Our use, misuse, and abandonment of a concept: Whither habitat?

Abstract

SummaryThe foundational concept of habitat lies at the very root of the entire science of ecology, but inaccurate use of the term compromises scientific rigor and communication among scientists and nonscientists. In 1997, Hall, Krausman & Morrison showed that ‘habitat’ was used correctly in only 55% of articles. We ask whether use of the term has been more accurate since their plea for standardization and whether use varies across the broader range of journals and taxa in the contemporary literature (1998–2012). We searched contemporary literature for ‘habitat’ and habitat‐related terms, ranking usage as either correct or incorrect, following a simplified version of Hall et al.'s definitions. We used generalized linear models to compare use of the term in contemporary literature with the papers reviewed by Hall et al. and to test the effects of taxa, journal impact in the contemporary articles and effects due to authors that cited Hall et al. Use of the term ‘habitat’ has not improved; it was still only used correctly about 55% of the time in the contemporary data. Proportionately more correct uses occurred in articles that focused on animals compared to ones that included plants, and papers that cited Hall et al. did use the term correctly more often. However, journal impact had no effect. Some habitat terms are more likely to be misused than others, notably ‘habitat type’, usually used to refer to vegetation type, and ‘suitable habitat’ or ‘unsuitable habitat’, which are either redundant or nonsensical by definition. Inaccurate and inconsistent use of the term can lead to (1) misinterpretation of scientific findings; (2) inefficient use of conservation resources; (3) ineffective identification and prioritization of protected areas; (4) limited comparability among studies; and (5) miscommunication of science‐based findings. Correct usage would improve communication with scientists and nonscientists, thereby benefiting conservation efforts, and ecology as a science.

Habitat predicts local prevalence of migratory behaviour in an alpine ungulate

“…The resulting differences in resource use can translate to divergent demographic consequences, making an understanding of these behavioural tactics crucial to linking observed distributions and demography (Morales et al, 2010). These complex relationships between a species and its environment are frequently described by the catch-all 'habitat', but the ubiquity and inconsistent application of this term often renders its intended meaning unclear (Kirk et al, 2018). We follow Hall, Krausman, and Morrison (1997) in defining habitat as the suite of resources and conditions sufficient to support persistent occupancy.…”

At Home in an Unhomely World: On Living With Waste

“…Whereas the concept of world is overarching per se -even when we make the world as small as our individual world, it still presupposes a birds-eye view of that particular world -the concept of habitat is specific to these things (both living ánd non-living) that inhabit it. Although in ecological research the term "habitat" is highly problematic, as the definition of habitat varies a lot (Hall, Krausman & Morrison, 2007) and is used correctly only 55% of the times (Hall, Krausman & Morrison, 2007;Kirk et al, 2018), in a theoretical context it works perfectly. Al-though originally a fundamental concept in plant ecology only (Yapp, 1922) it has evolved into a concept that can describe virtually any location occupied by organisms (Kirk et al, 2018) and can, as I would suggest, also include the dwelling places of non-living things, or more succinctly put: include non-living things such as waste into the dwelling places of living things.…”

The time frame of home‐range studies: from function to utilization

“…Another important notion that many ecologists have retained from Burt's () seminal article is that home ranges should not include the locations that are visited during ‘excursions’ (Olson et al, ), which are interpreted as forays to acquire information but not resources directly (Doligez et al, ). This essentially resource‐based definition of the home range later raised a number of conceptual issues about the significance of territorial behaviours for home‐range studies (Fieberg & Börger, ; Riotte‐Lambert, Benhamou, & Chamaillé‐Jammes, ; Hinsch & Komdeur, ; Kirk et al, ). Species and individuals may exhibit spatial fidelity without being territorial, or may defend access to mating opportunities but not food resources (Maher & Lott, ; Low, ; Hinsch & Komdeur, ).…”