Elk Nutrition & Habitat
Models for Management
Some Ideas for Summarizing
Model Results
Summarizing Results

Primary focus has been on modeling work.

Secondary focus has been on getting the
models to run in ArcGIS.

Our ultimate but more recent focus has
been on methods of summarizing and
interpreting modeling results for
management.
Some Starting Concepts

Regional Landscape

Regional Landscape with 4-km Buffer

Local Landscape
Some Starting Concepts

Existing Condition: conditions at a starting
point of a regional analysis.

Management Alternative: conditions
projected under any proposed
management in a regional analysis.
Regional Landscape

Large (25,000 ac to 500,000 ac or more)

Multiple elk populations

Often multiple land ownerships

Integrated management across ownerships
and over time (e.g., 5 years of projects)

Spatial extent at which models are run with
4-km buffer extending beyond boundaries
Local Landscape

Imbedded in regional landscape

Small (2,000 ac or larger)

Local elk population

Often single land ownership

Individual projects over small areas and
shorter time periods

Models are not run at this extent; instead,
model results from regional landscape are
summarized for local landscapes.
Local versus Regional Summaries
Modeling results can be “sliced
and diced” within the landscape
in relation to different
management alternatives
Possible area for
silvicultural treatments
and access management
Regional Landscape with 4-km Buffer (run models)
Regional Landscape (regional results)
Local Landscape 1
(local results)
Treatment Areas 1
Local Landscape 2
(local results)
Treatment Areas 2
Methods of Summary – Existing Condition

Percentage of landscape by classes of
nutrition or classes of relative use

Percentage of landscape by classes of
nutrition or relative use by land ownership
or by other categories that compose the
regional or local landscape
DDE Classes Used in Summaries
Class
1
2
3
4
5
6
Description
Poor
Low-marginal
High-marginal
Low-good
High-good
Excellent
Mean DDE
<2.4
2.40 – 2.575
>2.575 – 2.75
>2.75 – 2.825
>2.825 – 2.9
>2.90
Sum of Relative Use
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.62
0.4
0.3
0.28
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
1
2
Ownership
3
Methods of Summary – Evaluating
Management Alternatives

Percent change in landscape area or no.
acres by condition class—relative to
existing (starting) condition

Percentage of pixels in a landscape that
increased, decreased, or remained the
same relative to existing (starting)
condition
•Table E-3. Percent area in each DDE class for the existing landscape (Existing) and based on predictions using 2 different management alternatives.
DDE Class
Existing
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
1
29.8%
29.5%
28.2%
2
56.7%
54.9%
54.9%
3
7.8%
9.3%
7.6%
4
2.2%
2.1%
2.1%
5
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
6
1.6%
2.3%
5.4%
Sum of Predicted Level of Use
180
160
140
Sum of Use
120
100
Existing
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
80
Alternative 3
60
40
20
0
Regional Landscape
Local Landscape 1
Local Landscape 2
115
% Change in Relative Elk Use from Existing Conditions
110.2
100
85
% change
70
Alternative 1
55
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
43.9
40
31.9
26.0
25
26.0
8.8
10
-1.5
8.2
0.0
-5
Regional Landscape
Local Landscape 1
Local Landscape 2
Summarizing Results

Many possible types of summaries in space
and time

Calculating percentage of the landscape by
condition classes (nutrition or relative use)

Summing the relative probabilities of elk
use for any specified area—the entire
regional landscape or any areas within it
(local landscapes)
Summarizing Results

Calculating the change in percentage of
landscape by condition classes (nutrition or
relative use) over time under each
management alternative.

Calculating the change in relative
probability of use over time.

Change calculations can be done for
regional and local landscapes.
Summarizing Results

Many examples of how to summarize
results are found in the user’s guide for
westside elk models.

User’s guide is posted on our ftp site and
hard copies will be distributed to Day 2
workshop attendees.