The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology

TLDR: The authors compared the uses and definitions of habitat-related terms in 50 articles from 1980 to 1994 to operational definitions derived from the literature, and concluded that habitat terminology was used vaguely in 82% of the articles.

Abstract: We compared the uses and definitions of habitat-related terms in 50 articles from 1980 to 1994 to operational definitions we derived from the literature. Only 9 (18%) of the arti- cles we reviewed defined and used habitat-related terms consistently and according to our definitions of the terms. Forty-seven articles used the term "habitat;" however, it was only defined and used consistent with our definition in 5 articles (11 %) and was confused with vegetation association or defined incompletely in 42 papers (89%). "Habitat type" was the term most commonly used incorrectly; 1 6 of 1 7 times (94%) it was used to indi- cate vegetation association, but habitat and vegetation association are not synonymous. Authors did not provide definitions for habitat use, selection, preference, or availability 23 of 28 times (82%). We concluded that habitat terminology was used vaguely in 82% of the articles we reviewed. This distorts our communication with scientists in other dis- ciplines and alienates the public because we give ambiguous, indefinite, and unstandard- ized answers to ecological questions in public and legal situations. Scientists should de- fine and use habitat terminology operationally, so that the concepts are measurable and accurate. We must take the challenge to standardize terminology seriously, so that we can make meaningful statements to advance science.