...
首页> 外文期刊>Ecology and Evolution >Our use, misuse, and abandonment of a concept: Whither habitat?
【24h】

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

机译:我们对一个概念的使用,滥用和放弃:栖息地?

获取原文

摘要

Summary 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.
机译:小结栖息地的基本概念是整个生态学的根本,但术语使用不正确会损害科学严谨性以及科学家与非科学家之间的交流。 1997年,霍尔,克劳斯曼和莫里森(Hall,Krausman&Morrison)指出,只有55%的文章正确使用了“ habitat”。我们询问自从其被要求标准化以来,该术语的使用是否更为准确;当代文学(1998-2012年)的期刊和分类单元的使用范围是否有所不同。我们在当代文献中搜索了“栖息地”和与栖息地相关的术语,并按照Hall等人的定义的简化版本将用法分类为正确还是不正确。我们使用广义线性模型来比较该术语在当代文学中的使用与Hall等人所审查的论文。并测试分类单元的影响,当代文章中期刊的影响以及引用霍尔等人的作者的影响。使用“栖息地”一词并没有得到改善;在当代数据中,它仍然只正确使用了大约55%的时间。相较于包括植物在内的文章,以及引用霍尔等人的论文,与动物有关的文章中正确使用的比例更大。确实更经常地使用该术语。但是,期刊影响没有影响。有些栖息地术语比其他栖息地术语更容易被滥用,特别是通常用来指植被类型的“栖息地类型”和“合适的栖息地”或“不合适的栖息地”,它们在定义上是多余的或毫无意义的。该术语使用不正确和不一致会导致(1)对科学发现的误解; (2)保护资源利用效率低下; (3)对保护区的无效识别和优先排序; (4)研究之间的可比性有限; (5)对科学发现的错误传达。正确使用将改善与科学家和非科学家的交流,从而有利于保护工作和生态学。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号