Niche, Habitat, and Ecotope

Whittaker, R. H.; Levin, Simon A.; Root, Richard B.

doi:10.1086/282837

Cited by 623 publications

(360 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

339

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While useful in its emphasis on functional interactions between the environment and organism activity, it still does not integrate scale. The 'organism-environment linkage' concept is closely allied to that of the 'ecotope' (Whittaker et al, 1973), which views niche and habitat as complementary terms for different sets of attributes that combine to represent the species' relation to the environment. Whittaker et al (1973), however, did make note of the complication presented by highly mobile animals and while not explicit about movement in their definition, they suggest that an ecotope may include "population movement between two different habitats occupied at different times".…”

Section: Habitat and Nichementioning

confidence: 99%

Movements of Marine Fish and Decapod Crustaceans: Process, Theory and Application

Pittman

McAlpine

2003

Advances in Marine Biology

222

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Habitat and Nichementioning

confidence: 99%

Movements of Marine Fish and Decapod Crustaceans: Process, Theory and Application

Pittman

McAlpine

2003

Advances in Marine Biology

222

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In an eco logical sense, a key determinant of this competition is the actual ratio of dominant to contaminant species at the onset of competition. When the contaminant population ;s exceedingly small compared to that of the well established species the opportunities for species displacement are reduced considerably because the niche is already occupied (Whittaker et al, 1973). The same argument applies for explaining the success of both ~ tertiolecta and ~ vulgar.is in avoiding displacement by their respective contaminants when each of these species was firmly established in culture under conditions of optimal pH.…”

Section: -103mentioning

confidence: 92%

Bioengineering Aspects of Inorganic Carbon Supply to Mass Algal Cultures: Final Report

Goldman¹

1981

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In landscape ecology the use of expert knowledge has recently been challenged to adhere to the same scientific rigor as other data sampling (Morgan, 2014). We believe the application of expert knowledge deserves equal attention in terms of the definition of sampling units, and especially in the definition of habitats which should be done in a transparent way (Whittaker et al, 1973;Franklin et al, 2002). …”

Section: How To Define Sampling Units To Ensure Comparability Betweenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, the definition of sampling units is often a task which demands expert knowledge; however, sampling units are often not formally defined before data collection is initiated (Whittaker et al, 1973;Kenkel et al,1989;Franklin et al, 2002;Loehle, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Definition of sampling units begets conclusions in ecology: the case of habitats for plant communities

Mörsdorf

Ravolainen

Støvern³

et al. 2014

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In ecology, expert knowledge on habitat characteristics is often used to define sampling units such as study sites. Ecologists are especially prone to such approaches when prior sampling frames are not accessible. Here we ask to what extent can different approaches to the definition of sampling units influence the conclusions that are drawn from an ecological study? We do this by comparing a formal versus a subjective definition of sampling units within a study design which is based on well-articulated objectives and proper methodology. Both approaches are applied to tundra plant communities in mesic and snowbed habitats. For the formal approach, sampling units were first defined for each habitat in concave terrain of suitable slope using GIS. In the field, these units were only accepted as the targeted habitats if additional criteria for vegetation cover were fulfilled.For the subjective approach, sampling units were defined visually in the field, based on typical plant communities of mesic and snowbed habitats. For each approach, we collected information about plant community characteristics within a total of 11 mesic and seven snowbed units distributed between two herding districts of contrasting reindeer density.Results from the two approaches differed significantly in several plant community characteristics in both mesic and snowbed habitats. Furthermore, differences between the two approaches were not consistent because their magnitude and direction differed both between the two habitats and the two reindeer herding districts. Consequently, we could draw different conclusions on how plant diversity and relative abundance of functional groups are differentiated between the two habitats depending on the approach used. We therefore challenge ecologists to formalize the expert knowledge applied to define sampling units through a set of well-articulated rules, rather than applying it subjectively.We see this as instrumental for progress in ecology as only rules based on expert knowledge are transparent and lead to results reproducible by other ecologists.PeerJ PrePrints | http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.563v1 | CC-BY 4.0 Open Access |

show abstract

Niche, Habitat, and Ecotope

Cited by 623 publications

References 32 publications

Movements of Marine Fish and Decapod Crustaceans: Process, Theory and Application

Movements of Marine Fish and Decapod Crustaceans: Process, Theory and Application

Bioengineering Aspects of Inorganic Carbon Supply to Mass Algal Cultures: Final Report

Definition of sampling units begets conclusions in ecology: the case of habitats for plant communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About