Advances in tracking technology have led to an exponential increase in animal location data, greatly enhancing our ability to address interesting questions in movement ecology, but also presenting new challenges related to data management and analysis. Step‐selection functions (SSFs) are commonly used to link environmental covariates to animal location data collected at fine temporal resolution. SSFs are estimated by comparing observed steps connecting successive animal locations to random steps, using a likelihood equivalent of a Cox proportional hazards model. By using common statistical distributions to model step length and turn angle distributions, and including habitat‐ and movement‐related covariates (functions of distances between points, angular deviations), it is possible to make inference regarding habitat selection and movement processes or to control one process while investigating the other. The fitted model can also be used to estimate utilization distributions and mechanistic home ranges. Here, we present the R package amt (animal movement tools) that allows users to fit SSFs to data and to simulate space use of animals from fitted models. The amt package also provides tools for managing telemetry data. Using fisher (Pekania pennanti) data as a case study, we illustrate a four‐step approach to the analysis of animal movement data, consisting of data management, exploratory data analysis, fitting of models, and simulating from fitted models.

Habitat‐selection analyses allow researchers to link animals to their environment via habitat‐selection or step‐selection functions, and are commonly used to address questions related to wildlife management and conservation efforts. Habitat‐selection analyses that incorporate movement characteristics, referred to as integrated step‐selection analyses, are particularly appealing because they allow modelling of both movement and habitat‐selection processes. Despite their popularity, many users struggle with interpreting parameters in habitat‐selection and step‐selection functions. Integrated step‐selection analyses also require several additional steps to translate model parameters into a full‐fledged movement model, and the mathematics supporting this approach can be challenging for many to understand. Using simple examples, we demonstrate how weighted distribution theory and the inhomogeneous Poisson point process can facilitate parameter interpretation in habitat‐selection analyses. Furthermore, we provide a ‘how to’ guide illustrating the steps required to implement integrated step‐selection analyses using the amt package By providing clear examples with open‐source code, we hope to make habitat‐selection analyses more understandable and accessible to end users.

Habitat selection is a fundamental animal behavior that shapes a wide range of ecological processes, including animal movement, nutrient transfer, trophic dynamics and population distribution. Although habitat selection has been a focus of ecological studies for decades, technological, conceptual and methodological advances over the last 20 yr have led to a surge in studies addressing this process. Despite the substantial literature focused on quantifying the habitat‐selection patterns of animals, there is a marked lack of guidance on best analytical practices. The conceptual foundations of the most commonly applied modeling frameworks can be confusing even to those well versed in their application. Furthermore, there has yet to be a synthesis of the advances made over the last 20 yr. Therefore, there is a need for both synthesis of the current state of knowledge on habitat selection, and guidance for those seeking to study this process. Here, we provide an approachable overview and synthesis of the literature on habitat‐selection analyses (HSAs) conducted using selection functions, which are by far the most applied modeling framework for understanding the habitat‐selection process. This review is purposefully non‐technical and focused on understanding without heavy mathematical and statistical notation, which can confuse many practitioners. We offer an overview and history of HSAs, describing the tortuous conceptual path to our current understanding. Through this overview, we also aim to address the areas of greatest confusion in the literature. We synthesize the literature outlining the most exciting conceptual advances in the field of habitat‐selection modeling, discussing the substantial ecological and evolutionary inference that can be made using contemporary techniques. We aim for this paper to provide clarity for those navigating the complex literature on HSAs while acting as a reference and best practices guide for practitioners.

Camera traps have quickly transformed the way in which many ecologists study the distribution of wildlife species, their activity patterns and interactions among members of the same ecological community. Although they provide a cost‐effective method for monitoring multiple species over large spatial and temporal scales, the time required to process the data can limit the efficiency of camera‐trap surveys. Thus, there has been considerable attention given to the use of artificial intelligence (AI), specifically deep learning, to help process camera‐trap data. Using deep learning for these applications involves training algorithms, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), to use particular features in the camera‐trap images to automatically detect objects (e.g. animals, humans, vehicles) and to classify species. To help overcome the technical challenges associated with training CNNs, several research communities have recently developed platforms that incorporate deep learning in easy‐to‐use interfaces. We review key characteristics of four AI platforms—Conservation AI, MegaDetector, MLWIC2: Machine Learning for Wildlife Image Classification and Wildlife Insights—and two auxiliary platforms—Camelot and Timelapse—that incorporate AI output for processing camera‐trap data. We compare their software and programming requirements, AI features, data management tools and output format. We also provide R code and data from our own work to demonstrate how users can evaluate model performance. We found that species classifications from Conservation AI, MLWIC2 and Wildlife Insights generally had low to moderate recall. Yet, the precision for some species and higher taxonomic groups was high, and MegaDetector and MLWIC2 had high precision and recall when classifying images as either ‘blank’ or ‘animal’. These results suggest that most users will need to review AI predictions, but that AI platforms can improve efficiency of camera‐trap‐data processing by allowing users to filter their dataset into subsets (e.g. of certain taxonomic groups or blanks) that can be verified using bulk actions. By reviewing features of popular AI‐powered platforms and sharing an open‐source GitBook that illustrates how to manage AI output to evaluate model performance, we hope to facilitate ecologists' use of AI to process camera‐trap data.

We consider a variety of regression modeling strategies for analyzing observational data associated with typical wildlife studies, including all subsets and stepwise regression, a single full model, and Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC)‐based multimodel inference. Although there are advantages and disadvantages to each approach, we suggest that there is no unique best way to analyze data. Further, we argue that, although multimodel inference can be useful in natural resource management, the importance of considering causality and accurately estimating effect sizes is greater than simply considering a variety of models. Determining causation is far more valuable than simply indicating how the response variable and explanatory variables covaried within a data set, especially when the data set did not arise from a controlled experiment. Understanding the causal mechanism will provide much better predictions beyond the range of data observed. Published 2015. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.