Cargando…

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

The 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kirk, David Anthony, Park, Allysia C., Smith, Adam C., Howes, Briar J., Prouse, Brigid K., Kyssa, Naschelly G., Fairhurst, Elizabeth N., Prior, Kent A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5916312/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29721291
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3812
_version_ 1783316999469793280
author Kirk, David Anthony
Park, Allysia C.
Smith, Adam C.
Howes, Briar J.
Prouse, Brigid K.
Kyssa, Naschelly G.
Fairhurst, Elizabeth N.
Prior, Kent A.
author_facet Kirk, David Anthony
Park, Allysia C.
Smith, Adam C.
Howes, Briar J.
Prouse, Brigid K.
Kyssa, Naschelly G.
Fairhurst, Elizabeth N.
Prior, Kent A.
author_sort Kirk, David Anthony
collection PubMed
description The 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5916312
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59163122018-05-02 Our use, misuse, and abandonment of a concept: Whither habitat? Kirk, David Anthony Park, Allysia C. Smith, Adam C. Howes, Briar J. Prouse, Brigid K. Kyssa, Naschelly G. Fairhurst, Elizabeth N. Prior, Kent A. Ecol Evol Original Research The 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-04-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5916312/ /pubmed/29721291 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3812 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Kirk, David Anthony
Park, Allysia C.
Smith, Adam C.
Howes, Briar J.
Prouse, Brigid K.
Kyssa, Naschelly G.
Fairhurst, Elizabeth N.
Prior, Kent A.
Our use, misuse, and abandonment of a concept: Whither habitat?
title Our use, misuse, and abandonment of a concept: Whither habitat?
title_full Our use, misuse, and abandonment of a concept: Whither habitat?
title_fullStr Our use, misuse, and abandonment of a concept: Whither habitat?
title_full_unstemmed Our use, misuse, and abandonment of a concept: Whither habitat?
title_short Our use, misuse, and abandonment of a concept: Whither habitat?
title_sort our use, misuse, and abandonment of a concept: whither habitat?
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5916312/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29721291
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3812
work_keys_str_mv AT kirkdavidanthony ourusemisuseandabandonmentofaconceptwhitherhabitat
AT parkallysiac ourusemisuseandabandonmentofaconceptwhitherhabitat
AT smithadamc ourusemisuseandabandonmentofaconceptwhitherhabitat
AT howesbriarj ourusemisuseandabandonmentofaconceptwhitherhabitat
AT prousebrigidk ourusemisuseandabandonmentofaconceptwhitherhabitat
AT kyssanaschellyg ourusemisuseandabandonmentofaconceptwhitherhabitat
AT fairhurstelizabethn ourusemisuseandabandonmentofaconceptwhitherhabitat
AT priorkenta ourusemisuseandabandonmentofaconceptwhitherhabitat