TY  - BOOK
AU  - Keller,Jeffrey K.
AU  - Smith,Charles R.
ED  - SpringerLink (Online service)
TI  - Improving GIS-based Wildlife-Habitat Analysis
T2  - SpringerBriefs in Ecology,
SN  - 9783319096087
AV  - QH75-77 
U1  - 577 23
PY  - 2014///
CY  - Cham
PB  - Springer International Publishing, Imprint: Springer
KW  - Life Sciences
KW  - Remote sensing
KW  - Geographical information systems
KW  - Endangered ecosystems
KW  - Conservation biology
KW  - Nature Conservation
KW  - Conservation Biology/Ecology
KW  - Geographical Information Systems/Cartography
KW  - Ecosystems
KW  - Animal Systematics/Taxonomy/Biogeography
KW  - Remote Sensing/Photogrammetry
N1  - Chapter 1. Working Definitions -- Chapter 2. Image Resolution vs. Habitat Selection Scale in a Remote Sensing Context -- Chapter 3. Explanatory Variables -- Chapter 4. Landscape Sampling Area vs. Actual Location of Taxonomic Survey -- Chapter 5. Refining Habitat Specificity -- Chapter 6. Example Using High-resolution Imagery and Taxon-specific Variables
N2  - Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provide a powerful tool for the investigation of species-habitat relationships and the development of wildlife management and conservation programs. However, the relative ease of data manipulation and analysis using GIS, associated landscape metrics packages, and sophisticated statistical tests may sometimes cause investigators to overlook important species-habitat functional relationships. Additionally, underlying assumptions of the study design or technology may have unrecognized consequences. This volume examines how initial researcher choices of image resolution, scale(s) of analysis, response and explanatory variables, and location and area of samples can influence analysis results, interpretation, predictive capability, and study-derived management prescriptions. Overall, most studies in this realm employ relatively low resolution imagery that allows neither identification nor accurate classification of habitat components. Additionally, the landscape metrics typically employed do not adequately quantify component spatial arrangement associated with species occupation. To address this latter issue, the authors introduce two novel landscape metrics that measure the functional size and location in the landscape of taxon-specific ‘solid’ and ‘edge’ habitat types. Keller and Smith conclude that investigators conducting GIS-based analyses of species-habitat relationships should more carefully 1) match the resolution of remotely sensed imagery to the scale of habitat functional relationships of the focal taxon, 2) identify attributes (explanatory variables) of habitat architecture, size, configuration, quality, and context that reflect the way the focal taxon uses the subset of the landscape it occupies, and 3) match the location and scale of habitat samples, whether GIS- or ground-based, to corresponding species’ detection locations and scales of habitat use
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09608-7
ER  -