Description:
Studies of habitat selection often measure an animal's use of space via radiotelemetry or GPS‐based technologies. Such data tend to be analyzed using a resource selection function, despite the fact that the actual resources acquired are typically not recorded. Without explicit proof of resource use, conclusions from RSF models are based on assumptions regarding an animal's behavior and the resources gained. Conservation initiatives are often based on space‐use models, and could be detrimental to the target species if these assumptions are incorrect. We used GPS dataloggers and digital video recorders to determine precise locations where nocturnally foraging Burrowing Owls acquired food resources (vertebrate prey). We compared land cover type selection patterns using a presence‐only resource selection function (RSF) to a model that incorporated prey capture locations (CRSF). We also compared net prey returns in each cover type to better measure reward relative to foraging effort. The RSF method did not reflect prey capture patterns and cover‐type rankings from this model were quite different from models that used only locations where prey was known to have been obtained. Burrowing Owls successfully foraged across all cover types; however, return vs. effort models indicate that different cover types were of higher quality than those identified using resource selection functions. Conclusions about the type of resources acquired should not be made from RSF‐style models without evidence that the actual resource of interest was acquired. Conservation efforts based on RSF models alone may be ineffective or detrimental to the target species if the limiting resource and where it is acquired are not properly identified.