Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 379–388 | Cite as

Spatial scale and the cost of density-dependent habitat selection

  • Douglas W. Morris


Habitat selection costs depend upon the scale of habitat. At the fine-grained microhabitat scale, cost is linked to optimal foraging, and habitat selection should be abandoned even though fitness is greater in one microhabitat than in another. At the coarse-grained macrohabitat scale, cost is linked to emigration, and habitat selection should often be maintained even though fitness may be less in the ‘preferred’ macrohabitat than in others. Macrohabitat selection cost is easily incorporated into habitat selection theory and can be tested by linear regression techniques on isodars (lines of every point at which the fitness of individuals in one habitat equals that of individuals in another). The results of one recent survey of white-footed mice living in different macrohabitats are consistent with the predictions of emigration cost.


Dispersal emigration cost fitness habitat selection isodar macrohabitat microhabitat migration scale 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Charnov, E. L. (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem.Theor. Pop. Biol. 9, 129–36.Google Scholar
  2. Fretwell, S. D. and Lucas, H. R. (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical Development.Acta Bioth. 19, 16–36.Google Scholar
  3. Holt, R. D. (1985) Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution.Theor. Pop. Biol. 28, 181–208.Google Scholar
  4. Morris, D. W. (1982) Age-specific dispersal strategies in iteroparous species: who leaves when?Evol. Theory 6, 53–65.Google Scholar
  5. Morris, D. W. (1987a) Ecological scale and habitat use.Ecology 68, 362–9.Google Scholar
  6. Morris, D. W. (1987b) Tests of density-dependent habitat selection in a patchy environment.Ecol. Monog. 57, 269–81.Google Scholar
  7. Morris, D. W. (in review, a). Habitat-dependent population regulation and community structure.Evol. Ecol. Google Scholar
  8. Morris, D. W. (in review, b). Density-dependent habitat selection: testing assumptions with white-footed mice.Google Scholar
  9. Rosenzweig, M. L. (1974) On the evolution of habitat selection. InProc. 1st Int. Cong. Ecol. pp. 401–4. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wagenigen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  10. Rosenzweig, M. L. (1981) A theory of habitat selection.Ecology 62, 327–35.Google Scholar
  11. Rosenzweig, M. L. (1985) Some theoretical aspects of habitat selection. InHabitat Selection in Birds (M. L. Cody, ed.), pp. 517–40. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  12. Rosenzweig, M. L. and Abramsky, Z. (1986) Centrifugal community organization.Oikos 46, 339–48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall Ltd. 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas W. Morris
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John'sCanada

Personalised recommendations