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

David Anthony Kirk,Allysia C Park,Elizabeth N Fairhurst,Adam C Smith,Briar J Howes,Naschelly G Kyssa,Brigid K Prouse,Kent A Prior

doi:10.1002/ece3.3812

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.

Highlights

Since 1970, it is estimated that on average vertebrate species’ populations have declined by 52% as a result of human activities (Living Planet Index; WWF International, 2014)
(2) We investigated a broader range of taxa to see whether there were taxon-related differences in use of the term ‘habitat.’ (3) We asked whether it is the use of the term ‘habitat’ itself that is incorrect, or whether the problem lies in misuse of the numerous habitat-related terms
We found no significant difference between the correct use of ‘habitat’ in the articles reviewed by Hall et al and the contemporary articles, after accounting for the varying use of habitat-related terms (Table S4)

Summary

Introduction

Since 1970, it is estimated that on average vertebrate species’ populations (including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish) have declined by 52% as a result of human activities (Living Planet Index; WWF International, 2014). The primary driver causing these species’ population declines and extinctions is loss of habitat (Brook, Sodhi, & Bradshaw, 2008; Kerr & Deguise, 2004; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Venter et al, 2006). Loss of habitat could interact in complex, unforeseen ways with the looming global threat of climate change (Mantyka-Pringle et al, 2015). Despite the recognition that habitat plays a key role in stemming global population declines, even the primary ecological literature may not support a consistent definition for the term (Hall, Krausman & Morrison, 1997; Guthery & Strickland, 2015; Mathewson & Morrison, 2015; see Krausman & Morrison, 2016). Identifying temporal and spatial habitat for Great White Sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) can help mitigate threats to humans in inshore waters (Kock et al, 2013) and delineating Tiger (Panthera tigris) habitat in the Sundarban in India and Bangladesh can avoid conflicts with people (Naha et al, 2016)

Objectives

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion