Skip to main content
Log in

Spatial scale and the cost of density-dependent habitat selection

  • Papers
  • Published:
Evolutionary Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Charnov, E. L. (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem.Theor. Pop. Biol. 9, 129–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Morris, D. W. (1982) Age-specific dispersal strategies in iteroparous species: who leaves when?Evol. Theory 6, 53–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D. W. (1987a) Ecological scale and habitat use.Ecology 68, 362–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D. W. (1987b) Tests of density-dependent habitat selection in a patchy environment.Ecol. Monog. 57, 269–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D. W. (in review, a). Habitat-dependent population regulation and community structure.Evol. Ecol.

  • Morris, D. W. (in review, b). Density-dependent habitat selection: testing assumptions with white-footed mice.

  • 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 

  • Rosenzweig, M. L. (1981) A theory of habitat selection.Ecology 62, 327–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rosenzweig, M. L. and Abramsky, Z. (1986) Centrifugal community organization.Oikos 46, 339–48.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morris, D.W. Spatial scale and the cost of density-dependent habitat selection. Evol Ecol 1, 379–388 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02071560

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02071560

Keywords

Navigation