El concepto de hábitat y una petición de terminología estándar

Autor(es): Linnea S. Hall, Paul R. Krausman, Michael L. Morrison

Fuente: Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 1, International Issues and Perspectives in Wildlife
Management (primavera de 1997), págs. 173 a 182 Publicado por: Allen Press

URL estable: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783301

Acceso: 13/04/2009 02:17

Su uso del archivo JSTOR indica su aceptación de los Términos y Condiciones de Uso de JSTOR, disponibles en
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/about/policies/terms.jsp. Los Términos y Condiciones de Uso de JSTOR establecen, en
parte, que a menos que haya obtenido permiso previo, no puede descargar un número completo de una revista o varias copias
de artículos, y puede usar el contenido del archivo JSTOR solo para su uso personal y no comercial.

Por favor, póngase en contacto con el editor con respecto a cualquier otro uso de este trabajo. La información de
contacto del editor se puede obtener en http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=acg.

Cada copia de cualquier parte de una transmisión JSTOR debe contener el mismo aviso de copyright que aparece en la
pantalla o página impresa de dicha transmisión.

JSTOR es una organización sin fines de lucro fundada en 1995 para construir archivos digitales confiables para becas.
Trabajamos con la comunidad académica para preservar su trabajo y los materiales en los que confían, y para construir una
plataforma de investigación común que promueva el descubrimiento y uso de estos recursos. Para obtener más información
sobre JSTOR, póngase en contacto con support@jstor.org.

Allen Press está colaborando con JSTOR para digitalizar, preservar y ampliar el acceso a Wildlife Society
Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org
 PETICIÓN DE TERMINOLOGÍA ESTÁNDAR 173

La hábitat concepto y un súplica

por

norma terminología

Linnea S. Hall, Paul R. Krausman y Michael L. Morrison

Abstracto Comparamos los usos y definiciones de los términos relacionados con el hábitat en 50 artículos de 1980 a
1994 con las definiciones operativas que derivamos de la literatura. Solo 9 (18%) de los artículos que
revisamos definieron y utilizaron términos relacionados con el hábitat consistentemente y de acuerdo
con nuestras definiciones de los términos. Cuarenta y siete artículos utilizaron el término "hábitat"; sin
embargo, solo fue definido y utilizado de acuerdo con nuestra definición en 5 artículos (11%) y se
confundió con la asociación de vegetación o se definió de manera incompleta en
42 artículos (89%). "Tipo de hábitat" fue el término más comúnmente utilizado incorrectamente; 1 6 de 17
veces (94%) se utilizó para indicar la asociación de la vegetación, pero hábitat y asociación de la vegetación
no son
sinónimos. Los autores no proporcionaron definiciones para el uso, selección, preferencia o
disponibilidad del hábitat 23 de 28 veces (82%). Llegamos a la conclusión de que la termin
ología de
en el 82% de los artículos que revisamos. Esto distorsiona nuestra
hábitat se utilizó vagamente
comunicación con los científicos en otras
público damos respuestas y
Nos alejamos del porque ambiguas, indefinidas
no estandarizadas a las
cuestiones ecológicas en situaciones públicas y legales. Los científicos deben definir y usar la
terminología de hábitat operacionalmente, de modo que los conceptos sean medibles y precisos.
Debemos tomarnos en serio el desafío de estandarizar la terminología, de modo que podamos hacer
declaraciones significativas para promover la ciencia.

hábitat crítico tipo de hábitat se-

Palabras clave disponibilidad, , , terminología operacional, preferencia, calidad,
elección, normalización

Block y Brennan (1993) discutieron el concepto de En primer lugar, aunque varios autores han
hábitat en el contexto de la ornitología, afirmando que recomendado que los estudios de las relaciones entre vida
podría considerarse una de las pocas teorías unificadoras silvestre y habitación se
sitúen
en las escalas
en la
ecología contemporánea. Su
opinión
se espaciales y temporales adecuadas
(Wiens 1981,
basó Morrisonet al. 1992, Block y Brennan 1993, Litvaitis et al.
en un amplio estudio de artículos que relacionaban la
y de con
presencia, abundancia, distribución diversidad las aves 1994), esto todavía no ha sucedido. Los investigadores
de su entorno, y en el que se
aspectos
necesitan reconocer que sus percepciones de vida silvestre-
invocó el hábitat para explicar los factores y procesos hábitat
que contribuyeron a la historia evolutiva y la aptitud de los relaciones las diferentes
Las dependen de la escala, reflejando
animales. Otros autores también han enfatizado la importancia escalas en las que operan
los
diferentes animales
de las relaciones .
entre vida silvestre y hábitat
(Wiens 1989). Johnson (1980)
y
Hutto (1985), por
Específicamente, el "uso del hábitat" ejemplo, propusieron que los animales seleccionaran el hábitat a
por la vida silvestre ha sido abordado por numerosos través de un proceso de escalado espacial jerárquico,
investigadores (Verner et al. 1986, Morrison et al. 1992, y que la selección se realizara primero a nivel del
rango

Bookhout 1994). Sin embargo, creemos que hay varios en el nivel en que los
geográfico; segundo,

problemas con los estudios y discusiones actuales sobre el animales llevan a cabo sus
uso del hábitat que son la fuente de ambigüedades e
actividades (es decir, en sus áreas de
inexactitudes.
residencia); en tercer lugar, a nivel
de sitios específicos o para
componentes específicos dentro de sus rangos de
origen; y cuarto, de acuerdo con la forma en que van a obtener
los recursos
Dirección de los
autores: Escuela de Recursos Naturales Renovables, 325 Edificio Ciencias Biológicas Este, Universidad de Ari-
Zona, Tucson, AZ 85721, Estados Unidos. Dirección actual de Linnea S. Hall y Michael L. Morrison: Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas,
fornia State
Cali- University, Sacramento, CA
95819,
USA.

Boletín de la Sociedad de Vida Silvestre 1997, 25(1):173-182 Árbitro

 174 Boletín de la Sociedad de Vida Silvestre 1997, es no-productiva, ya que resta a la
25(1): 173-182 capacidad de comunicarse eficazmente sobre temas
relacionados con el hábitat
.
dentro de estos micrositios. Hutto (1985) propuso que la selección
a nivel del rango geográfico es probablemente determinada
genéticamente, y Wecker (1964) y Wiens (1972) demostraron que
la selección a niveles más finos (es decir, escalas más pequeñas)
puede ser influenciado por el aprendizaje y la experiencia y por lo
los animales
tanto se dirige más intencionalmente por
individuales. Por lo tanto, las naves de
son diferentes en y
vida silvestre claramente diferentes niveles,
los autores de los habitatpapers
necesitan estar seguros de
especificar los niveles a los que sus estudios son aplicables, y no
extrapolar sus datos más allá de esos niveles.
de
En términos escala temporal, los autores deben ser
específicos acerca de cuándo se llevaron a cabo sus estudios, y
a qué período(s) de tiempo se aplican los estudios. Morrison
et al. (1992:163-164)
declararon que demasiados
en el uso de los
investigadores ignoran la variación temporal
recursos, o muestras de períodos
de tiempo estrechos en los
que las relaciones resultantes vida silvestre-hábitat se aplican
solo mínimamente a otras situaciones. Por el contrario, los
investigadores suelen tomar muestras a través de amplios
períodos de tiempo (es decir, años; Temporadas de verano o
valores promediados
invierno) y luego usar para variables a
través de los períodos, enmascarando potencialmente las
diferencias en el uso de recursos.
La segunda cuestión que los autores de los artículos de
hábitat deben considerar es que si queremos avanzar en
la vida silvestre
que los conceptos fundamentales con
Debemos asegurarnos de
los que trabajamos estén bien definidos y,
por lo tanto, bien entendidos. Esto facilita el
debate
a usar las palabras
entre los ecologistas al obligarnos específicamente
en lugar de libremente, pero también facilita una mejor
comunicación pública, minimizando la confusión y la ambigüedad.
(1991) instó a que los científicos "operacionalicen"
Peters ambientales
los conceptos ecológicos.
Peters (1991:76) argumentó que las
definiciones de conceptos
como hábitat deben ser
operativas, es decir, especificaciones
prácticas y medibles de
los rangos de los fenómenos específicos que los términos representan.
Las definiciones pueden cambiar con el tiempo, pero si los conceptos
van a ser entonces
científicamente útiles, las definiciones

originales y posteriores deben ser medibles para

que
puede aplicarse de forma coherente.

El tercer problema que vemos en los debates sobre el hábitat, y

que subyace a todas las cuestiones que hemos esbozado
anteriormente, es que el uso de la terminología del hábitat es
y Block y Brennan
impreciso ambiguo. (1993) afirmaron que las
son a menudo
definiciones específicas del término "hábitat"
vagas, que van desde el
alcance de cómo las especies
se
asocian con la vegetación amplia a escala de paisaje
hasta
descripciones muy
detalladas
por las especies.
de los
entornos
físicos inmediatos utilizados Reconocemos una
tendencia similar entre los artículos en ciencias de la vida
silvestre y pensamos que la vaguedad
y
variabilidad
 quinta [Schemnitz 1980, Bookhout 1994]), y (2) su discusión
de
otros documentos han pedido el desarrollo de (1993) presentó recientemente
hábitat de mamíferos Block y Brennan

Muchos relaciones.
un examen de las relaciones entre
definiciones estándar de términos ecológicos (Romesburg 1981, las aves y sus habitantes. Luego registramos
McCoy y Bell 1991, Morrison et al. 1992:11, Weckerly todos los usos en los documentos de términos
relacionados con el
hábitat, incluido el tipo de hábitat;
1992). Sin embargo, sobre la base del uso variable y la uso, selección, preferencia o disponibilidad del hábitat
; calidad del
aplicación de tales términos observados incluso en una hábitat; hábitat crítico; y no hábitat (Tabla 2).
En nuestras revisiones de cada artículo observamos si los términos
búsqueda superficial de la literatura, parece que la
fueron definidos, y evaluamos la definición(s),
llamada no ha sido atendida. Definiciones incoherentes de hábitat
llevan ecolo-
de una de para medir los
Características variedad enfoques
términos (por use, selección, preferencia;
ejemplo, habitat
Capacidad de Wiens 1984:398), dificultando
transporte; la
La
realización de comparaciones ínter e intra-disciplinares.
vaguedad de nuestras definiciones ecológicas incluso ha
(por ejemplo,
contribuido a prolongadas batallas judiciales
definiciones de "bosques antiguos" en
el noroeste del Pacífico; Murphy y Noon 1991,
Orians 1993). Murphy y Noon (1991) declararon que los términos
"hábitat" y "crítico" nunca han sido
La Comisión Europea, por su parte, considera que la definición
precisa e independiente de este tipo de hábitats ha creado
dificultades para determinar con exactitud qué hábitat es
crítico para las especies incluidas en la lista federal. Debido a
que las definiciones estándar son raramente usadas, algunos
autores han levantado sus manos en todo momento
o de proporcionarlas (Verneret al. 1986:x)0.
tratand
Pensamos, sin embargo, que el uso ubicuo de la palabra
"hábitat" en la vida silvestre, la ecología de restauración y
la y la prevalencia
literatura de biología de conservación, de
palabras relacionadas con el hábitat (por ejemplo,
comunidad, ecosistema y biodiversidad)
necesidad urgente de definiciones estándar en
Esto crea una
este momento.

Para abordar algunos de los problemas que vemos con las

definiciones de hábitat, presentamos información sobre los usos

actuales y comunes y el mal uso de estos términos. También

sugerimos definiciones estándar para alentar a los biólogos de

vida silvestre (y otros) a definir y usar las palabras menos

desordenadamente.

Métodos
Para evaluar cómo los autores recientes (es decir, 1980-1994)
han utilizado términos relacionados con el hábitat, revisamos 50
de libros en los campos
artículos revistas y prominentes de la
que discutieron las relaciones
vida silvestre y la ecología
entre vida silvestre y hábitat
(Tabla 1). Los artículos y libros
fueron seleccionados en base a (1) su importancia como
publicaciones actuales de vida silvestre (por ejemplo, los
Manuales de Técnicas de Vida Silvestre, ediciones cuarta y
 Petición de terminología estándar * Hallet

al. 175
o
Tabla 1. Fuentes de literatura revisadas (revistas, libros, actas de (1933), Hutchinson (1957), Daubenmire (1968), y
simposios e informes) para termi defini
nología. Odum (1971). Por lo tanto r "hábitat" como el

No. selecciones
ressources y condiciones En un área en la que
ocupación- superviv
Fuentes de referencia revisoen la fuente duce incluyendo encia y reproduc-
un
Libros y diccionarios
Allaby
(1992)
1
tion-by dado organismo.
El hábitat es un
de una
organismo
Bell et al. (1991) 1 se
Fowler y Smith (1981) 1
cific; relaciona la presencia
o
especie, población,
Patton (1992) 1
o individual (animal planta) a un área
física
y
impliqu
Peek (1986) 1 biológicos
que
características. Hábitat e más
Revistas y series la estructura
Biología de la Conservación 2 vegetación o
vegetación
; es el suma
Aplicaciones ecológicas 2 específi sont
Monografías Ecológicas 1 del co ressources que nécessairespor órgano
un
Ecología 2 Dondequi
Gestión medioambiental 2 ismos. era que organismo est
fourni con re-
Revista de Mamíferos 7 que Para sobrevivir, que es el
Revista de Gestión de la Vida Silvestre 7 fuentes permiten hábitat. Así,
Gestión
Técnicas de Investigación y

para Vida Silvestre y Hábitats, Quinta. 6

Naturalista del suroeste 1
Técnicas de Manejo de
Vida Silvestre
Manual, Fourthed. 2
Boletín de la Wildlife Society 2
y actas
Simposio del foro
Rodiek y Bolen (1991) 2
Verner et al. (1986) 3
Wilson y Peter (1988) 1
Publicaciones de la Agencia
Brown (1994) 1
Cooperrider et al. (1986) 1
Morrison et al. (1991) 1
Ockenfels et al. (1991) 1
Departamento
de Agricultura de
EE.UU . (1992)
1

Nos tam utili

otro bié inconsistent sati
si
se da. s n mirado por e on de
palab
ras dentro de un papel y registró diferente usos de
cada término. Para si las definiciones
determinar fueran "cor-
o
"débil," "pobre,"
rectit nosotros
ud," "incorrecto," comparé
a las definiciones noso desarrollad
ellos estándar tros obasado en
definicione po
s présenté r Morrison et
al.
(1992) y
a su vez
Block y Brennan (1993), que eran dibujado
de ecologista tal co Grinnell (1917), Leopoldo
s m
 ganismo present
migración
y
dispersión pasillos y la tierra que s ar (Wiens 1984:402).
En
teoría, uno
animale devrait poder medir las cantidades y tipos de
en la
s ocupar durante cría y no cría
disponibl sin
a animales; práctica, embargo,
estacion Hábitat es, por lo
ressources e
es son hábitat. tanto no equiva
necesariam evaluar los aprove
prestad un término
no es
por Daubenmire
ente posible a recursos char
oa "tipo de hábitat," acuñado desde el punto de un animal et
(1968:27-32), que se refiere solo al tipo
de
vegeta- de
capacidad
al.
de vista (Litvaitis

1994). Por ejemplo, podemos medir la abundancia

verdur (mediante captura)
de una para un depredador en
especie presa
tion association en un área o al potencial as particular,
pero no podemos
decir
que todas las
presas presentes
depredador
Estado para llegar a un clímax etapa. "Hábitat" es en el hábitat están disponibles para el porque puede
(por haber factores que restrinjan su accesibilidad, como la presencia
mucho más que la vegetación
ejemplo
, pino [Pinus]-
de
una amplia cobertura.
Del mismo modo,
Morrison
et
roble
[bosque de Quercus] al. la vegetación fuera
(1992:139) propusieron que

) en un área, y así pensar

del alcance de un animal no está
el término "tipo de hábitat" no debe utilizarse cuando dis-
disponible para alimentarse,
maldeci hábitat
aunque
la vegetación puede ser
r silvestre relaciones. Cuando autores "preferido" forraje. Aunque la
intención de referirse medición de la disponibilidad real de recursos es
únicamente
a la
vegetación que un animal importante para comprender las relaciones entre la vida silvestre
deben utilizar
usos , "vegetación
en su lugar.
asociación" o y el hábitat, en la práctica rara vez se mide debido
a la
dificultad
"tipo de vegetación" dedeterminar exactamente
lo que se
Definimos el término "uso del hábitat" como el camino an-an capaz y lo que no es (Wiens
en un 1984:406). Conse-
usos sentid un col-
imales (o "consume," genérico
o) col
(es
elección física
de
y biológico composants decir,
co
m
recursos) en un hábitat. "Hábitat selección," o de-
multado Hutto (1985:458), es una jerarquía proceso
implicació una
n serie de innato y aprendido conductual de-
cisions hecho por un animal alrededor lo que hábitat lo
utilizar en báscul medio
a diferentes a de el ambiente.
de co
manera m
Johnson (1980) similar définido selección o el
proceso por el que un animal décite que hábitat
para
utiliza de la
composants r. Dado el cuerpo literatura que
no
como un sot
ro definir
trata la selección proceso, s también selección
de esta
y
manera,
ence" como la
además, definimos hábitat "prefiero-
resultand
consecuencia
la
del
proceso, o en
desproporción uso de algunos recursos sobre oth-
ers.
"Disponibilidad del hábitat" se
refiere
a la
accesibilidad
y
procurability
de
física y
biológicos composants
po es contrast
de un hábitat r animales. Este t en e a el
"abundancia
" de estos recursos, que se refiere solo a
d
su
cantidad en el hábitat, independientemente e el o-o
 176 WildlifeSocietyBulletin1997,25(1):173-182
Tabla 2. Proporciones de 50 documentos revisados para sus definiciones y consistencias en el uso de términos relacionados

con el hábitat, comparados con nuestros

definiciones de normas U se definió un Para nuestra definición y se
=
de la conceptos N de 1 término utilizó consistente
. calificación de manera similar
mente
por Pero el uso de la termera similar a
el 2 = sin definición, est un nuestra
incompleteone, uso;
=
no se dio ninguna definición para un término, o el uso del termfluctuado entre ser corregido e incorrecto en el artículo; y 4 - no se cumplieron los
en todo artículo; a proporcionado término,

3
criterios"1".
Jaksicet al. 1990
Referencia Kieet al. 1994 Termused

Adamet al. 1994 Habitat

Habitat

1992 type
Allaby Habitat
Alversonet al. 1988 Habitat
Habitat
type
Unfavorablehabitat
Andersonand Gutzwiller1994 Habitat
Bellantoniand Krausman1993 Habitat
Habitatuse
Habitat
availability Habitat
Bissonetteet al. 1991 Habitat
preference
Habitat
Boitaniet al. 1994 Habitat
type

Boyd et al. 1986 Habitat

Habitat

Habitat
types
preference
Habitatselection
Habitat

Habitat
suitability
quality
Criticalhabitat
Habitat
Brown1994 Habitatselection
Habitat
Brownet al. 1994 Habitatuse
Habitatselection
Micro/macrohabitat
1991 Habitat
Bryant Habitat
Burkettand 1994 Habitatuse
Thompson Suitablehabitat
Habitat
type
1990 Habitat
Butynski Habitatselection
Habitat
Clarket al. 1993 quality
Suitablehabitat
"Unused"habitat
Habitat
Habitat
type
Debinskiand Brussard1994 Habitat
Habitatuse
et al. 1989 Abandonedhabitat
Etchberger
Habitat
Habitatuse
1991 Habitat
Fleming
Habitat
Habitat
Fowlerand Smith1981 preference Habitat
Frankand 1992 Habitat
McNaughton type
Habitat
FranklinandJohnson1994 Habitat
Habitat
types
Goldsmith1990 Habitatselection
GouldandJenkins1993 Habitatuse
Habitat
Habitat
type
Habitat
Gysel and Lyon1980:305-307 Habitat
Habitat
Habitat
Irwinet al. 1993 quality
 2 No with
definition;use acceptable
Ra 2 defined statistics vegetation
2 No
tin Rea definition;use acceptable Only through

g son 3 No definition;sometimesconfusedwith substrateassociation

som 2
Only defined statistics No definition;use acceptable
through
eti as No 2 No
No
definition;use questionable
mes so definitio 2 definition;use acceptable
n;someti 4 Confusedwith association
conf ci 3 No definition;sometimesconfusedwith
vegetation

association
use at mesconf
No
definition;use acceptable
vegetation

usedwith 2
N dwi io associati 3 Shouldnot use; impliesthereis unsuitablehabitat
3 o th n on 4 Confusedwithassociation vegetation
as
so
vegetatio 2 No definition;use acceptable
n 1
ci 2 No 1
ati definition;use acceptable
3
v
e

Shouldnot use; impliesthereis unsuitablehabitat

g

on C
e
t
a

1 Use in this case

ti

on
o

Conf
definition; n

fu
appropriate

used se ass 3 No definition;sometimesconfusedwith association

4 with d oci 4 Confusedwith association vegetation
veget wi ati No
vegetation

4 th on 2 definition;use acceptable
ation C 2 No definition;use acceptable
1 c o
vegetation

1 Usein this case appropriate

o nf 4 Confusedwith vegetation
association
n us as 2 No definition;use acceptable
f ed so 2 No
definition;use acceptable
u cia 4 No definition;confusedwith association
wi tio
2
vegetation

s 4 th n No definition;use acceptable
e 4 Confusedwith association
d
vegetation

Gavedefin
w ition;som vegetation

i etimescon 4 Confusedwith association

t 3 fusedwith
C
vegetation

4 hassociation 4 No confusedwith association

o
N nf as
o us so
definition; vegetation

c 3 No definition;sometimesconfusedwith association
definition; vegetation

ed ci
o wi ati
vegeta 4 Confusedwith association vegetation
n 4 th on
tion
f vegetation

u vegetation
2 defined statistics
s 2 No
e definition;use acceptable Only through

d 2 No 2 defined statistics
w definition;use acceptable
i 2 No Only through
t definition;use questionable
1
4 hassociation 2 No
veget
definition;use 1 Used to Daubenmire's definition
definition; ation questionable
3
t Implies
"unsuitable"habita
2 No according (1968)

definition;use acceptable 2 No definition;use acceptable

2 3 No 2 No definition;use acceptable
definition;
sometimes 2 No definition;use acceptable
Incompletedefinition confused 2 No
definition;use acceptable

--
 Plea for standardterminology * Hallet al. 177
Table2. (continued) of 50 reviewedfor theirdefinitionsand consistenciesin use of habitat-relatedterms,as
compared
U
Ratings papers

to our standarddefinitionsof the N of 1 = a termwas defined to our definitionand was used

2 = no concepts. rating similarly
consistently
the or an was for a butthe use of the termwas similarto our
incompleteone, use;
=
throughout article; definition, provided term,

3 = no definitionfor a termwas given, or the use of the termfluctuatedbetween being correctand incorrectin the article;and 4
neitherof the criteriaunder"1"was met.

Natural habitat
Reference Term Microhabitat
Yoakumet al. 1980 used Habitat
Kisselland 1992 Habitat type
Kennedy Habit Habitatselection
Suitable habitat "Lessdesirable" habitat
at
Habit Habitat
Koehlerand Hornocker1991 Habitat
atutili Habitat

zation type
Habitat Habitatuse
t Habitat selection
Kondolf1994 y
Laymon
and Barrett1986
p Habitat
e Habitat selection
Litvaitiset al. 1994 Habit Habitat
preference
at Habitatuse
Habit Habitat use
atuse Habitat selection
Mannanet al. 1994 Habit Habitat
attype Habitat
McCoy and Bell 1991 Habit Habitat
at Habitat
Habit
Morrisonet al. 1991 at
Habitat Habitattype
s preference Habitat selection
Habitat
uit
Morrisonet al. 1994 ab Optimum habitat
ilit
of habitat

Murphy
1988
Availability
y Habitat
Ha Habitat
Ockenfelset al. 1991 bit habitat
at Occupied
Habit Suitablehabitat Highvalue habitat
atuse Habitat type
Habit Habitat
Patton1992:43-44
atsele Habitat type
Pauley et al. 1993 ction Habitatuse
Habitat Habitat
p
ref Quality habitat
ere
Peek 1986:2,82 nc
e
Ha
bit
at
Plumband Dodd 1993 Habit
and 1986 at
Rosenberg Raphael Habit
Samueland Fuller1994 atstru
Smithand Mannan1994 cture
and Samson1986 Habitat

Spowart t
y
p
e
Habit
at
Habit
1992 atuse
Tershy
EE.UU. of
Habit
Department 1992
atsele
Agriculture ction
Habit
at
Whiteand Rails1993 Wielgusand
Bunnell1994
 definedthroughstatistics
Rating Reason a Shouldnot use; impliesthereis unsuitablehabitat
s No definition;statementnot supported
3
No definition;sometimesconfusedwith s
No definition;use acceptable
2 vegetation o
4 No definition;used c Confusedwith association
2 i vegetation
acceptable Only defined statisticsused

2 a through
Confusedwit Only defined statisticsused

4 t through
h Incomplete
definition

3 i
association vegetation
definition

2 o Incomplete
3 No definition;use n
1 acceptable
No definition;use No definition;use acceptable
1 v
1 acceptable e
No
definition;use acceptable
1 Confusedwit g No definition;use acceptable
definition

2 h e Incomplete
3 association vegetation
t No definition;use acceptable
a Incompletedefinition;sometimesconfusedwithvegetation
No definition;sometimesconfusedwith
3
association
4 vegetation t
1 i Confusedwith association
No definition;use vegetation
1 acceptable o
2 No n No definition;use acceptable
3 Confusedwit No definition;use questionable
2 definition; h No definition;is basedon densityof
animals No definition;use acceptable
4
4 use a No definition;sometimesconfusedwith landscapeproperties No
4 questionab s
definition;use acceptable
Use appropriatein this case
2
3 le s
o
Shouldnot use; impliesthereis unsuitablehabitat
No definition;use questionable
Confusedwith
3 c
1 i
landscapeproperties
No
2 a
definition; sometimes confused with vegetation association
4 t
Confusedwith association
No definition;use vegetation
2 acceptable i
2 o No definition;use acceptable
No definition;said it No definition;use acceptable
2 n
was too difficultto No definition;use questionable
2
1 define
v
1 Provided
e
2 defini
g
2 tion; e
2 not t
2 speci a
2 es- t
3 specif i
ic o
4 poor n
Confusingmeaning
Only

2
2
4
2 No definition;use
3 acceptable
2
No definition;sometimesconfusedwith
1 vegetation
3 No definition;use
2 acceptable
4 Confusedwit
3 h
4
2 association vegetation
2 Confusedwit
2 h
---
 178 Wildlife Society Bulletin 1997, 25(1):173-182
quently, the quantification of availabilityusually consists of a
for an animal at another time. We therefore think
priori or a posteriori measures of the abundance of resources in
an area used by an animal, rather than the availability. Thus, we that it is appropriate to use "nonhabitat"in some
instances, but with care.
think that in most instances the term "availability" should be
We think that the terms "unused"or "unoccupied" habitat
avoided by biologists and the term "abundance" should be used
instead because that is what is com monly measured. In ate when (and the converse of the terms) are appropri-

situations where the accessibility of a ecologists are discussing

resource has been determined for an reduced in numbers that threatened, endangered, or rare species that are so
they cannot use some areas of habitat,
animal, then analyses to determine habitat preference by but would do so if their numbers were greater and they had the
comparing "use" versus "availability"are opportunity. Additionally, the term
useful and is appropriate when discussing species (of any abundance)
operational. that
exploit patchy resources, where
We think that "habitatquality" refers to the ability of the unused patches frequently occur, at least
temporarily."Unused"and "unoccupied" habitat are not
environment to provide conditions appropriate for individual and
synonymous with "non-habitat."
population persistence. It should be considered a continuous
We think that terms such as "macrohabitat"and
variable, ranging from low to medium to high, based on "microhabitat" are relative and refer to the level
resources survival, reproduction,
available for
(Johnson 1980) at which a study is being conducted for the
and population persistence, respectively. Researchers animal in question. Thus macro- and micro-habitat
habitat with
commonly equate high-quality vegetative features should be defined on a study-specific and species-specific
basis. Generally, macrohabitat is used to refer to
that may contribute to the presence (or absence) of a species (e.g., or zones of
Habitat Index landscape-scale features such as seral stages
Suitability models; Lay-mon and Barrett 1986, specific vegetation associations (Block and Brennan 1993).
Morrison et al. 1991). We
This would usually equate to Johnson's (1980) first level
think, however, that quality should be explicitly linked with
demographic features if it is to be a useful measure. For example, ("order") of habitat selection. Microhabitat usually refers
theoretical discussions of to finer-scaled habitat features, such as would be
carrying capacity (Leopold 1933, Dasmann et al. 1973) have
important in levels 2-4 in Johnson's (1980) hierarchy.
equated a high-quality habitat with one that has a density of Thus, it is appropriate to use micro- and macrohabitat in a
animals in balance with its resources. In practice, this has rel-
been interpreted to mean that a high-qualityhabitat is one ative sense, and the scales to which
with large densities of animals (Laymon and Barrett 1986). should be stated explicitly.
However, Van Home (1983) demonstrated that density is Finally, "criticalhabitat"is used primarily as a legal
a misleading indicator of habitat quality, and those confirming
term
describing the
physical
or
biological
source and sink habitats in nature (Pul-
liam
1988, features essential to the conservation of a species, which
Wootton toand Bell 1992) have persuaded may require special management considerations or
that protection (U.S. Fish and Wild. Serv. 1988). Criticalhabi-
many ecologists de-emphasize density. Thus, we propose
although carrying capacity can be equated with some level of tat can occur in areas within or outside the geographic
habitat quality, habitat quality itself should not be based on range of a species (Schreiner 1976, U.S. Fish and Wild.
but on Serv. 1988). We think that this definition is
numbers of organisms, demographics of individuals or
specific enough ecologically to allow for
not
populations. easy and rapid delineation of critical areas for threatened and
Relatedly, the term "suitable"habitat should not be used endangered organisms, nor is it concrete enough to satisfy
because if an organism occupies an area that supports at Wildlife
many parties concerned with U.S. Fish and
least some of its needs, then it is habitat. So, by definition
.
then, habitat is suitable Thus, there is no such thing as listing decisions
(e.g., public interest groups and
unsuitable habitat, because it is
not the
the
quality that lawyers). Thus, we propose that critical habitat should be
specifically linked with the concept of
changes, suitability per se. Terms such as which to to
high-qualityhabitat, equates an area's ability
"nonhabitat,"especially when used to identify parts of a
"home range" not used by an ani
mal
during a
study,
provide resources for
population persistence; Mur-phy
can and Noon (1991) reached the same conclusion.
be misleading. We caution This makes it an operational and ecological term rather than a
habitat
that (1) home range is not necessarily equivalent to political term.
(Burt 1943) and (2) unused portions of a paper (Table 2) according
We rated each

home
range any given study may provide habitat
in to how authors used habitat terms compared with our
definitions and how used the terms in
consistently they
 Plea for standard terminology * Hall et al. 179

rating
the article. A of 1
("correct") was assigned if a Finally, we identified 3 terms-"abandoned," "unused,"
definition similar in intention to the definition we
and "occupied" habitat-that were all rated as correct
provided was given for the term and if the term was
used
uses. The term abandoned was used cor-
consistently throughout the article. A of
to refer to habitat that was no longer
rating
rectly
were met. A
4 ("incorrect") was given if none of these criteria endangered species in Arizona,
used by
an
rating of 2
("weak")
was if
and the term occupied was used correctly
given no definition was provided
but the use of the to refer to habitat still being used by
or if the definition was incom plete,
term was similar to our standard definition. threatened and rare species. Unused habitat was used to describe
A rating of 3 ("poor") was given if no definition was provided and analyses of "used" versus "unused" areas within home ranges,
the use of the term fluctuated between being "correct" and and the authors (Clark et al. 1993) correctly stated that ran domly
"incorrect" in selected "unused" areas often include
the same article. used habitats.

Results Discussion
Of the 50 articles we reviewed, only 9 (18%) correctly Habitat
terminology was used
vaguely
and

defined and used terms related to imprecisely

in the
majority (82%) of articles we reviewed. Some
habitat (Table 2). Of these 9 papers, 6 contained may argue with us for ranking articles as "weak" if they did not
of 2
>2 habitat-related terms; these, only correctly defined and provide complete definitions of terms. We counter this with
several points. First, wildlife scientists have to use words
used all of the habitat-relatedterms in each paper. Of the 50
articles we reviewed, 47 used the term "habitat,"and of these correctly to communicate with each other. We think that there is
articles, habitat was defined and used cor- a
in the sciences: we
rectly
or
in
only 5no definition
of
47 papers (11%).
was
It was used
and it
deep-seated problem ecological use terms
weakly poorly (e.g., given was haphazardly, either without providing definitions, or providing
sometimes confused with a vegetation associa- terms.
definitions that are full of vague, non-operational
tion) in 34 of 47 papers (72%), and it was used incor- "habitat"
Fortunately, and related terms are relatively
rectly (e.g., was not defined and was confused with a straightforwardto define. Unfortunately, other words in the
in 8 of
vegetation association) 47 papers (17%). literature
are more difficult.
The term most commonly used incorrectly was "habitat type." (e.g., carrying capacity, community, ecosystem)
Of the 17 times it occurred, it was
used 16 times to refer to (1991:81-82) suggested that without
Peters
incorrectly (94%) a vegeta- clear, operational definitions, different
tion association. In only 1 instance was the term used as it was users may develop inconsistent definitions.
first defined by Daubenmire (1968); we rated this as a correct use Each new author in each new paper redefines a term, definitions
and authors whatever def
because of the reference to Daubenmire's original definition. proliferate, finally, present initions suit
their own needs.
Another problem we identified was the failure to define a term Second, we should consider the need for effective
except through the statistical analysis used to determine its communication with scientists in other disciplines. There are
habitat and conservation
presence or absence. For example, use, selection, large differences in how wildlife scientists,
availabilitywere not
defined conceptually in 23 of 28 papers (82%). How-
biologists, plant ecologists, theoretical

ever, in 7 instances the authors concluded that animals exhibited ecologists, and restoration ecologists use habitat-
P-values
"use"or "selection" when there were significant
related words. The schism between so-called basic and
applied sciences alreadyruns deep; the misuse of eco logical
in tests of use versus measures of terms among scientists makes the chasm wider. There are many
Habitat was used
"availability." preference correctly
2 of 6 times and
ecological problems to which
we must
jointly attend
only (33%) weakly
4
times (67%). (Meffe and Carroll 1994); thus,
We found several adjectives used to describe habi
tat
quality: we suggest that our terminology be tightened so that scientists
"high value," "less desirable," "unfavor able," can cooperate effectively to solve problems.
"quality,""optimum," and "suitable"habitats. rated, Finally, the recent increase in the
These were

collectively, as weak in 1 case number of scientists called to be expert witnesses at

(12.5%), poor in 6 cases (75%), and incorrect in 1 case court hearings (Murphy and Noon 1991) troubles many ecologists.
(12.5%). We found only 1-2 references each for "critical They wonder whether professionals in the natural
habitat," "habitatstructure," "microhabitat,"and sciences are
capable of providing the definitive answers sought by
"macrohabitat." Collectively, use of these terms was lawyers. Controversies such as that over the northern spotted owl
rated as weak (50%), poor (25%), or incorrect (25%). (Strix occidentalis oc-
 180 Wildlife Society Bulletin 1997, 25(1):173-182
of deer: edge effects in northern Wisconsin. Conserv. Biol.
cidentalis) have raised scientists' concerns about the accuracy
their data et al. scientists 2:348-355.
(Thomas 1990); should also worry about
S.
the accuracy of their termi- ANDERSON, H., AND K. J. GUTZWILLER. 1994. Habitat evaluation
If we cannot our and methods. Pages 592-606 in T. A. Bookhout, ed. Research and
nology. operationalize concepts
management techniques for wildlife and habitats, Fifth ed. The
theories, and use
habitat
terms
consistently,
then we
Wildl. Soc., Bethesda, Md.
cannot blame lawyers, the
media,
and the
BE.LL,S. S., E. D. McCoY, AND H. R. MUSIINSKY. 1991. Habitat struc-
public
for
being confused
by
our
ambiguities. ture: the
physical arrangement of objects in space. Chapman
and
Hall, London, U.K. 438pp.
Recommendations . AND P. R. . Habitat use col-
We recommend the
following procedures to BELLANTONI, S., KRAUSMAN1993. by
lared peccaries in an urban environment. Southwest. Nat.
help alleviate problems in defining habitat-related and other
terms: 38:345-351.
1. Until scientists use habitat-relatedterms consistently, R. AND B. J. TUCKER. 1991. Ameri-
we should define habitat concepts in such a
BISSONETTE,J. A., J. FREDERICKSON,

way as to address all of the points stressed earlier in this paper:

can marten: a case for
landscape-level management. Pages
115-134 inJ. E. Rodiek and E. G. Bolen, eds. Wildlife and habi-
i.e., words used in definitions should be measurable and
accurate. tats in managed landscapes. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
2. Authors should cite references to the first instance and use W. M.,ANDL. A. BRENNAN. The habitat concept in or-
of terminology, or use a reference with definitions following the BLOCK, 1993.

For and
criteria we listed above. example, Leopold (1933) first defined nithology: theory Pages 35-91 in D. M.
applications.

and discussed carrying capacity, but Leopold is seldom cited for Power, ed. Current ornithology. Vol. 11. Plenum Press, New
N.Y.
coining the
term. Authors
discussing carrying York,
L. D. AND F. CORSI.
1994.
and ac-

capacity should therefore cite Leopold as the originator of

BOITANI, L., MATTEI, NONIS, Spatial
tivity patterns
of wild boars in
Tuscany, Italy. J. Mammal.
the
concept, and then present operational modifications of 75:600-612.
the concept if necessary. . A. 1994. Research and for
3. Scientists must make a serious commitment to BOOKHOUT, management techniques
standardizing terminology. It will require us to learn definitions wildlife and habitats. Fifth ed. The Wildl. Soc., Bethesda, Md.
about how to
and to talk frankly with our peers 740pp.
define nebulous terms. It will be worth the BOYD, R. J., A. Y. COOPERRIDER, P. C. LENT, AND J. A. BAILEY.
1986.
time and effort, however, because we will gain a terminology in A. Y. R. and
Ungulates. Pages 519-564 Cooperrider, J. Boyd, H. R.
that is more science than art.
Stuart, eds. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Dep.
Inter., Bur. Land Manage. Serv. Cent., Denver, Colo.
Acknowledgments. J. Heffelfinger and R. W. Man- BROWN, R. L. 1994. Effects of timber management practices on elk.
nan reviewed earlier drafts of the manuscript and Ariz. Game and Fish Dep. Tech. Rep. 10. 70pp.
BROWN, J. S., B. P. KOTLER,ANI) W. A. MITCHELL. 1994. Foraging
viewers and of Desert
made many helpful suggestions. Two anonymous re theory, patch use, the structure a Negev
provided us with further
insightful suggestions, and
the
granivore community. Ecology 75:2286-2300.
paperwas also substantially improved by the BRYANT, F. C. 1991. Managed habitats for deer in juniper woodlands of
comments of J. A. Wiens. This study was supported by western Texas. Pages 57-75 in J. E. Rodiek and E. G. Bolen,
eds.
Wildlife
the Wildlife and Fisheries Program, School and
habitats
in
managed landscapes.
Island
Press,
of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Ari-zona, Tucson.
Washington, D.C.
BURKEIT, D. W., AND B. C. THOMPSON.1994. Wildlife association

Literature cited with human-altered water sources in semiarid veg etation

ADAM,M. D., M. J. LAcKI,ANDT. G. BARNES. 1994. Foraging areas communities. Conserv. Biol. 8:682-690.
W. H. and home as
and habitat use of the
Virginia big-eared bat in BIRT, 1943. Territoriality
applied to mammals. J. Mammal. 24:346-352.
range concepts
Kentucky. J. Wildl. Manage. 58:462-469.
A.LABY, M. 1992. The concise Oxford dictionary of zoology. M. of
BUTYNSKI, T. 1990. Comparative ecology blue monkeys (Cer-
Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K. 508pp. copitbaecus mitis) in high- and low-density subpopulations. Ecol.
Alverson, W.S., D. M. ANDS. L. SOIHEIM1988.. Forests too Monogr. 60:1-26.
WALLER,
CIARK, J. D., J. E. DUNN, AND K. G. SMITH.1993. A multivariate
model of female black bear habitat use for a geographic
information system. J. Wildl. Manage. 57:519-526.
COOPERRIDER,A. Y., R. J. BOYD, AND H. R. STUART. 1986. Inventory and
monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur. Land
Manage. Serv. Cent., Denver, Colo. 858pp.
DASMANN, R. F., J. P. MILTON, AND P. H. FREEMIAN. 1973. Ecological
principles for economic development. John Wiley and Sons,
U.K.
London, 252pp.

DAUBENMIRE,R. 1968. Plant communities: a textbook of plant

synecology. Harper and Row, New York, N.Y. 300pp.
DEBINSKI, D. M., AND P. F. BRUSSARD. 1994. Using biodiversity data to
National
assess species-habitat relationships in Glacier Park,
Montana. Ecol. Appl. 4:833-843.
ETCHBERGER,R. C., P. R. KRAUSMAN,ANID R. MAZAIKA. 1989. Mountain
sheep habitat characteristics in the Pusch Ridge Wilderness,
Arizona. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:902-907.
 Plea forstandardterminology* Hallet al.
181
T. A.
Bookhout, ed. Research and management
FLEMING,T. H. 1991. The relationship between body size, diet, and techniques for wildlife and habitats. Fifth ed. The Wildl. Soc., Bethesda, Md.
habitat use in frugivorous bats, genus Carollia (Phyllostomi- R. R. N.
MANNAN, W., CONNER, B.
dae). J. Mamíferos.72:493-501. MARCOT, AND J. M. PEEK. 1994.
FOWLER, C. W., ANDT. D. SMITH. 1981. Dynamics of large Managing forestlands for wildlife. Pages 689-721 in
mammal T. A.
populations. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y. 477pp.
FRANK,D. A., ANDS. J. McNAUGHTON.1992. The ecology of plants,
large mammalian herbivores, and drought in
Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 73:2043-2058.
FRANKLIN,W. L., AND W. E. JOHNSON. 1994. Hand capture of new-
born
open-habitat ungulates: the South American guanaco.
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 22:253-259.
GOI.DSMITH, A. E. 1990. Vigilance behavior of pronghorns in different
habitats. J. Mammal. 71:460-462.
GOULD,J. H., ANDK. J. JENKINS.1993. Seasonal use of
conservation reserve program lands by white-tailed deer in
east-central South Dakota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:250-255.
GRINNELL, J. 1917. The niche-relationships of the California
thrasher. Auk 34:427-433.
L.
GYSEL, W., AND L. J. LYON. 1980. Habitat analysis and evaluation.
Pages 305-327 Schemnitz, ed. Wildlife management
in S. D.

techniques manual, Fourth ed.

The
Wildl. Soc., Washington,
D.C.
HUtTCHINSON,G. E. 1957. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring
Harbor Symp. on Quant. Biol. 22:415-427.
R. L.
HUrrrO, 1985. Habitat selection by nonbreeding, migratory
land birds. Pages 455-476 in M. L. Cody, ed. Habitat selection
in birds. Academic Press, Orlando, Fla.
L. G.
IRWIN, L., J. COOK, D. E. MCWHIRTER,S. G. SMITH, AND E. B. AR-
NETT1993..
Assessing winter dietary quality in bighorn sheep via
fecal nitrogen. J. Wildl. Manage. 57:413-421.
F. E.
JAKSIC, M., J. JIMENEZ, R. G. MEDEL, AND P. A. MARQUET. 1990.
Habitat and diet of Darwin's fox (Pseudalopexfulvipes) Chilean
mainland. J. Mammal. 71:246-248.
1980. The
comparison of
usage
and
availability
measurements for
evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65-71.
V. C.
KIE,J. G., BIE.ICH,A. L. MEDINA, J. O. YOAKUM, ANDJ. W. THOMAS.
1994. Managing rangelands for wildlife. Pages 663-688 in T.
A. Bookhout, ed. Research and management techniques for
wildlife and habitats. Fifth ed. The Wildl. Soc., Bethesda, Md.
R. AND M. L. KENNEDY.
KISSELL, E., 1992. Ecological
relationships of
of
co-occurring populations opossums (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoons
(Procyon lotor) in Tennessee. J. Mammal.
73:808-813.
ANI) M. G. HORNOCKER. 1991. Seasonal resource
use
among mountain lions, bobcats, and coyotes. J. Mammal.
72:391-396.
KONDOLF,G. M. 1994. Livestock grazing and habitat for a threatened
the White
species: land-use decisions under scientific uncertainty in
Mountains, California, USA. Environ.
Manage. 18:501-509.
S. R. H. BARRETT.
LAYMON, A, AND 1986. Developing and testing habitat-
models: and
capability pitfalls recommendations. Pages
in
87-91 J. Verner, M. L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph, eds. Wildlife
2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. Univ.
Wisconsin Press, Madison.
New
LEOPOLD, A. 1933. Game management. Charles Scribner's Sons,
York, N.Y. 481pp.
K. AND
LITVAITIS, J. A., TITUS, E. M. ANDERSON1994.. Measuring ver-
tebrate use of terrestrial habitats and foods. Pages 254-274
in
 SCHREINER,K. M. 1976. Critical habitat: what it is and is not.
Bookhout, ed. Research and management techniques for Tech.
Endangered Species Bull. 1:1-4.
wildlife and habitats. Fifth ed. The Wildl. Soc., Bethesda, Md.
McCoY,E. D., ANDS. S. BELL1991.. Habitat structure: the
evolution and diversification of a complex topic. Pages 3-27 in
S. S. Bell, E. D. McCoy, and H. R. Mushinsky, eds. Habitat
of in
structure: the physical arrangement objects space.
Chapman and Hall, New York, N.Y.
MEFFE, G. K., AND C. R. CARROLL. 1994. Principles of conservation
biology. SinauerAssoc., Sunderland, Mass. 600pp.
MORRISON, M. L., B. G. MARCOT, AND R. W. MANNAN.1992. Wildlife-
habitat
Wis-
relationships: concepts and applications. Univ.
consin Press, Madison. 343pp.
MORRISON,M. L., T. TENNANT,ANDT. A. SCOTT1994..
Environmen
tal
auditing: laying the
foundation
of restoration for
for a comprehensive program wildlife habitat
in a riparianfloodplain. Environ. Manage. 18:939-955.
MORRISON, M. L., W. M. BLOCK, AND J. VERNER. 1991. Wildlife-habitat
from here?
relationships in California'soak woodlands: where do we go
Pages 105-109 in
Proceedings of the symposium on California's
oak woodlands and hardwood rangeland. U.S. Dep. Agric. For.
Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-126.
MURPHY,D. D. to un
1988. Challenges biological diversity
urban
areas. Pages 71-76 in E. O. Wilson and F. M. Peter, eds.
Biodi-
Natl. Acad.
versity. Press, Washington, D.C.
AND
MURPHY,D. D., B. D. NOON.1991. Coping with uncertainty
in wildlife biology. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:773-782.
OCKENFELS,R. A., D. E. BROOKS,ANDC. H. LEWIS1991.. General
ecology of Coues' white-tailed deer in the Santa Rita Mountains.
Ariz. Game and Fish Dep. Tech. Rep. 6. 73pp.
ODUJM,E. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology, Third ed. W. B.
Saunders Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 574pp.
ORIANS, G. H. 1993. Endangered at what level? Ecol. Appl.
3:206-208.
PATTON,D. R. 1992. Wildlife habitat relationships in forested
Timber
ecosystems. Press, Portland, Oreg. 392pp.
G. AND
PAULEY, R., J. M. PEEK, P. ZAGAR. 1993. Predicting white-
tailed deer habitat use in northern Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage.
57:904-913.
M.
PEEK,J. 1986. A review of wildlife management. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 486pp.
PETERS,R. H. 1991. A critique for ecology. CambridgeUniv. Press,
U.K.
Cambridge, 366pp.
PLUMB, G. E., AND J. L. DODD. 1993. Foraging ecology of bison and cattle on a

mixed prairie: implications for natural area management. Ecol.

Appl. 3:631-643.
H. R.
PULLIAM, 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation.
Am. Nat. 132:652-661.
RODIEK, J. E., AND E. G. BOLEN. 1991. Wildlife and habitats in man-
Island
aged landscapes. Press, Washington, I.C. 219pp. ROMESBURG, H. C.
1981. Wildlife science: gaining reliable knowl-
edge. J. Wildl. Manage. 45:293-313.
ROSENBERG,K. V., AND M. G. RAPHAEL. 1986. Effects of forest
fragmentation on vertebrates in Douglas-firforests. Pages 263-272
M.
inJ. Verner, L. Morrison, and C.J. Ralph, eds. Wildlife 2000:
modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. Univ.
Wisconsin Press, Madison.
AND M. R. FULL.ER. 1994. Wildlife radiotelemetry.

Pages 370-418 in T. A. Bookhout, ed. Research and management

techniques for wildlife and habitats, Fifth ed. The Wildl. Soc.,
Bethesda, Md.
SCHEMNITZ,.D., editor. 1980. Wildlife management techniques
manual, Fourth ed. The Wildl. Soc., Bethesda, Md. 686pp.
 182 WildlifeSociety Bulletin1997, 25(1):173-182
SMITH, A. A., AND R. W. MANNAN. 1994. Distinguishing character-
sitics of Mt. Graham red squirrel midden sites. J. Wildl.
Manage. 58:437-445.
SPOWART, R. A., AND F. B. SAMSON. 1986. Carnivores. Pages
475-496 in A. Y. Cooperrider, R. J. Boyd, and H. R. Stuart, eds. Inventory
and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Dep. of Inter., Bur. Land
Manage. Serv. Cent., Denver, Colo.
TERSHY,B. R. 1992. Body size, diet, habitat use, and social behavior of
Balaenoptera whales in the Gulf of California. J. Mammal. 73:477-486.
THOMAS,J. W., E. D. FORSMAN,J. B. LINT,E. C. MESLOW,B. R. NOON,
AND J. VERNER.1990. A conservation strategy for the northern
owl. U.S.
spotted Gov. Printing Off., Washington, D.C.
U.S. DEPARTMENTOF AGRICULTURE. 1992. Coronado National Forest
Plan. U.S. Gov.
Printing Off., Washington, D.C. 130pp.
U.S. FISHANDWII.DLFESERVICE1988.. Endangered species Linnea S. Hall (right)is an Assistant Professor of Avian Ecology and Wildlife
act of 1973, as amended through the 100th Congress. U.S. Dep. Biology at California State University, Sacramento. She received her B.S. in
Inter., Washington, D.C. Biological Sciences from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo;
VAN HORNE, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat her M.S. in Wildland Resource University
Science from the of
California,
quality. J. Wildl. Manage. 47:893-901. Berkeley; and her Ph.D
in Wildlife
Ecology from the of
University Arizona,
VERNER, J., M. L. MORRISON, AND C.J. RALPH. 1986. Introduction. Dr. lection
Tucson. Hall has conducted large- and small-scaled studies of habitat se
Pages xi-xv in J. Verer, M. L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph, eds. by bird, mammal, and herpetile species. Recent
Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial publications also address breeding behavior of birds, and linking
vertebrates. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. management and research together for effective wildlife conservation. Lin-
nea's
WECKER,S.C. 1964. Habitat selection. Sci. Am. 211:109-116. professional interests lie in the of
development multi-species
conservation
WECKERIY,F. W. 1992. Territorialityin North American deer: a
strategies and also in
determining
how
high-quality habitats ultimately
call relate to individual animal success. Paul R. Krausman (center) is Professor of
for a common definition. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20:228-231. Wildlife and Fisheries Science
AND RALLS. and Associate Director of the Arizona Agricultural ExperimentSta-tion at the
WHITE, P. J., K. 1993. Reproduction and spacing University of Arizona, Tucson. He received his B.S. in
patterns of kit foxes relative to changing prey availability. J. Zoology from Ohio State University, his M.S. in Wildlife Management from
New Mexico State University, and his Ph.D in Wildlife Science from the University of
Wildl. Manage. 57:861-867.
Wielgus, R. B., and F. L. Bunnell. 1994. Sexual segregation and female Idaho. His research interests have revolved around large mammals in the Southwest,
in India. He teaches graduate and undergraduate classes
and more recently,
grizzly bear avoidance of males. J. Wildl. Manage. 58:405-413. in management, conservation, and biology. Paul
wildlife

WIENS, J. A. 1972. Anuran habitat selection: early experience and has been actively involved with The Wildlife Society for nearly 2
decades. Michael L. Morrison (left) was a Professorof Wildlife Biology at the
substrate selection in Rana cascadae tadpoles. Anim. Behav. 20:218- of from
University California, Berkeley, 1982 to 1994, and has been an Adjunct
220.
Associate Professorof Wildlife Biology at the University of Arizona, Tucson, since
WIENS,J. A. 1981. Scale problems in avian censusing. Stud. Avian 1994, and at California State University, Sacramento, since May 1996. He
Biol. 6:513-521. received his B.S. in Zoology from Northern Arizona
WIENS, J. A. 1984. Resource systems, populations, and University, his M.S. in Wildlife Science from Texas A&M University, and his
communities. Pages 397-436 in P. W. Price, C. N. Ph.D in Wildlife Science from Oregon State University. Dr. Morrison has
Slobodchikoff, and W. published more than 100 research and commentary papers on wildlife-habitat
S. Gaud, eds. A new ecology: novel approaches to interactive and in
and relationships, 1992, he and 2 colleagues authored Wildlife-
systems. John Wiley Sons, New York, N.Y. habitat
relationships: concepts and
applications.
Recent
projects include
WIENS, J. A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecol. studies of hantavirus in rodents in Arizona, the status of mi-
3:385-397. grant birds along the Lower Colorado River and in the mountains of Arizona, and
Wilson, E. 0., and F. M. Peter. 1988. Biodiversity. Natl. Acad. involvement with several large-scale restoration projects for wildlife in
D.C. California.
Press, Washington, 521pp.
AND D. A.
WoOTTrN, J. T., BEI.. 1992. A metapopulation model of
the falcon in California: and
peregrine viability management strategies.
Ecol. Appl. 2:307-321. Associate Editor. Barnes
W. P. H. R.
YOAKIUM,J., DASMANN, SANDERSON, C. M. NIXON, AND H. S.
CRAWFORD. 1980. Habitat improvement techniques. Pages 329-403 in S. D.
Schemnitz, ed. Wildlife management techniques manual. Fourth
ed. The Wildl. Soc., Washington, D.C.