Oecologia

, Volume 136, Issue 1, pp 1–13

Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection

Review

Abstract

Habitat selection, and its associated density and frequency-dependent evolution, has a profound influence on such vital phenomena as population regulation, species interactions, the assembly of ecological communities, and the origin and maintenance of biodiversity. Different strategies of habitat selection, and their importance in ecology and evolution, can often be revealed simply by plots of density in adjacent habitats. For individual species, the strategies are closely intertwined with mechanisms of population regulation, and with the persistence of populations through time. For interacting species, strategies of habitat selection are not only responsible for species coexistence, but provide one of the most convenient mechanisms for measuring competition, and the various community structures caused by competitive interactions. Other kinds of interactions, such as those between predators and prey, demonstrate that an understanding of the coevolution of habitat-selection strategies among strongly interacting species is essential to properly interpret their spatial and temporal dynamics. At the evolutionary scale, the frequency dependence associated with habitat selection may often allow populations to diverge and diversify into separate species. Habitat selection thereby demonstrates how we can map microevolutionary strategies in behavior onto their population and community consequences, and from there, onto macroevolutionary patterns of speciation and adaptive radiation. We can anticipate that future studies of habitat selection will not only help us complete those maps, but that they will also continue to enrich the panoply of ideas that shape evolutionary ecology.

Keywords

Competition Evolutionary strategies Isodar Ghost of competition Speciation 

References

  1. Abrahams MV, Dill LM (1989) A determination of the energetic equivalence of the risk of predation. Ecology 70:999–1007Google Scholar
  2. Abrams PA (1999) The adaptive dynamics of consumer choice. Am Nat 153:83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abrams PA (2000) The evolution of predator-prey interactions: theory and evidence. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:79–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abrams PA (2001) Describing and quantifying interspecific interactions: a commentary on recent approaches. Oikos 94:209–218Google Scholar
  5. Boughman JW (2001) Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature 411:944–948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boutin S (1990) Experimental addition of food to terrestrial vertebrates: patterns, problems, and the future. Can J Zool 68:203–220Google Scholar
  7. Brown JH, Fox BJ, Kelt DA (2000) Assembly rules: desert rodent communities are structured at scales from local to continental. Am Nat 156:314–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown JS (1988) Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:37–47Google Scholar
  9. Brown JS (1992) Patch use under predation risk. I. Models and predictions. Ann Zool Fenn 29:301–309Google Scholar
  10. Brown JS (1996) Coevolution and community organization in three habitats. Oikos 75:193–206Google Scholar
  11. Brown JS (1998) Game theory and habitat selection. In: Dugatkin LA, Reeve HK (eds) Game theory and animal behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 188–220Google Scholar
  12. Brown JS (2001a) Ngongas and ecology: on having a worldview. Oikos 94:6–16Google Scholar
  13. Brown JS (2001b) Fit of form and function, diversity of life, and procession of life as an evolutionary game. In: Orzack S, Sober E (eds) Adaptationism and optimality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 114–160Google Scholar
  14. Brown JS, Pavlovic NB (1992) Evolution in heterogeneous environments: effects of migration on habitat specialization. Evol Ecol 6:360-382Google Scholar
  15. Brown JS, Vincent TL (1987) A theory for the evolutionary game. Theor Popul Biol 31:140–166Google Scholar
  16. Brown JS, Laundre JW, Gurung M (1999) The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory and trophic interactions. J Mammal 80:385–399Google Scholar
  17. Brown JS, Kotler BP, Bouskila A (2001) Ecology of fear: foraging games between predators and prey with pulsed resources. Ann Zool Fenn 38:71–87Google Scholar
  18. Danielson BJ (1991) Communities in a landscape: the influence of habitat heterogeneity on the interactions between species. Am Nat 138:1105–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Danielson BJ (1992) Habitat selection, interspecific interactions and landscape composition. Evol Ecol 6:399–411Google Scholar
  20. Dieckmann U, Doebeli M (1998) On the origin of species by sympatric speciation. Nature 400:354–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doebeli M, Dieckmann U (2000) Evolutionary branching and sympatric speciation caused by different types of ecological interactions. Am Nat 156:S77–S101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Doncaster CP (2000) Extension of ideal free resource use to breeding populations and metapopulations. Oikos 89:24–36Google Scholar
  23. Fagen R (1987) A generalized habitat matching rule. Evol Ecol 1:5–10Google Scholar
  24. Fox BJ (1987) Species assembly and the evolution of community structure. Evol Ecol 1:201–213Google Scholar
  25. Fox BJ (1989) Small mammal community pattern in Australian heathland: a taxonomically based rule for species assembly. In: Morris DW, Abramsky Z, Fox B, Willig MR (eds) Patterns in the structure of mammalian communities. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, pp. 91–103Google Scholar
  26. Fox BJ (1999) The genesis and development of guild assembly rules, In: Weiher E, Keddy PA (eds) The search for assembly rules in ecological communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 23–57Google Scholar
  27. Fox BJ, Brown JH (1993) Assembly rules for functional groups in North American desert rodent communities. Oikos 67:358–370Google Scholar
  28. Fox BJ, Brown JH (1995) Reaffirming the validity of the assembly rule for functional groups or guilds. Oikos 73:125–132Google Scholar
  29. Fox BJ, Kirkland GL Jr (1992) An assembly rule for functional groups applied to North American soricid communities. J Mammal 73:491–503Google Scholar
  30. Fretwell SD (1972) Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL Jr (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 14:16–36Google Scholar
  32. Geritz SAH, Kisdi E, Meszéna G, Metz JAJ (1998) Evolutionarily singular strategies and the adaptive growth and branching of the evolutionary tree. Evol Ecol 12:35–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gersani M, Abramsky Z, Falik O (1998) Density-dependent habitat selection in plants. Evol Ecol 12:223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gersani M, Brown JS, O'Brien EE, Maina GM, Abramsky Z (2001) Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competition. J Ecol 89:660–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gilpin ME, Ayala FJ (1973) Global models of growth and competition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 70:3590–3593PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Grand TC, Dill LM (1999) Predation risk, unequal competitors and the ideal free distribution. Evol Ecol Res 1:389–409Google Scholar
  37. Heithaus MR (2001) Habitat selection by predators and prey in communities with asymmetrical intraguild predation. Oikos 92:542–554Google Scholar
  38. Holt RD (1985) Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution. Theor Popul Biol 28:181–208Google Scholar
  39. Holt RD (1987) Population dynamics and evolutionary processes: the manifold roles of habitat selection. Evol Ecol 1:331–347Google Scholar
  40. Holt RD (1996) Adaptive evolution in source-sink environments: direct and indirect effects of density-dependence on niche evolution. Oikos 75:182–192Google Scholar
  41. Holt RD, Gaines MS (1992) Analysis of adaptations in heterogeneous landscapes: implications for the evolution of fundamental niches. Evol Ecol 6:433–447Google Scholar
  42. Houston AI, McNamara JM (1999) Models of adaptive behaviour: an approach based on state. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Kacelnik A, Krebs JR, Bernstein C (1992) The ideal free distribution and predator-prey populations. Trends Ecol Evol 7:50–55Google Scholar
  44. Knight TW (2000) Habitat selection in brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. PhD thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John'sGoogle Scholar
  45. Kotler BP, Blaustein L (1995) Titrating food and safety in heterogeneous environments: when are the risky and safe patches of equal value? Oikos 74:251–258Google Scholar
  46. Łomnicki A (1988) Population ecology of individuals. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  47. Levins R (1962) Theory of fitness in a heterogeneous environment. I. The fitness set and adaptive function. Am Nat 96:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  49. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640Google Scholar
  50. MacArthur RH, Levins R (1964) Competition, habitat selection, and character displacement in a patchy environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 51:1207–1210Google Scholar
  51. Maynard Smith J, Price GR (1973) The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246:15–18Google Scholar
  52. McNamara JM, Houston AI (1990) State-dependent ideal free distributions. Evol Ecol 4:298–311Google Scholar
  53. McNamara JM, Houston AI (1992) State-dependent life-history theory and its implications for optimal clutch size. Evol Ecol 6:70–185Google Scholar
  54. McPeek MA, Holt RD (1992) The evolution of dispersal in spatially and temporally varying environments. Am Nat 140:1010–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McPeek MA, Rodenhouse NL, Holmes RT, Sherry TW (2001) A general model of site-dependent population regulation: population-level regulation without individual-level interactions. Oikos 94:417–424Google Scholar
  56. Milinski M, Parker GA (1991) Competition for resources. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 3rd edn. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 137–168Google Scholar
  57. Mitchell WA, Valone TJ (1990) The optimization research program: studying adaptations by their function. Q Rev Biol 65:43–52Google Scholar
  58. Morin PJ (1999) Community ecology. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  59. Morris DW (1987a) Spatial scale and the cost of density-dependent habitat selection. Evol Ecol 1:379–388Google Scholar
  60. Morris DW (1987b) Tests of density-dependent habitat selection in a patchy environment. Ecol Monogr 57:269–281Google Scholar
  61. Morris DW (1988) Habitat-dependent population regulation and community structure. Evol Ecol 2:253–269Google Scholar
  62. Morris DW (1989) Habitat-dependent estimates of competitive interaction. Oikos 55:111–120Google Scholar
  63. Morris DW (1992) Scales and costs of habitat selection in heterogeneous landscapes. Evol Ecol 6:412–432Google Scholar
  64. Morris DW (1994) Habitat matching: alternatives and implications to populations and communities. Evol Ecol 8:387–406Google Scholar
  65. Morris DW (1995) Habitat selection in mosaic landscapes. In: Hansson L, Fahrig L, Merriam G (eds) Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 111–135Google Scholar
  66. Morris DW (1996a) Temporal and spatial population dynamics among patches connected by habitat selection. Oikos 75:207–219Google Scholar
  67. Morris DW (1996b) Coexistence of specialist and generalist rodents via habitat selection. Ecology 77:2352–2364Google Scholar
  68. Morris DW (1997) Optimally foraging deer mice in prairie mosaics: a test of habitat theory and absence of landscape effects. Oikos 80:31–42Google Scholar
  69. Morris DW (1998) State dependent optimization of litter size. Oikos 83:518–528Google Scholar
  70. Morris DW (1999a) Has the ghost of competition passed? Evol Ecol Res 1:3–20Google Scholar
  71. Morris DW (1999b) A haunting legacy from isoclines: mammal coexistence and the ghost of competition. J Mammal 80:375–384Google Scholar
  72. Morris DW, Brown JS (1992) The role of habitat selection in landscape ecology. Evol Ecol 6:357–359Google Scholar
  73. Morris DW, Davidson DL (2000) Optimally foraging mice match patch use with habitat differences in fitness. Ecology 81:2061–2066Google Scholar
  74. Morris DW, Knight TW (1996) Can consumer-resource dynamics explain patterns of guild assembly? Am Nat 147:558–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Morris DW, Davidson DL, Krebs CJ (2000a) Measuring the ghost of competition: insights from density-dependent habitat selection on the coexistence and dynamics of lemmings. Evol Ecol Res 2:41–67Google Scholar
  76. Morris DW, Fox BJ, Luo J, Monamy V (2000b) Habitat-dependent competition and the coexistence of Australian heathland rodents. Oikos 91:294–306Google Scholar
  77. Morris DW, Lundberg P, Ripa A (2001) Hamilton's rule confronts ideal free habitat selection. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 268:921–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pimm SL, Rosenzweig ML (1981) Competitors and habitat use. Oikos 37:1–6Google Scholar
  79. Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pulliam HR, Caraco T (1974) Living in groups: is there an optimal group size? In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 122–147Google Scholar
  81. Pulliam HR, Danielson BJ (1991) Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics. Am Nat 137:169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ranta E, Kaitala V (2000) Resource matching and population dynamics in a two-patch system. Oikos 91:507–511Google Scholar
  83. Rice WR (1987) Speciation via habitat specialization: the evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character. Evol Ecol 1:301–314Google Scholar
  84. Rodenhouse NL, Sherry TW, Holmes RT (1997) Site-dependent regulation of population size: a new synthesis. Ecology 78:2025–2042Google Scholar
  85. Rodríguez MA (1995) Habitat-specific estimates of competition in stream salmonids: a field test of the isodar model of habitat selection. Evol Ecol 9:169–184Google Scholar
  86. Ronce O, Kirkpatrick M (2001) When sources become sinks: migrational meltdown in heterogeneous habitats. Evolution 55:1520–1531PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Rosenzweig ML (1974) On the evolution of habitat selection. In: Proceedings of the first international congress of ecology. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, The Hague, pp 401–404Google Scholar
  88. Rosenzweig ML (1978) Competitive speciation. Biol J Linn Soc 10:275–289Google Scholar
  89. Rosenzweig ML (1979) Optimal habitat selection in two-species competitive systems. In: Halbach U, Jacobs J (eds) Population ecology. Fischer, Stuttgart, pp 283–293Google Scholar
  90. Rosenzweig ML (1981) A theory of habitat selection. Ecology 62:327–335Google Scholar
  91. Rosenzweig ML (1991) Habitat selection and population interactions: the search for mechanism. Am Nat 137:S5–S28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rosenzweig ML (1995) Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  93. Rosenzweig ML, McCord RD (1991) Incumbent replacement: evidence for long-term evolutionary progress. Paleobiology 17:202–213Google Scholar
  94. Schluter D (2000) Ecological character displacement in adaptive radiation. Am Nat 156:S4–S16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Schluter D (2001) Ecology and the origin of species. Trends Ecol Evol 16:372–380PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Shenbrot G, Krasnov B (2000) Habitat selection along an environmental gradient: theoretical models with an example of Negev Desert rodents. Evol Ecol Res 2:257–277Google Scholar
  97. Simberloff D, Stone L, Dayan T (1999) Ruling out an assembly rule: the method of favored states, In: Weiher E, Keddy PA (eds) The search for assembly rules in ecological communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 58–74Google Scholar
  98. Stone L, Dayan T, Simberloff D (1996) Community-wide assembly patterns unmasked: the importance of species' differing geographical ranges. Am Nat 148:997–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Stone L, Dayan T, Simberloff D (2000) On desert rodents, favored states, and unresolved issues: scaling up and down regional assemblages and local communities. Am Nat 156:322–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Sutherland WJ (1983) Aggregation and the 'ideal free' distribution. J Anim Ecol 52:821–828Google Scholar
  101. Sutherland WJ, Parker GA (1995) Distribution of unequal competitors. In: Sibly RM, Smith RH (eds) Behavioural ecology—ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 255–274Google Scholar
  102. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  103. Tregenza T (1995) Building on the ideal free distribution. Adv Ecol Res 26:253–307Google Scholar
  104. Turchin P (1999) Population regulation: a synthetic view. Oikos 84:153–159Google Scholar
  105. Van Horne B (1983) Habitat as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. J Wildl Manage 47:893–901Google Scholar
  106. Via S (2001) Sympatric speciation in animals: the ugly duckling grows up. Trends Ecol Evol 16:381–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Vincent TL, Brown JS (1984) Stability in an evolutionary game. Theor Popul Biol 26:408–427Google Scholar
  108. Watkinson AR, Sutherland WJ (1995) Sources, sinks and pseudo-sinks. J Anim Ecol 64:126–130Google Scholar
  109. Wilson JB (1995) Null models for assembly rules: the Jack Horner effect is more insidious than the Narcissus effect. Oikos 72:139–144Google Scholar
  110. Wright S (1931) Evolution in mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97–159Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyLakehead UniversityThunder BayCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of Forestry and The Forest EnvironmentLakehead UniversityThunder BayCanada

Personalised recommendations