Using GIS To Predict Potential Wildlife Habitat A Case Study of Muskoxen in Northern Alaska

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/241324746
Using GIS to predict potential wildlife habitat: A case study of muskoxen in

northern Alaska
Article in International Journal of Remote Sensing · November 2002

DOI: 10.1080/01431160110113890
CITATIONS READS
40 1,468
2 authors, including:
Fiona Danks
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre
21 PUBLICATIONS 394 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
UNEP-WCMC Outputs View project
Phenology View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Fiona Danks on 17 November 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Remote Sensing
ISSN: 0143-1161 (Print) 1366-5901 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tres20
Using GIS to predict potential wildlife habitat: A

case study of muskoxen in northern Alaska
F. S. Danks & D. R. Klein
To cite this article: F. S. Danks & D. R. Klein (2002) Using GIS to predict potential wildlife habitat:
A case study of muskoxen in northern Alaska, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 23:21,
4611-4632, DOI: 10.1080/01431160110113890
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431160110113890
Published online: 25 Nov 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 335
View related articles
Citing articles: 16 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tres20
Download by: [University of Cambridge] Date: 17 November 2017, At: 13:23

int. j. remote sensing, 2002, vol. 23, no. 21, 4611–4632
Using GIS to predict potential wildlife habitat: a case study of

muskoxen in northern Alaska
F. S. DANKS*
Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
Fairbanks, AK 99775-6100 , USA
and D. R. KLEIN
Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 13:23 17 November 2017
99775, USA
Abstract. With its versatility and potential in addressing ecological issues,

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) were used in a study of wildlife habitat
prediction. Habitat determination is a complex problem that requires considera-
tion of a wide variety of factors and their relationships. Assessments of habitat
for a large area are not viable without a powerful tool. GIS was appropriate in
addressing muskox habitat potential in Alaska. Muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus)
distribution and habitat selection in northern Alaska remain inadequately docu-
mented following their reintroduction. There is increasing pressure to develop oil,
gas and mineral resources in northern Alaska, for example in the National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska ( NPR-A), an area facing con ict over its management
and use. Muskox location data, satellite-based vegetation maps, digital elevation
models (DEMs) and terrain data were incorporated into a maximum likelihood
classi cation to produce a muskox habitat model for a region currently occupied
by muskoxen. This model was extrapolated to the NPR-A. Resulting predictive
maps showed suitable summer habitat in wetter lower-lying areas and suitable
winter habitat in higher, drier more rugged areas. Results suggest that suitable
muskox habitat is present in the NPR-A and that GIS may be an eVective tool
for such an analysis.
1. Introduction
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) provide a set of powerful tools that
allow spatial data to be collected, stored, maintained, transformed and displayed for
a speci c purpose (Berry 1993, Johnson 1993, McLaren and Braun 1993, Markon
1994), thereby allowing an analysis of complex spatial problems. GIS is not limited
to spatial data but can also establish links with and accommodate attribute data.
GIS is able to assimilate and analyse a wide variety of data types in a database, and
has enabled complicated problems and issues to be addressed in a more
comprehensive way than previously. Its powers and uses are still being tested.
*Corresponding author; St John’s College, Cambridge CB2 1TP, UK;

e-mail: ona.s.danks@alum.dartmouth.org
This paper was presented at the 6th Circumpolar Symposium on Remote Sensing of Polar
Environments held in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada, from 12–14 June 2000.
Internationa l Journal of Remote Sensing
ISSN 0143-1161 print/ISSN 1366-590 1 online © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/01431160110113890
4612 F. S. Danks and D. R. Klein
The work described here was a study aimed at determining the feasibility of
using GIS as a practical tool in wildlife habitat assessment and prediction in the
Arctic and its application in wildlife and related land management. In Greenland, a
GIS mapping project was used as a basis for setting regulations protecting muskox
and geese populations from human activity in critical habitat areas (Bay 1994). The
potential for GIS and remote sensing to be used in habitat studies is being realized.
Habitat of species such as black bears, deer, rabbits, small mammals and birds has
been examined (Clark et al. 1993, Homer et al. 1993, Lauver and Whistler 1993,
Coker and Capen 1995, Heaton 1996, Knick and Dyer 1997, Segura Lopez 1998).
Planning for resource development is obviously a key issue in the management
of wildlife, especially in the Arctic. Information from this project should be of
assistance in assessing how muskoxen and their habitat may be aVected by diVerent
development scenarios in an area such as the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

(NPR-A). The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980
required a vegetation map of the ‘1002 Area’ of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
before proposed petroleum development could be considered by the US Congress.
This resulted in a demonstration of the feasibility of using GIS-generated maps for
resource development planning in the Arctic. The ‘1002 Area’ included prime calving
grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd, as well as habitat for muskoxen and fall
staging areas for snow geese from Banks Island. A vegetation mapping project was
carried out in accordance with the legislation, speci cally documenting the ecological
value of the land (Jorgenson et al. 1994). Development is not an issue simply in the
Alaskan Arctic, but also in other Arctic regions of the world (Klein 2000).
1.1. Rationale and applications

Using GIS, this project aimed to develop models of potential summer and winter
muskox habitat in the NPR-A for use in land planning, as it relates to (1) proposed
oil and gas and mineral exploration and development activities; and (2) the
conservation and management of muskox populations.
Information on habitat potential generated by the GIS approach can aid in
striking a balance between conservation and development, one that is diYcult to
determine currently. Much of the value in this project lies in its synthesis of biological
and physical environmental characteristics, yielding information about habitat suit-
ability for muskoxen in the NPR-A, an area into which muskoxen will quite likely
expand should their population increase continue.
1.2. Ecological background

Muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) in northern Alaska have been increasing in number
and distribution since their reintroduction in 1969 (Klein 1988, Smith 1994), which
followed their extinction a century earlier in the 1870s (Klein 1988). However, their
distribution and habitat selection, both historically and currently, remain largely
undocumented (Jingfors 1980, Robus 1981, Reynolds 1984, O’Brien 1988, Wilson
1992). Without suYcient knowledge of vegetation and terrain characteristics, it is
di Ycult to project future occupation of habitats by muskoxen in northern Alaska,
thus constraining management and land-planning eVorts. Proper management of
muskox habitat and muskox populations is necessary if the past extinctions that
have occurred in Alaska are to be avoided in the future. Muskoxen are particularly
vulnerable to over exploitation or displacement from habitats through disturbance
Sixth Circumpolar Symposium on Remote Sensing of Polar Environment 4613
by development activities because they are relatively sedentary, with high delity for
local habitats, and suitable muskox habitat is patchy in distribution (Klein 1988).
The diet of muskoxen is diverse and includes sedges, forbs, grasses and woody
shrubs (Smith 1994). Muskoxen vary their diet in relation to their seasonal locational
changes. Previous habitat studies in Greenland and Alaska have shown that in
summer muskoxen prefer low lying, often tussocky tundra, providing it is not too
wet, and riparian areas, while in winter they move to drier ridge tops and stream
bluVs (Wilson 1992, Klein et al. 1993, Ihl 1999). Variation in muskox diet can also
occur regionally and altitudinally, according to available vegetation types (Parker
and Ross 1976, Parker 1978, Rapota 1984, Thing et al. 1987, O’Brien 1988, Klein
et al. 1993, Department of Renewable Resources 1996, Nellemann 1997, Nellemann
1998, Ihl 1999). The muskox diet is heavily in uenced by terrain and associated
characteristics, particularly in winter months. Unlike caribou, muskoxen are not well
adapted for digging through snow to obtain forage, and in winter they seek areas
with low snow accumulations (Smith 1994, Klein 1996), i.e. exposed ridges and
bluVs. Snow depth and hardness are factors associated with terrain ruggedness
(Nellemann and Thomsen 1994, Nellemann and Reynolds 1997), which re ects the
interaction of slope and aspect with wind direction.
1.3. Study area

The initial habitat model created in this study, based on actual habitat use by
muskoxen, was developed for the Kuparuk River drainage basin. This is a region
on Alaska’s North Slope located east of the Colville River, which extends to the
coast and includes the eastern part of the Colville River Delta ( gure 1). The NPR-A,
for which the predicted habitat models were developed, lies west of the Colville River
and occupies much of the western North Slope, its northern border following the
coast and its eastern and southeastern borders roughly bordering the Colville River
( gure 1 ).
Both regions are characterized by gently sloping hills, plateaus and low lying
areas and some sharper topographic variation, mainly occurring near river drainages
and ridges. The southern border regions of both areas are however topographicall y
much more extreme with the start of the Brooks Range foothills. Tundra vegetation
covers the region: sedges and mosses are found in atter wet areas, forbs, willow
and graminoids along riparian areas, and shrub and shrub heath communities on
hills and slopes.
1.4. Objectives and assumptions

The principal objective of this study was to develop GIS generated models for
the NPR-A that delineate areas of predicted suitability as muskox habitat. Inclusive
in this objective was the need to consider separately, summer and winter habitats.
The maps for the NPR-A were based on a habitat model, created within this project,
from occupied muskox habitat in a region immediately west of the NPR-A, the
Kuparuk River drainage basin.
The main tenet upon which this research is based is that present and potential
habitat selection and use by muskoxen in northern Alaska result from the interaction
of vegetation, terrain variability and seasonal eVects of wind and snow cover.
Essential habitat characteristics include appropriate and adequate vegetation to meet
foraging requirements, terrain suitable for defence from predation and winter snow
characteristics that allow for locomotion and access to forage.
Figure 1. Maps showing areas covered by the Kuparuk River Drainage Basin and the
NPR-A, location of established muskox groups in the Itkillik Hills (Kuparuk River
Drainage Basin) and location of muskox sightings and evidence of presence along the
Kikiakroruk River (NPR-A). Boundary between the NPR-A and the Kuparuk River
Drainage Basin lies roughly along the Colville River.
A key assumption in this study is that muskoxen in Alaska possess the same or
similar habitat requirements as muskoxen in other similar Arctic regions, dependent
upon availability and abundance of common resources and extent of environmental
similarity. This allows previous muskox habitat studies to strengthen the basis for
assessing the models of predicted habitat. A second assumption in developing the
maps is that muskoxen in the future will select for similar habitat criteria as they
have done in the past. This means that the models’ predictions of suitable habitat
will be valid in the future if and when muskoxen do permanently expand their
habitat into the NPR-A.
2. Methods
2.1. Overview
Data layers were created representing all available aspects of muskox habitat.
These data were analysed and the ensuing GIS habitat model and subsequent habitat
maps created. The development of the GIS habitat model was based on an area of
known muskox presence in the Kuparuk River drainage basin ( gure 1). After
evaluating the quality of the model for the Kuparuk region, the model was extrapol-
ated to an area of potential value as habitat for muskoxen, the NPR-A, which is
located west of the Colville River as indicated in gure 1. Because of its close
proximity and similarity in physical characteristics such as vegetation and topo-
graphy to the NPR-A, the Kuparuk region was chosen as the development site of
the model over other regions in northern Alaska, also with known muskox presence.
Muskox seasonal location data, from the Kuparuk River drainage basin region,
were required to create the initial habitat model and to establish a basis of assessment
of habitat suitability in the NPR-A. Vegetation maps were required to incorporate
seasonal forage needs. Elevation data, slope characteristics, aspect characteristics
and an index of the interaction between the latter two (terrain ruggedness) were
necessary to take into account terrain variability and its eVects on habitat selection.
All data were projected using Albers equal area projection, a common projection in
Alaska as it yields a lower distortion over a large area than many of the other
projections (Snyder 1987). All data layers ultimately had a spatial resolution of 50 m.
ARC/INFO was the GIS program used to produce, edit and manipulate the
coverages, images and grids, and the resulting maps and analyses (ESRI, Redlands,
CA). Components of the main ARC program, including GRID, ARCEDIT and
TABLES were also used. ArcView, an independent program that functions in con-
junction with ARC/INFO, was also used (ESRI, Redlands, CA). Arc Macro
Language (AML) programs were written and run through ARC/INFO to accomplish
more eYciently the functions and analyses.
2.2. GIS layers

2.2.1. Muskox location data
The Itkillik Hills ( gure 1) are in the drainage of the Kuparuk River, a tributary
of the Colville River. Re-established muskoxen in the Alaskan Arctic were rst
detected in this area in the mid 1980s (Johnson et al. 1997, 1999), and their increasing
numbers have been monitored periodically since then. Locations of muskoxen, both
as solitary animals and more commonly as groups, were obtained from the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), derived from ight surveys in the Itkillik
Hills region during 1997, 1998 and 1999. In 1997 and 1998, locations were estimated
from the aircraft Global Positioning System (GPS), while 1999 locations were based
on signals from newly implemented GPS radio-collars. Surveys were own in April
of each year, and in 1999, in June as well. Muskox locations were recorded in
geographic coordinates using an aircraft-based GPS (positional uncertainty
+/ 30 m). Further data covering the years 1992–1998 were obtained from Alaska
Biological Research (ABR) from work commissioned by the Atlantic Rich eld
Company (ARCO). These data were collected in a similar manner; however ABR
muskox locations covered primarily the Colville River Delta and the area sur-
rounding it, and data were recorded mainly in summer months (end of May into
July). The geographic location of each muskox group in decimal degrees, group size
and date were all recorded in the GIS. Total number of point locations incorporated
was 116.
BuVers that vary in area according to group size were created around each point
location for two reasons: (1) because of the accuracy error in the GPS point locations
and (2) because larger groups will require larger habitat areas in which to forage
and interact. Approximate buVer sizes were determined according to estimated daily
range required for foraging and other purposes (Jingfors 1980, Robus 1981, Thing
et al. 1987, Wilson 1992, Ihl 1999, D. Klein personal communication, 1999). The
buVer sizes were then added into the GIS attribute tables and buVer coverages
created in ARC/INFO.
Since buVer coverages were to be overlain with the vegetation, elevation and
terrain layers, which were all in grid format, buVer coverages were also converted
to grids. All buVers were combined into two grids, one of buVers from winter
locations (April 1997, 1998 and 1999) (ADF&G data) for the winter habitat map
and the other of buVers from summer locations (June 1999 ADF&G data and ABR’s
Colville River data) for the summer habitat map.
Muskoxen were not resident during this study in the NPR-A so no locations
were available; however, presence of winter faeces and a weathered skull found in
the Kikiakroruk River area ( gure 1) and aerial survey sightings in summer indicate
past seasonal use.

2.2.2. Elevation maps
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) of
1:63 360 scale, in digital format, and covering the entire Kuparuk region, as well as
the full NPR-A region, were obtained for use in assessing topographical variation.
The downloaded individual DEMs were converted to lattices, the units converted
from feet to metres (with cell sizes of 50 m), and stitched (combined seamlessly)
together. With the vegetation maps (detailed in following pages) serving as templates,
the fully stitched DEMs were clipped to only include either the area within the
Kuparuk River drainage basin vegetation map or the NPR-A vegetation map. Two
nal DEM maps were created, one for each area.
2.2.3. Vegetation maps
The two vegetation maps used in this project are based on Landsat Thematic
Mapper (TM) satellite imagery and were obtained in digital format. The Itkillik
Hills site is covered by the Kuparuk River Drainage map (Auerbach et al. unpub-
lished data 1996, Muller et al. 1998). This map has a spatial resolution of 50 m. The
second map covers the NPR-A and was created by Tim Hammond (Ducks Unlimited,
Inc. 1998). It had an initial spatial resolution of 30 m. The spatial resolution was
changed from 30 m to 50 m by adjusting the grid cell size, so that the map could be
related to the Kuparuk River drainage basin vegetation map, and matched to the
50 m cell size of all the other NPR-A data layers. Vegetation map grid cells were
snapped to the elevation grid cells for the region, allowing precise overlaying of data.
Because diVerent classi cation schemes were employed in generating the two
vegetation maps, a means of relating and comparing the Kuparuk River Drainage
and NPR-A maps was necessary so that the model that would be developed in the
Kuparuk region could be applied to the NPR-A region. Based on speci c metadata
descriptions of each division for each map, the vegetation classes in the two maps
were matched to each other (table 1). The NPR-A divisions were then reclassed
using the Kuparuk map classi cation and a new NPR-A vegetation map produced.
Because of the more speci c nature of the original NPR-A map, certain Kuparuk
map divisions may be repeated multiple times and not necessarily within the same
NPR-A unit type. The reclassed NPR-A vegetation map therefore was coarser in
vegetation details than the original.
In order for separate summer and winter models to be produced, summer and
winter muskox vegetation suitability maps were created from the original Kuparuk
vegetation classi cation map. Relative presence of each vegetation class found within
Table 1. Comparison of classi cation schemes for Kuparuk River drainage basin and NPR-A
satellite-based vegetation maps.
Kuparuk River drainage basin

vegetation map NPR-A vegetation map
Class Class
division Description division Description
6 Water 1.1 Water Clear

6 Water 1.2 Water Turbid
7 Ice/clouds 1.3 Water Ice
6 Water 2.1 Aquatic Carex aquatilis
6 Water 2.2 Aquatic Arctophila fulva
5 Wet tundra 3.1 Flooded tundra Low-centered polygons
5 Wet tundra 3.2 Flooded tundra Non-patterned

5 Wet tundra 4 Wet tundra Wet tundra
2 Moist non-acidic tundra 5.1 Moist tundra Sedge/grass meadow
3 Moist acidic tundra 5.2 Moist tundra Tussock tundra
2 Moist non-acidic tundra 5.3 Moist tundra Moss/peat/lichen
4 Shrublands 6.1 Shrub Dwarf
4 Shrublands 6.2 Shrub Low
4 Shrublands 6.3 Shrub Tall
1 Barrens 7.1 Barren ground Dunes/dry sand
1 Barrens 7.2 Barren ground Sparsely vegetated
1 Barrens 7.3 Barren ground Other
the buVered muskox locations in the Kuparuk region was determined separately for
summer and winter buVered locations. Ranked schemes were then created according
to relative presence of each vegetation class in the buVers. Vegetation classes whose
representation was distinctly diVerent were assigned their own rank, while classes
that had very similar values were given the same rank. Classes with lowest representa-
tion typically were grouped together. This resulted in a six order ranking for summer
and a ve order ranking for winter (table 2). The nal summer and winter Kuparuk
vegetation suitability maps, re ecting muskox presence in or use of vegetation, were
then created by reclassing original vegetation class values to re ect the ranked orders.
The same procedure was applied to create summer and winter vegetation suitabil-
ity maps in the NPR-A. Since the Kuparuk vegetation classi cation scheme had
Table 2. Kuparuk River drainage basin vegetation map classes and rank (and per cent) of
each class within summer and winter muskox location buVers.
Summer Winter
Vegetation class Rank (%) Rank (%)
Moist non-acidic tundra 1 (45.7 ) 1 (65.8 )

Wet tundra 2 (18.4 ) 4 (4.8)
Water 3 (15.5 ) 4 (3.6)
Shrublands 4 (11.5 ) 2 (11.1 )
Barrens 5 (5.3) 3 (7.1)
Moist acidic tundra 5 (3.6) 4 (5.5 )
Ice/clouds 6 (0) 5 (1.5)
Shadows 6 (0) 5 (0.7)
been applied to the NPR-A to link the two areas, the same rank order scheme for
summer and winter vegetation used in the Kuparuk was applied to the NPR-A. It
is these summer and winter vegetation suitability maps that were used in the initial
model (Kuparuk maps) and its subsequent application to the NPR-A (NPR-A maps).
2.2.4. T errain ruggedness data
A number of methods for determining terrain ruggedness have been used in
habitat studies, ranging from simple contour counting by hand to more complicated
procedures based on computer algorithms, and from values that represent a single
point to values at a point that incorporate values of surrounding points (Nellemann
and Thomsen 1994, Gallant et al. 1995, Nellemann and Fry 1995, Nellemann and
Cameron 1996, 1998, Nellemann and Reynolds 1997, Nicholson et al. 1997 ). More
general geomorphometric works examine similar issues (Moore et al. 1991, Nogami
1995, Rhoads and Thorn 1996, Schmidt and Dikau 1999). A GRID ARC/INFO
based approach that calculates a variety of terrain characteristics including aspect,
slope, aspect ruggedness and slope ruggedness from DEM lattices was employed in
this study. This methodology was based on the one initially devised by Nicholson
et al. (1997) and relies on circular statistics (Zar 1996). This methodology incorpor-
ates the characteristics of surrounding areas in devising the resulting ruggedness
value for each grid cell and is therefore arguably better than a system that counts
contours. In addition, the terrain ruggedness index of Nellemann and Thomsen 1994,
Nellemann and Fry 1995, Nellemann and Cameron 1996, 1998, Nellemann and
Reynolds 1997, was used to combine the derived slope and aspect ruggedness
characteristics.
Aspect and slope values were derived from a base elevation map (DEM) and
intermediate aspect and slope layers created. In cells of the intermediate aspect grid
with a zero slope value, an aspect value of 1 resulted. This was reclassed in GRID
to a value of zero. Aspect is expressed as the sin or cos of the aspect in radians;
consequently two aspect coverages were created, an X component and a Y compon-
ent. Final aspect and slope coverages were converted to grids with integer values
rather than the raw oating point values.
Aspect ruggedness and slope ruggedness values were then derived from the aspect
and slope grids, with the ruggedness values calculated based on the values of the
contiguous surrounding cells. The number of cells included in the ruggedness calcula-
tions was chosen according to habitat selection characteristics of muskoxen, i.e. they
typically select habitat on a localized scale.
The slope ruggedness grid was created from the slope oating point grid. A grid
of slope standard deviation was created, which when converted into an integer grid,
represented slope ruggedness.
The aspect ruggedness grid was created through a process of intermediate grids.
The oating point aspect grids, the X and Y component grids, were the base layer.
A mean vector grid was then created (the R grid). Next, angular dispersion was
calculated using the X component grid, Y component grid and R (mean vector) grid.
Lastly, the angular grid was created using the intermediate X, Y and R grids. The
angular grid values were converted from oating point values into integer values
yielding the aspect ruggedness grid.
Finally, the two oating point ruggedness grids were combined into an overall
terrain ruggedness grid using Nellemann’s index as follows:
aspect ruggedness×slope ruggedness
Terrain ruggedness= (1)
aspect ruggedness+slope ruggedness
Terrain ruggedness takes into account the combination of aspect and slope in
determining the terrain characteristics and therefore more accurately re ects the
in uence of climatic eVects such as wind and snow cover.
Since all of the terrain characteristic data layers were derived from DEMs, the
spatial resolution was established at 50 m.
Suitable data on snow cover and depth were not available in time for use as
initially hoped, but terrain ruggedness measurements were considered to be represent-
ative of potential habitat use by muskoxen through the relationship of snow accumu-
lation and its characteristics to terrain variability (Fleischman 1990, Nellemann and
Reynolds 1997).
2.3. GIS habitat model

The following data layers were included in the winter and summer habitat
suitability models for the inhabited Kuparuk River drainage basin: seasonal muskox
buVered locations, winter or summer vegetation according to ranking of types used,
DEM, slope, X component of aspect, Y component of aspect, slope ruggedness,
aspect ruggedness and terrain ruggedness (a total of nine data layers per map). In
the NPR-A, the same data were used with the exception of the muskox location data.
To diVerentiate the habitat selected by muskoxen in the occupied Kuparuk region
from the remaining areas according to each variable (the above data layers), a
multivariate maximum likelihood classi cation (Tabachnick and Fidell 1989) was
done within ARC/INFO. For this analysis, mask grids of muskox presence versus
absence were created with the buVered location grids (both winter and summer). A
value of one was assigned to the cells within the buV ers and a value of zero was
assigned to all the cells within the Kuparuk boundary but not included within the
buVered region. A total of 32 buVered locations were used in the winter analysis and
79 buVered locations were used in the summer analysis.
To run the maximum likelihood analysis a gridstack (a le containing all predictor
variables with the exception of the buVered muskox locations) was created for the
Kuparuk region, one for the summer habitat model and one for the winter habitat
model. A signature le that produced means and covariance matrices for both
seasons was created using the appropriate gridstack and buVered muskox location
grid. Next a maximum likelihood classi cation grid was created for summer and
winter habitats using signature le statistics from the buVered location grid and
appropriate gridstack. In the analysis, all cells in the stack are assigned to one of
the classes represented in the signature le, muskox presence or absence; the
maximum likelihood classi cation determines to which class each cell belongs.
Finally, prediction grids of probability of muskox presence or absence were
produced for both winter and summer data, again using the appropriate signature
le and gridstack. These grids were used to create the nal maps for the Kuparuk
model prediction of muskox habitat suitability. The models of habitat suitability
that resulted show relative suitability along a scale of 0 to 100, that is 0 represents
the lowest likelihood for suitable muskox habitat and 100 represents the highest.
The nal Kuparuk models were visually examined for anomalies in the prediction
of muskox presence or absence for winter and summer habitat use. None were found
and the resulting maps seemed consistent with reports in the literature on muskox
winter and summer habitat choices and characteristics of the areas within the
Kuparuk region (Robus 1981, Wilson 1992), for example, preference for drier more
elevated areas in winter versus wetter, riparian areas in summer.
The model was then applied and extrapolated to the NPR-A region. To produce
the habitat models for this region, the same maximum likelihood analysis was
completed on the NPR-A. In addition to the gridstack of variables from the Kuparuk
region, gridstacks for the winter and summer variables in the NPR-A were created.
Exactly the same variables were incorporated, just covering a diVerent area. The
signature les that were produced for the Kuparuk region using the buVer locations
and the Kuparuk grid stacks were used again for creation of the maximum likelihood
prediction models, but with the NPR-A gridstacks instead in these last two steps.
There are two resulting maps for the NPR-A, both prediction models of relative
habitat suitability (values of 0 to 100), one for winter and one for summer. These
maps are equivalent to those produced in the initial Kuparuk region model and
serve as the nal results showing potential muskox habitat in the NPR-A. Again, as
with the base layer data, the nal models have a spatial resolution of 50 m.
3. Results
3.1. GIS analysis
3.1.1. Muskox location data
Muskox signs, winter faeces and a weathered skull were found in the Kikiakroruk
River area. ADF&G muskox location data from June 1999 included the location of
a herd of eight muskoxen in the NPR-A, quite close to the Kikiakroruk River
( gure 1). These observations suggest that muskoxen may potentially use certain
areas of the NPR-A and parts of the NPR-A may in fact provide suitable habitat.
Based on the seasonal division of muskox location data, winter and summer
habitat choices seemed to diV er markedly. In winter, the Itkillik hills was a more
favoured area, with group presence concentrated in a smaller area, while in summer,
animals spread out further, venturing away from the hills and often south towards
the coast. In summer, the Colville Delta and surrounding area seemed to be highly
favoured ( gure 2).
3.1.2. Vegetation maps
The Kuparuk winter and summer maps of vegetation type preference in ranked
order appeared accurate given knowledge of muskox seasonal habitat preferences.
The maps showed clear distinctions between winter and summer occupation of
vegetation types, indeed suggesting diVerent habitats are important seasonally (as in
table 2). The adjusted NPR-A vegetation map with classes of 1 to 8 based on the
Kuparuk vegetation classi cation appeared to be accurate. The original and adjusted
NPR-A vegetation maps were compared and all vegetation trends appeared similar
with the only di Verence being that the new spatial resolution was coarser and there
were fewer vegetation classes (8 versus 17 classes). This newly classi ed vegetation
map was divided into ranked summer and winter vegetation use maps using the
same schemes employed in the Kuparuk region. There is some degree of error in the
vegetation data, due to the natural patchiness of vegetation (and of some types in
particular such as heath or riparian vegetation) , the inability to ground truth entire
mapped regions, and the reclassi cation of vegetation types into a vegetation suitabil-
ity index. However, with the scale and the broad vegetation type divisions used, the
data are suitable and the quality acceptable.
3.1.3. Maximum likelihood analysis
Seasonal vegetation use (winter and summer), elevation, slope, X component of
aspect, Y component of aspect, slope ruggedness, aspect ruggedness and terrain
Figure 2. Muskox winter and summer locations from aerial survey data overlaid with the
Kuparuk River drainage basin vegetation map.
ruggedness were all incorporated into the resulting models of muskox habitat
suitability.
Elevation in the Kuparuk showed far greater variation towards the south and
the Brooks Range while variation in the northern parts was less extreme. However,
even small changes are important in muskox habitat selection. Slope in the Kuparuk
shows trends similar to elevation with greater variation found to the south. However,
some variation was present in the central and northern areas, evidence of additional
topographic relief that may not be evident in the elevation map scale presented here.
The Kuparuk River drainage basin maps of aspect result in a rugged display of
directional relief that is present. While distinct topographi c variation is evident for
the whole region, these maps clearly re ect terrain variability present in the less
extreme areas, something that the other maps failed to distinguish in such detail and
something that is important in muskox habitat selection ( gure 3). The nal three
maps for the Kuparuk, slope ruggedness, aspect ruggedness and terrain ruggedness,
variables that have been built on more basic ones, also distinguish more clearly
terrain variability throughout the region. Each of these maps represents a unique
component in muskox habitat determination. Similar trends in terrain distinction
and latitudinal variation were seen for the equivalent NPR-A maps.
The Kuparuk winter habitat prediction map ( gure 4) shows that higher, drier
regions have a higher relative suitability, with the Itkillik Hills region and other
areas of greater topographic variation and elevation further to the east and south
yielding higher probabilities of habitat selection. Vegetation in these more suitable
areas re ects winter diet. The lower wetter areas have less potential for use in winter.
Predictions of suitable summer habitat in the Kuparuk are markedly diVerent
( gure 5). Areas likely to be occupied by muskoxen in summer are drainages in
riparian areas, in the Colville River Delta area and in other lower lying areas of the
Kuparuk River drainage basin. Elevated areas and bluV regions with more sparse
vegetation are not likely to provide favourable habitat in summer, as at this time
the animals are able to take advantage of the richer vegetation in the lower wetter
areas that were inaccessible in winter due to snow. South of the Itkillik Hills, the
region was not shown to be suitable. Though potential winter habitat area extends
a bit further south than potential summer habitat, a large region before and including
the foothills and mountains of the Brooks Range is not suitable habitat in either
season. Elevation and topographic extremes may be too great for suitable habitat:
muskoxen do not require extreme topographic variation. For both the summer and
winter habitat maps in the Kuparuk region, areas larger than currently occupied
regions were suggestive of potential habitat. Since there are currently only around
100 muskoxen in the area, it is likely that the area is capable of supporting larger
numbers. Consequently maps of the Kuparuk region can be used in predicting future
muskox habitat occupancy as their numbers increase.
Unlike in the Kuparuk region, probability of habitat suitability in the NPR-A
cannot be supported with location data. However, since the model appears justi ed
in the Kuparuk region according to established muskox habitat knowledge, and
prior use of the area, and it is directly applied to the very similar NPR-A region, it
is assumed that its predictions will be supported. It should be noted however that
reliability of the extrapolated predictions is limited for a few reasons. (1) No ground
data for vegetation in the NPR-A was collected to test accuracy of the adjusted
vegetation classi cation. (2) The NPR-A is a vast area with varying terrain and
topographic characteristics, with diVerent wind patterns, which may aVect habitat
Figure 3. Map of aspect (Y component) values for Kuparuk River drainage basin [(sin of
aspect value in radians)×1000 ].
selection di Verently than in the Kuparuk region. Snow patterns, however, in the
Kuparuk region appear to be a good analogue for the rest of the North Slope based
on both modelling and eldwork (M. Sturm, personal communication, 2000).
The most suitable winter habitat in the NPR-A is found in the middle section of
the NPR-A, stretching horizontally across most of the region, and in the more
topographically varied areas ( gure 6). Additional potential winter habitat is located
in the upper east corner, west-south-west of the Colville Delta, and includes the area
where eldwork was conducted and where signs of winter presence were found.
Wetter, lower areas do not show high potential for winter habitat, as expected, due
to the low accessibility of both these areas and the vegetation caused by heavy snow
Figure 4. Predicted muskox winter habitat suitability in the Kuparuk River drainage basin.
Suitability ranking from 0 to 99 ( low to high).
cover. Accessible vegetation is instead found in the more rugged, topographically

varied regions where wind leaves the land exposed. Suitability again seems to decrease
with proximity to the Brooks Range. Although a few areas appearing suitable are
indicated there, it is hard to assess reliability of the suitability index given the lack
of similar habitat included in development of the model. This may be a function of
Figure 5. Predicted muskox summer habitat suitability in the Kuparuk River drainage basin.
Suitability ranking from 0 to 100 ( low to high).
inadequate testing and a re ection that the model was not built for habitat
characteristics of more extreme values such as those found here.
Suitable summer habitat appears to be more plentiful and widespread than
suitable winter habitat in the NPR-A ( gure 7).The region of the NPR-A with highest
potential summer habitat value is the north-east corner, an area of less topographic
Figure 6. Predicted muskox winter habitat suitability in the NPR-A. Suitability ranking from
0 to 99 ( low to high).
variability than the higher, hillier areas. The Kikiakroruk River area is included in
this region. In addition the same middle horizontal band is predicted to be favoured
summer habitat, though more value is placed on the south side of this band where
terrain variation is lower. Drainages found in the northern NPR-A where the land
is wetter and lower are shown to provide some potential summer habitat as well.
Vegetation in these areas re ects muskox summer preference. Again, just as with the
winter model, the southern portion below the middle band and including the foothills
of the Brooks Range, is not well suited for summer occupancy.
4. Discussion
Relationships between factors in uencing habitat selection are important and
play a role in determination of muskox habitat. A vegetation type suitable for
muskoxen may be located in two topographicall y di Verent areas, only one readily
accessible by or appropriate for muskoxen. Consequently it is not suYcient to
determine habitat simply based on one or even a few criteria. All potential factors
that in uence habitat selection should be considered. This is why an analysis of
potential habitat should incorporate a substantial set of variables, ideally all of those
that are important in habitat selection. This project has shown how GIS can be
applied and spatial data used to develop not only existing but predicted habitat
models, a tool that has great potential for addressing important habitat issues.
Seasonal variation in habitat use was evident in the Kuparuk region where
Figure 7. Predicted muskox summer habitat suitability in the NPR-A. Suitability ranking
from 0 to 100 ( low to high).
known diVerences in muskox location over the seasons exist, but the GIS models
also distinguished between winter and summer habitats in both the Kuparuk and
NPR-A. Seasonal winter to summer movements in the Kuparuk region are north,
towards coastal areas along with a general dispersal from winter concentration areas.
Summer and winter habitat prediction maps for the NPR-A show similar patterns
of seasonally available habitat.
The method of determining ruggedness variables (aspect, slope and terrain) for
each cell based on all surrounding cell values is appropriate . As you move from cell
to cell surrounding terrain characteristics change and each cell’s value re ects this.
This is arguably how animals selectively use habitat, through the continuum in
change that develops. Terrain ruggedness measurements are representative of snow
accumulation through the direct relationship of snow accumulation to terrain variab-
ility (Fleischman 1990, Nellemann and Reynolds 1997). Areas chosen by muskoxen
in winter will presumably re ect their choice of habitats inclusive of in uences of
snow characteristics.
Inherent problems exist in a spatial analysis such as this one, where existing data
from a variety of sources, and collected for diVerent purposes, are relied upon.
However, these problems can be limited or overcome to yield valuable results. Some
degree of error, e.g. due to scale or GPS locations without diVerential correction, is
unavoidable in a project of this nature. Conclusions must be tempered accordingly.
The 50 m spatial resolution data used in this project worked well, however, there
are issues of error and scale. The DEM cell values are taken from elevation contours
so the chosen value may not be truly representative of that particular region. Other
terrain characteristics developed are based on these elevation values. Changes in
terrain or vegetation that are not detectable at the scale used here, occurring within
a 10 m area for example, may aVect habitat suitability and choice for muskoxen.
Satellite maps at ner spatial resolution are becoming available for some areas but
at high cost, limiting the practicality of their acquisition, and they may not necessarily
be available for the desired region. In addition, unclassi ed data, if available, would
require involved methodology beyond the scope of this project, to create appropriate
maps. Furthermore, if all other data layers are not available at the same spatial
resolution, details in the layers that do have a ne spatial resolution will be lost.
The overall spatial resolution is only as good as the coarsest layer in the GIS.
Additional coverages derived from Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
(AVHRR) data, which shows time of green-up, were not added because of the coarse
1 km spatial resolution. Given the sedentary nature of muskoxen and the need for
more micro-scale habitat assessment, this did not seem appropriate. A coverage
representing rivers and streams was considered, however with its coarse scale, it did
not adequately detail smaller or more seasonal drainages which are important as
well in muskox habitat selection, thereby potentially biasing the results.
In addition to the error within the map layers, there is error in the GPS muskox
group locations. Because the GPS data were not diVerentially corrected, the margin
of error surrounding locational data could be up to approximately 60 m.
Maximum likelihood classi cation proved to be an eYcient analysis to use in
determination of predicted habitat based on present habitat. An alternate analysis,
logistic regression was tried, but the data set using all grid cells was too large for
the ARC/INFO system to handle, and limiting the extent was too great a comprom-
ise. Maximum likelihood classi cation seemed most appropriate given the objectives
and data formats, as compared to other analyses.
This project followed a unique approach in interpretation and assessment of
muskox habitat by basing analyses in part on spatial muskox location data from
aerial surveys. These data clearly distinguished distinct seasonal variation in habitat
use and selection, providing insight into the dynamic nature of muskox habitat. In
addition, the GIS analysis allowed the important, potentially in uential eVect of
group size in the determination of habitat suitability to be addressed.
The model of predicted muskox habitat was not extrapolated into other regions
because the focus was on the NPR-A, where suitable GIS data were available.
Application of the model was restricted to areas of similarity, the Kuparuk and
NPR-A, rather than introducing greater variability.
The approach used was to create a model of predicted muskox habitat in the
NPR-A based on extrapolation of muskox habitat criteria between areas currently
occupied and those not yet occupied. More speci cally, the GIS models of predicted
muskox habitat suitability should provide a sounder basis for consideration of the
value of muskox habitat in land management decisions that will need to be made
within the NPR-A and Kuparuk areas.
5. Conclusions
This study employed a unique application of GIS to generate a predictive habitat
model. Its results should have potential utility in land planning and resource manage-
ment decision making. Results from this study suggest that the potential for continued
expansion of muskox numbers and distribution in Alaska’s Arctic exists.
There is great potential to build upon the foundations of this project. Re nements
in methodology could improve this study or result in bene t to the design of future
projects. Even the currently unavoidable errors in a project such as this may be
decreased should improved data become available. This project was designed so that
additional data or variables may be added as they become available, permitting the
analyses to be run again. In addition to the eVective terrain characteristic layers
employed here, data on snow cover and depth would also be of value. If more
location data were available, it would lend even greater support to the predictions
and might also enable a test of the model’s predictions to be run, providing a stronger
foundation for validity of the predictions. The in uence of global climate change on
vegetation may require continuing map re nement as vegetation changes on a

landscape scale.
Re nement and expansion are not limited to areas encompassed by this project.
The possibility of extrapolation to additional areas or entirely new but related issues
exists. Depending on the nature of the project, data should accurately re ect the
characteristics of the area and the animal or issue being studied. While it may not
be that the most costly data is best, often higher quality data is costly while lower
quality data is free. In time GIS data will become more available and mainstream,
improving the outlook for and viability of future projects.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following for their support: Alaska Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Unit; University of Alaska Graduate School; Bureau of Land
Management and David Yokel (Alaska); Alaska Department of Fish and Game;
Alaska Biological Research (ABR); Department of Biology and Wildlife, University
of Alaska Fairbanks; Associated Students of the University of Alaska Fairbanks; Dr
D. Verbyla, Dr A. D. McGuire, Dr R. Barry, and Dr J. Maier; and C. Ihl and fellow
students and scientists.
References
Bay, C., 1994, Review of vegetation mapping in Greenland. Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation
Mapping Workshop, L akta, Russia, 21–25 March 1994, pp. 38–43.
Berry, J., 1993, The application of GIS to mammalogy: basic concepts. In GIS Applications
of Mammalogy, edited by S. B. McLaren and J. K. Braun. Special Publication of the
Oklahoma Museum of Natural History in collaboration with the Carnegie Museum
of Natural History (Norman: University of Oklahoma), pp. 4–10.
Clark, J. D., Dunn, J. E., and Smith, K. G., 1993, A multivariate model of female black bear
habitat use for a geographic information system. Journal of W ildlife Management,
57, 519– 526.
Coker, D. B., and Capen, D. E., 1995, Landscape-level habitat use by brown-headed cowbirds
in Vermont. Journal of W ildlife Management, 59, 631–637.
Department of Renewable Resources, 1996, Muskox abundance, habitat use, and diet on
the Yukon Coastal Plain. Yukon Territorial Government TR-96-03, Whitehorse,
Yukon.
Ducks Unlimited, Inc., 1998, National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska earth cover classi cation
nal report. Submitted to US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Anchorage, AK. Contact John Payne, BLM, Anchorage, AK, USA.
Fleishman, S. J., 1990, Lichen availability on the range of an expanding caribou (Rangifer
tarandus) population in Alaska. MS thesis, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks,
AK, 81 pp.
Gallant, A. L., Binnian, E. F., Omernik, J. M., and Shasby, M. B., 1995, Ecoregions of
Alaska. USGS Professional Paper 1567. US Government printing oYce, Washington.
Heaton, J. S., 1996, Use of geographic information systems (GIS) and remotely sensed data
to characterize the habitat and predict the distribution of Peromyscus truie comanche.
MS thesis, University of North Texas.
Homer, C. G., Edwards, T. C., Ramsey, R. D., and Price, K. P., 1993, Use of remote sensing
methods in modeling sage grouse winter habitat. Journal of W ildlife Management,
57, 78–84.
Ihl, C., 1999, Comparative habitat and diet selection of muskoxen and reindeer on the Seward
Peninsula, western Alaska. MS thesis, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks,
AK, 81 pp.
Jingfors, K. T., 1980, Habitat relationships and activity patterns of a reintroduced muskox
population. MS thesis, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, 116 pp.

Johnson, L. B., 1993, Ecological analyses using Geographical Information Systems. In GIS
Applications of Mammalogy, edited by S. B. McLaren and J. K. Braun. Special
Publication of the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History in collaboration with the
Carnegie Museum of Natural History (Norman: University of Oklahoma), pp. 27–38.
Johnson, C. B., Lawhead, B. E., Rose, J. R., Stickney, A. A., and Wildman, A. N., 1997,
Wildlife studies on the Colville River Delta, Alaska, 1996. Prepared for ARCO Alaska,
Inc. ABR Inc., Fairbanks, AK.
Johnson, C. B., Lawhead, B. E., Rose, J. R., Smith , M. D., Stickney, A. A., and
Wildman, A. N., 1999, Wildlife studies on the Colville River Delta, Alaska, 1998.
Prepared for ARCO Alaska, Inc. ABR Inc., Fairbanks, AK.
Jorgenson, J. C., Joria, P. E., McCabe, T. R., Reitz, B. E., Raynolds, M. K., Emers, M.,
and Willms , M. A., 1994, User’s guide for the land-cover map of the coastal plain of
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. US Department of the Interior; US Fish and
Wildlife Service Region 7, Anchorage, AK, 46 pp.
Klein, D. R., 2000, Arctic grazing systems and industrial development: can we minimize the
con icts? Polar Research, 19, 91–98.
Klein, D. R., 1996, Arctic ungulates at the northern edge of terrestrial life. Rangifer, 16, 51–56.
Klein, D. R., 1988, The establishment of muskox populations by translocation. In
T ranslocation of W ild Animals, edited by L. Nielson and R. D. Brown (Milwaukee,
WI: Brown Wisconsin Humane Society, Inc. and the Caesar Kleburg Research
Institute), pp. 298–318.
Klein, D. R., Yakushkin, G. D., and Pospelova, E. B., 1993, Comparative habitat selection
by muskoxen introduced to north-eastern Alaska and the Taimyr Peninsula, Russia.
Rangifer, 13, 21–25.
Knick, S. T., and Dyer, D. L., 1997, Distribution of black-tailed jackrabbit habitat determined
by GIS in southwestern Idaho. Journal of W ildlife Management, 61, 75–85.
Lauver, C. L., and Whistler, J. L., 1993, A hierarchical classi cation of Landsat TM imagery
to identify natural grassland areas and rare species habitat. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing, 59, 627–634.
McLaren, S. B,. and Braun, J. K., 1993, GIS Applications in Mammalogy. Special Publication
of the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History in Collaboration with the Carnegie
Museum of Natural History.
Markon, C. J., 1994, Remote sensing and geographic information systems: their application
to mapping circumpolar Arctic vegetation. Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Mapping
Workshop, 21–25 March 1994, St Petersburg Russia, edited by D. A. Walker and
C. J. Markon, pp. 111–113.
Moore, I. D., Grayson, R. B., and Ladson, A. R., 1991, Digital terrain modeling: a review of
hydrological, geomorphological and biological applications. Hydrological Processes,
5, 3–30.
Muller, S. V., Walker, D. A., Nelson, F. E., Auerbach, N. A., Bockheim, J. G., Guyer, S.,
and Sherba, D., 1998, Accuracy assessment of a land-cover map of the Kuparuk River
basin, Alaska: considerations for remote regions. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing, 64, 619–628.
Nellemann, C., 1997, Grazing strategies of muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) during winter in
Angujaartor up Nunaa in western Greenland. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 75,
1129–1134.
Nellemann, C., 1998, Habitat use by muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) in winter in an alpine
environment. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 76, 110– 116.
Nellemann, C., and Cameron, R. D., 1996, EVects of petroleum development on terrain
preferences of calving caribou. Arctic, 49, 23–28.
Nellemann, C., and Cameron, R. D., 1998, Cumulative impacts of an evolving oil- eld
complex on the distribution of calving caribou. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 76,
1425–1430.
Nellemann, C., and Fry, G., 1995, Quantitative analysis of terrain ruggedness in reindeer
winter grounds. Arctic, 48, 172–176.
Nellemann, C., and Reynolds, P. E., 1997, Predicting late winter distribution of muskoxen
using an index of terrain ruggedness. Arctic and Alpine Research, 29, 334–338.
Nellemann, C., and Thomsen, M. G., 1994, Terrain ruggedness and caribou forage availability
during snowmelt on the Arctic coastal plain, Alaska. Arctic, 47, 361– 367.
Nicholson, M. C., Bowyer, R. T., and Kie, J. G., 1997, Habitat selection and survival of
mule deer: tradeoVs associated with migration. Journal of Mammalogy, 78, 483–504.
Nogami, M., 1995, Geomorphometric measures for digital elevation models. Zeitschrift fur
Geomorphologie, N.F. Supplement-Bd, 101, 53–67.
O’Brien, C. M., 1988, Characterization of muskox habitat in north-eastern Alaska. MS thesis,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, 114 pp.
Parker, G. R., 1978, The diets of muskoxen and Peary caribou on some islands in the
Canadian high Arctic. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Occasional
Paper No. 35.
Parker, G. R., and Ross, R. K., 1976, Summer habitat use by muskoxen (Ovibos Moschatus)
and Peary caribou (Rangifer tarandus pearyi) in the Canadian high Arctic.
Polarforschung , 46, 12–25.
Rapota, V., 1984, Feeding ecology of the Taimyr muskoxen. Biological Paper of the University
of Alaska, Special Report, No. 4, Fairbanks, AK, pp. 75–80.
Reynolds, P. E., 1984, Distribution, movements and herd dynamics of radio-collared mus-
koxen in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Proceedings of the First International
Muskox Symposium. Biological Papers of the University of Alaska, Special Report.
No. 4, Fairbanks, Alaska, 63 pp.
Rhoads, B. L., and Thorn, C. E. (editors), 1996, The scienti c nature of geomorphology.
Proceedings of the 27th Binghamton Symposium on Geomorphology, 27–29 September
1996, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Illinois (Chichester: John Wiley and
Sons), 481 pp.
Robus, M., 1981, Muskox habitat and use patterns in north-eastern Alaska. MS thesis,
Schmidt, J. and Dikau, R., 1999, Extracting geomorphometric attributes and objects from
digital elevation models—semantics, methods, future needs. In GIS for Earth Surface
Systems —Analysis and Modeling of the Natural Environment, edited by R. Dikau and
H. Saurer (Stuttgart: Gebr Bornträger), pp. 153–173.
Segura Lopez, W., 1998, Application of the HEP methodology and use of GIS to identify
priority sites for the management of white-tailed deer. In GIS Methodologies for
Developing Conservation Strategies: T ropical forest recovery and wildlife management
in Costa Rica, edited by B. G. Savitsky and T. E. Lacher (New York: Columbia
University Press), 242 pp.
Smith , T., 1994, Muskox. ADF&G W ildlife Notebook Series. Revised by J. Coady and
R. Kacyon. http://www.state.ak.us/adfg/notebook/biggame/ muskoxen.htm.
Snyder, J. P., 1987, Map projections—a working manual. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 1395 (Washington: USGPO), 383 pp.
Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S., 1989, Using Multivariate Statistics, 2nd edn (New York:
Harper Collins Publishers).
Thing, H., Klein, D. R., Jingfors, K., and Holt, S., 1987, Ecology of muskoxen in Jameson
Land, north-east Greenland. Holarctic Ecology, 10, 95–103.
4632 Sixth Circumpolar Symposium on Remote Sensing of Polar Environment
Wilson, K. J., 1992, Spatial scales of muskox resource selection in late winter. MS thesis,
Zar, J. H., 1996, Circular distributions: descriptive statistics. In Biostatistical Analysis, 3rd
edn (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall ), pp. 591–612.
View publication stats

Using GIS To Predict Potential Wildlife Habitat A Case Study of Muskoxen in Northern Alaska

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Using GIS To Predict Potential Wildlife Habitat A Case Study of Muskoxen in Northern Alaska

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Using GIS to predict potential wildlife habitat: A case study of muskoxen in

Article in International Journal of Remote Sensing · November 2002

UNEP-WCMC Outputs View project

Phenology View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: 0143-1161 (Print) 1366-5901 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tres20

Using GIS to predict potential wildlife habitat: A

F. S. Danks & D. R. Klein

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431160110113890

Published online: 25 Nov 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 335

View related articles

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [University of Cambridge] Date: 17 November 2017, At: 13:23

Using GIS to predict potential wildlife habitat: a case study of

Abstract. With its versatility and potential in addressing ecological issues,

*Corresponding author; St John’s College, Cambridge CB2 1TP, UK;

development scenarios in an area such as the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

1.1. Rationale and applications

1.2. Ecological background

1.3. Study area

1.4. Objectives and assumptions

2.2. GIS layers

past seasonal use.

Kuparuk River drainage basin

6 Water 1.1 Water Clear

5 Wet tundra 3.2 Flooded tundra Non-patterned

Vegetation class Rank (%) Rank (%)

Moist non-acidic tundra 1 (45.7 ) 1 (65.8 )

2.3. GIS habitat model

cover. Accessible vegetation is instead found in the more rugged, topographically

vegetation may require continuing map re nement as vegetation changes on a

population. MS thesis, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, 116 pp.

View publication stats

You might also like

vegetation may require continuing map re nement as vegetation changes on a