Skip to main content
Log in

Habitat matching: Alternatives and implications to populations and communities

  • Published:
Evolutionary Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

I evaluate habitat matching rules based on ideal distribution models of density-dependent habitat use. Recent approaches and the ideal free continuous input matching rule on which they depend, are restricted to only those habitats that are jointly occupied across the full range of population sizes. These assumptions may often be inappropriate to field applications of habitat matching. I develop alternatives that can be applied to a wide array of ideal forms of habitat selection, including the ideal free, continuous input example. Input matching can be distinguished from assumptions of consumer-resource models and preemptive habitat use by regressions of density between paired habitats (isodars). Isodars for continuous input models should be linear on a logarithmic scale, while those for consumer-resource models should be linear on an arithmetic scale. Pre-emptive isodars can be distinguished from the others by dramatic non-linearities at both low and high densities. Field data on white-footed mice support the consumer-resource theory. Implications of the rules for population regulation and community organization are highlighted by new models that specify how the fitness of pre-emptive habitat selectors should decline with increasing density. Strong non-linearities produced by comparisons between variable and homogeneous habitats produce reversing source-sink population regulation and a new form of cyclical community dynamics. Variable habitats act as a source of emigrants at low density and a sink for immigrants at high density. Subordinate species may occupy only the variable habitat at both low and high density.

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

  • Danielson, B.J. (1992) Habitat selection, interspecific interactions and landscape composition.Evol. Ecol. 6 399–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J.B., Danielson, B.J. and Pulliam, H.R. (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes.Oikos 65 169–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagen, R. (1987) A generalized habitat matching rule.Evol. Ecol. 1 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagen, R. (1988) Population effects of habitat change: a quantitative assessment.J. Wildl. Managemt 52 41–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig, L. and Paloheimo, J. (1988) Determinants of local population size in patchy habitats.Theor. Pop. Biol. 34 194–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fretwell, S.D. and Lucas, H.L., Jr (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development.Acta Bioth. 19 16–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fretwell, S.D. (1972)Populations in a Seasonal Environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, J.G., and Keenleyside, M.H.A. (1984) Foraging on patchily distributed prey by a cichlid fish (Teleostei, Cichlidae): a test of the ideal free distribution theory.Anim. Behav. 32 120–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, D.G.C. (1982) Competitive foraging in mallards: ‘ideal free’ ducks.Anim. Behav. 30 575–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassell, M.P. and Varley, G.C. (1969) New inductive population model for insect parasites and its bearing on biological control.Nature 223 1133–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, N.T. and Hanley, T.A. (1990) Habitat evaluation: do use/availability data reflect carrying capacity?J. Wildl. Managemt 54 515–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, R.D. (1984) Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions, and the coexistence of prey species.Am. Nat. 124 377–406.

    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 

  • Kacelnik, A., Krebs, J.R. and Bernstein, C. (1992a) The ideal free distribution and predator—prey populations.Trends Ecol. Evol. 7 50–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kacelnik, A., Bernstein, C. and Krebs, J.R. (1992b) Habitat selection and predator prey dynamics: reply to Oksanenet al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7 313–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva, P. (1990) Population dynamics in spatially complex environments: theory and data.Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London B:330 175–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lidicker, W.Z., Jr (1962) Emigration as a possible mechanism permitting the regulation of population density below carrying capacity.Am. Nat. 96 23–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Łomnicki, A. (1988)Population Ecology of Individuals. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, J.M. and Houston, A.I. (1990) State-dependent ideal free distributions.Evol. Ecol. 4 298–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messier, F., Virgl, J.A. and Marinelli, L. (1990) Density-dependent habitat selection in muskrats: a test of the ideal free distribution model.Oecologia (Berlin) 84 380–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski, M. (1984) Competitive resource sharing: an experimental test of a learning rule for ESSs.Anim. Behav. 32 233–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski, M. and Parker, G.A. (1991) Competition for resources. InBehavioural ecology (J.R. Krebs and N.B. Davies, eds), 3rd edn, pp. 177–68. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D.W. (1986) Proximate and ultimate controls on life-history variation: the evolution of litter size in white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus).Evolution 40 169–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D.W. (1987) Spatial scale and the cost of density-dependent habitat selection.Evol. Ecol. 1 379–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D.W. (1988) Habitat-dependent population regulation and community structure.Evol. Ecol. 2 253–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D.W. (1989a) Habitat-dependent estimates of competitive interaction.Oikos 59 111–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D.W. (1989b) Density-dependent habitat selection: testing the theory with fitness data.Evol. Ecol. 3 80–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D.W. (1990) Temporal variation, habitat selection and community structure.Oikos 59 303–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D.W. (1991) Fitness and patch selection by white-footed mice.Am. Nat. 138 701–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D.W. (1992a) Scales and costs of habitat selection in heterogeneous landscapes.Evol. Ecol. 6 412–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D.W. (1992b) Environmental networks, compensating life histories and habitat selection by white-footed mice.Evol. Ecol. 6 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D.W. (1992c) Optimum brood size: tests of alternative hypotheses.Evolution 46 1848–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen, T., Oksanen, L. and Fretwell, S.D. (1992) Habitat selection and predator—prey dynamics.Trends Ecol. Evol. 7 313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G.A. (1978) Searching for mates. In:Behavioural ecology (J.R. Krebs and N.B. Davies, eds) pp. 214–44. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimm, S.L. and Rosenzweig M.L. (1981) Competitors and habitat use.Oikos 37 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimm, S.L., Rosenzweig, M.L. and Mitchell, W. (1985) Competition and habitat selection: field tests of a theory.Ecology 66 798–807.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam, H.R. (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation.Am. Nat. 132 652–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam, H.R. and Caraco. T. (1984) Living in groups: is there an optimal group size? InBehavioural ecology (J.R. Krebs and N.B. Davies, eds), 2nd edn, pp. 122–47. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam, H.R. and Danielson, B.J. (1991) Sources, sinks and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics.Am. Nat. 137 S50–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recer, G.M., Blanckenhorn, W. U., Newman, J.A., Tuttle, E.M., Witham, M.L. and Caraco, T. (1987) Temporal resource variability and the habitat-matching rule.Evol. Ecol. 1 363–78.

    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. (1991) Habitat selection and population interactions: the search for mechanism.Am. Nat. 137 S5–28.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, W.J. (1983) Aggregation and the ‘ideal free’ distribution.J. Anim. Ecol. 52 821–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Horne, B. (1983) Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality.J. Wildl. Managemt. 47 893–901.

    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. Habitat matching: Alternatives and implications to populations and communities. Evol Ecol 8, 387–406 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01238190

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01238190

Keywords

Navigation