ecology2025

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

Katie R N Florko, Ron R Togunov, Rowenna Gryba, Evan Sidrow, Steven H Ferguson, David J Yurkowski, Marie Auger-Méthé

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Movement ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Puma habitat preferences when moving and feeding predict the potential for human-carnivore conflict in shared landscapes.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Katie R N FlorkoInstitute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada. katieflorko@gmail.com.
Ron R TogunovDepartment of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Rowenna GrybaInstitute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Evan SidrowDepartment of Statistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Steven H FergusonFisheries and Oceans Canada, Freshwater Institute, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
David J YurkowskiFisheries and Oceans Canada, Freshwater Institute, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Marie Auger-MéthéInstitute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Animal movementBiologgingHabitat selectionHidden Markov modelsIntegrated step-selection functionsMovement ecologyPoisson point process modelsResource selection functionsRinged seal (Pusa hispida)Step-selection functionsTelemetry

Identifiers

PMID40247418
PMCPMC12004767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.