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

Abstract

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.

Keywords: conservation implications; critical habitat; habitat; habitat‐related terms; misuse; operational terminology; standardization.

Figure 1

Predicted proportion of correct uses of the term ‘habitat’ in articles reviewed in Hall et al. (1997); compared to contemporary articles and articles citing Hall et al. Note: The predicted differences between the Hall et al. (1997) articles and the contemporary articles are identical for all other habitat‐related terms and so are not shown here. Error bars indicate the 95% confidence intervals

Figure 2

The predicted proportion of correct uses of habitat‐related terms, for contemporary data (since the publication of Hall et al. (1997)), excluding the articles that cited cited Hall et al. (1997). Note: Predictions for the Hall et al. (1997). articles are essentially identical and are not provided here. The terms in bold on the horizontal axis were relatively common in the Hall et al. articles (used in five or more articles). The bars that are darker gray indicated terms for which the correct usage was significantly different from the correct usage for the main term ‘habitat.’ Error bars indicate the 95% confidence intervals of the predictions for each term, and their colors vary only to provide a visual contrast with the main bar

Figure 3

Predicted proportion of correct uses of the term ‘habitat‘ in contemporary articles by primary taxa (a: articles including plant habitat—plant—compared to those that only include animal habitat—animal and grouped by journal ranking (b: articles from top‐ranked journals compared to those from all other journals). Note: The predicted differences between taxa and journal rank are identical for all other habitat‐related terms, and so are not shown here. Error bars indicate the 95% confidence intervals