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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Danielson, B.J. (1992) Habitat selection, interspecific interactions and landscape composition.Evol. Ecol. 6 399–411.
Dunning, J.B., Danielson, B.J. and Pulliam, H.R. (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes.Oikos 65 169–75.
Fagen, R. (1987) A generalized habitat matching rule.Evol. Ecol. 1 5–10.
Fagen, R. (1988) Population effects of habitat change: a quantitative assessment.J. Wildl. Managemt 52 41–6.
Fahrig, L. and Paloheimo, J. (1988) Determinants of local population size in patchy habitats.Theor. Pop. Biol. 34 194–213.
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.
Fretwell, S.D. (1972)Populations in a Seasonal Environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
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.
Harper, D.G.C. (1982) Competitive foraging in mallards: ‘ideal free’ ducks.Anim. Behav. 30 575–84.
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.
Hobbs, N.T. and Hanley, T.A. (1990) Habitat evaluation: do use/availability data reflect carrying capacity?J. Wildl. Managemt 54 515–22.
Holt, R.D. (1984) Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions, and the coexistence of prey species.Am. Nat. 124 377–406.
Holt, R.D. (1985) Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution.Theor. Pop. Biol. 28 181–208.
Kacelnik, A., Krebs, J.R. and Bernstein, C. (1992a) The ideal free distribution and predator—prey populations.Trends Ecol. Evol. 7 50–5.
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.
Kareiva, P. (1990) Population dynamics in spatially complex environments: theory and data.Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London B:330 175–90.
Lidicker, W.Z., Jr (1962) Emigration as a possible mechanism permitting the regulation of population density below carrying capacity.Am. Nat. 96 23–9.
Łomnicki, A. (1988)Population Ecology of Individuals. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
McNamara, J.M. and Houston, A.I. (1990) State-dependent ideal free distributions.Evol. Ecol. 4 298–311.
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.
Milinski, M. (1984) Competitive resource sharing: an experimental test of a learning rule for ESSs.Anim. Behav. 32 233–42.
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.
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.
Morris, D.W. (1987) Spatial scale and the cost of density-dependent habitat selection.Evol. Ecol. 1 379–88.
Morris, D.W. (1988) Habitat-dependent population regulation and community structure.Evol. Ecol. 2 253–69.
Morris, D.W. (1989a) Habitat-dependent estimates of competitive interaction.Oikos 59 111–20.
Morris, D.W. (1989b) Density-dependent habitat selection: testing the theory with fitness data.Evol. Ecol. 3 80–94.
Morris, D.W. (1990) Temporal variation, habitat selection and community structure.Oikos 59 303–12.
Morris, D.W. (1991) Fitness and patch selection by white-footed mice.Am. Nat. 138 701–16.
Morris, D.W. (1992a) Scales and costs of habitat selection in heterogeneous landscapes.Evol. Ecol. 6 412–32.
Morris, D.W. (1992b) Environmental networks, compensating life histories and habitat selection by white-footed mice.Evol. Ecol. 6 1–14.
Morris, D.W. (1992c) Optimum brood size: tests of alternative hypotheses.Evolution 46 1848–61.
Oksanen, T., Oksanen, L. and Fretwell, S.D. (1992) Habitat selection and predator—prey dynamics.Trends Ecol. Evol. 7 313.
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.
Pimm, S.L. and Rosenzweig M.L. (1981) Competitors and habitat use.Oikos 37 1–6.
Pimm, S.L., Rosenzweig, M.L. and Mitchell, W. (1985) Competition and habitat selection: field tests of a theory.Ecology 66 798–807.
Pulliam, H.R. (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation.Am. Nat. 132 652–61.
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.
Pulliam, H.R. and Danielson, B.J. (1991) Sources, sinks and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics.Am. Nat. 137 S50–66.
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.
Rosenzweig, M.L. (1981) A theory of habitat selection.Ecology 62 327–35.
Rosenzweig, M.L. (1985) Some theoretical aspects of habitat selection. InHabitat selection in birds (M.L. Cody, ed.), pp. 517–40. Academic Press, London.
Rosenzweig, M.L. (1991) Habitat selection and population interactions: the search for mechanism.Am. Nat. 137 S5–28.
Rosenzweig, M.L. and Abramsky, Z. (1986) Centrifugal community organization.Oikos 46 339–48.
Sutherland, W.J. (1983) Aggregation and the ‘ideal free’ distribution.J. Anim. Ecol. 52 821–8.
Van Horne, B. (1983) Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality.J. Wildl. Managemt. 47 893–901.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01238190