Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 253–269 | Cite as

Habitat-dependent population regulation and community structure

  • Douglas W. Morris


Density-dependence provides a causal link between processes acting at different levels of ecological organization. The linkage between density-dependent habitat use, population regulation and community organization is examined on the basis of qualitative and quantitative differences between habitats. These differences are expressed as characteristic shapes on isodars which are lines of equal fitness, and are plotted in density space as lines at every point of which the fitness of individuals in one habitat is equal to that of individuals in another. Isodars can be constructed for single species or modified to include the effects of interacting species. Isodars are easily analyzed by linear regression to differentiate between alternative modes of population regulation and to suggest patterns of community structure. Different isodars are causally related to different kinds of community structure, and suggest the existence of four new forms of community organization; equal, differential, switched and mixed preferences. A preliminary isodar analysis on a common rodent species demonstrates that population regulation depends upon habitat, and that mixed preferences probably organize the rodent community. Habitat-dependent population regulation has farreaching implications to studies of temporal and spatial scale, and to all ecological processes that are density-dependent.


Community structure density-dependence differential preference ghost of competition habitat selection isodar analysis mixed preference Peromyscus population regulation scale small mammals switched preference 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, P. K. (1970) Ecological structure and gene flow in small mammals.Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. 26, 295–325.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J. S. and Rosenzweig, M. L. (1986) Habitat selection in slowly regenerating environments.J. Theor. Biol. 123, 151–71.Google Scholar
  3. Fagen, R. (1987) A generalized habitat matching rule.Evol. Ecol. 1, 5–10.Google Scholar
  4. Fretwell, S. D. and Lucas, H. L. (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development.Acta Biother. 19, 16–36.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Hurlbert, S. H. (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments.Ecol. Monog. 54, 187–211.Google Scholar
  7. Lidicker, W. Z. Jr (1975) The role of dispersal in the demography of small mammals. InSmall Mammals: Their Production and Population Dynamics (F. B. Golley, K. Petrusewicz and L. Ryszkowski, eds), pp. 103–28. Cambridge University Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Lidicker, W. Z. Jr. (1985) Dispersal. InBiology of New World Microtus (R. H. Tamarin, ed.),pp. 420–54.Amer. Soc. Mammal, Spec. Publ. 8.Google Scholar
  9. MacArthur, R. H. (1972)Geographical Ecology. Harper & Row. NY, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Morris, D. W. (1983). Field tests of competitive interference for space among temperate-zone rodents.Canad. J. Zool. 61, 1517–23.Google Scholar
  11. Morris, D. W. (1984a) Sexual differences in habitat use by small mammals: evolutionary strategy or reproductive constraint?Oecologia 65, 51–7.Google Scholar
  12. Morris, D. W. (1984b) Patterns and scale of habitat use in two temperate-zone small mammal faunas.Canad. J. Zool. 62, 1540–7.Google Scholar
  13. Morris, D. W. (1987a) Ecological scale and habitat use.Ecology 68, 362–9.Google Scholar
  14. Morris, D. W. (1987b) Tests of density-dependent habitat selection in a patchy environment.Ecol. Monog. 57, 267–81.Google Scholar
  15. Morris, D. W. (1987c) Spatial scale and the cost of density-dependent habitat selection.Evol. Ecol. 1, 379–88.Google Scholar
  16. Pimm, S. L. and Rosenzweig, M. L. (1981) Competition and habitat use.Oikos 37, 1–6.Google Scholar
  17. Pimm, S. L., Rosenzweig, M. L. and Mitchell, W. (1985) Competition and food selection: field tests of a theory.Ecology 66, 798–807.Google Scholar
  18. Rosenzweig, M. L. (1974) On the evolution of habitat selection.Pr. 1st Int. Cong. Ecol. 401–4.Google Scholar
  19. Rosenzweig, M. L. (1979) Optimal habitat selection in two-species competitive systems.Fort. Zool. 25, 283–93.Google Scholar
  20. Rosenzweig, M. L. (1981) A theory of habitat selection.Ecology 62, 327–35.Google Scholar
  21. Rosenzweig, M. L. (1985) Some theoretical aspects of habitat selection. In:Habitat Selection in Birds (M. L. Cody, ed.) pp. 517–40. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
  22. Rosenzweig, M. L. Habitat selection, community organization and small mammal studies. InPatterns in the Structure of Mammalian Communities (D. W. Morris, Z. Abramsky, B. J. Fox and M. R. Willig, eds).Spec. Publ. Mus. Texas Tech Univ. (in press).Google Scholar
  23. Rosenzweig, M. L. and Abramsky, Z. (1985) Detecting density-dependent habitat selection.Amer. Natur. 126, 405–17.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenzweig, M. L. and Abramsky, Z. (1986) Centrifugal community organization.Oikos 46, 339–48.Google Scholar
  25. Schroder, G. D. and Rosenzweig, M. L. (1975) Perturbation analysis of competition and overlap in habitat utilization betweenDipodomys ordii andDipodomys merriami.Oecologia 19, 9–28.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, M. H., Manlove, M. N. and Joule, J. (1978) Spatial and temporal dynamics of the genetic organization of small mammal populations. InPopulations of Small Mammals Under Natural Conditions (D. P. Snyder, ed.), pp. 99–113.Pymat. Lab. Ecol. Spec. Publ. 5.Google Scholar
  27. Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. (1981)Biometry, 2nd edn. W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Stewart-Oaten, A., Murdoch, W. W. and Parker, K. R. (1986) Environmental impact assessment: ‘pseudoreplication’ in time?Ecology 67, 929–40.Google Scholar
  29. Van Horne, B. (1983) Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality.J. Wildlife Mgemnt. 47, 893–901.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall Ltd. 1988

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations