Another plea for standard terminology

Abstract

Understanding terms and words used by authors is critical for effective communication with readers of their work, yet standardization of terminology is not firmly established throughout the scientific community. As such, authors have made pleas for standard terminology in fields from agriculture (Turner and Belesky 2010) to zoology (Abrams 1983), including botany (Jennings 1997), ichthyology (Hile 1948, Peer et al. 2012), mammalogy (Keiter et al. 2016), medicine (Zegers-Hochschild et al. 2009), ornithology (Block and Brennan 1993, Clark and Pyle 2015), veterinary science (Alpi et al. 2009), and wildlife management (Hall et al. 1997, Morrison et al. 2008) among others. The results of the use of incorrect or undefined words in a manuscript are confusion, ambiguity, inaccuracies, and altered meanings of intended statements by readers. In wildlife management and conservation, many terms are indeed understood without explanation (e.g., vegetation association), but others (e.g., habitat, habitat use, habitat type) are often used in ways that make them difficult to comprehend, especially when comparisons are attempted between or among studies (Hall et al. 1997). Our purpose herein is to make yet another plea for authors to carefully consider that the meaning of terms used in scientific studies will be understood by other scientists in wildlife management and conservation and related fields, the public, and decision makers. We use habitat-related terms as examples of how terms are often misused. We selected habitat because as editors, we often have to ask authors to revise and clarify manuscripts so their use of habitat-related terms are appropriate. In 2015 alone, the use of habitat in submitted manuscripts to the Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) has run the gambit of simply not being used correctly (e.g., using the term habitat type to indicate habitat, but actually meaning vegetation type) to completely ignoring established norms (e.g., Johnson's [1980] orders of habitat selection). Indeed, some manuscripts have not been accepted because the authors did not express a thorough understanding of habitat. Thus, this is a serious matter that warrants careful attention by all scientists. Although we are focusing on habitat, other terms (e.g., population) are equally misused with severe consequences to the reader, profession, and the resources (Morrison 2012). In a previous study (Hall et al. 1997), we discussed the importance of placing habitat in the proper scale (Wiens 1981). Johnson (1980) described habitat selection via a hierarchical spatial scaling process ranging from the geographic range of a species, the home range of a species, specific sites within home ranges a species uses for activities, and finally how resources are used at micro-sites. Each scale provides a different view of animal–habitat relationships and if described in one scale, cannot be extrapolated beyond that particular scale. Likewise, placing habitat in the proper temporal scale is just as important to prevent ignoring habitat that may be used for a few days (e.g., bighorn sheep [Ovis canadensis] lambing habitat; Morrison et al. 1992:163–164). Many of the problems we see with the use of habitat-related terminology are in the use of the descriptive terms. For example, we examined 50 articles published from 1980 to 1994 and reported an array of uses for habitat-related terms (e.g., abandoned habitat, habitat, habitat availability, habitat preference, habitat quality, habitat selection, habitat type, micro- and macro-habitat, suitable habitat, unfavorable habitat; Hall et al. 1997). Only 18% of the articles reviewed used habitat-related terms as initially defined by scholars such as Grinnell (1917), Leopold (1933), Hutchinson (1957), Daubenmire (1968), and Odum (1971). Definitions of habitat described by these early researchers were summarized by Hall et al. (1997) and we again describe some of those most commonly misused (i.e., not used as originally intended) terms that regularly appear in submitted manuscripts to JWM. Habitat.—The resources and conditions present in an area that produce occupancy, which may include survival and reproduction by a given organism. Habitat is organism-specific and is more than vegetation or vegetation structure. Thus, suitable habitat is redundant and unsuitable habitat is a misnomer; if it was unsuitable it would not be habitat! Neither term should be used. Instead reference unsuitable areas, or unsuitable vegetation types. Habitat abundance.—The amount of habitat available regardless of its availability to animals. Because researchers can measure abundance, using this term is more accurate than using habitat availability. Habitat availability.—The accessibility and procurability of physical and biological components of a habitat by animals. Habitat quality.—The ability of the environment to provide conditions appropriate for individual and population persistence. Quality should be based on the demographics of the population and not necessarily numbers alone. Quality is an outcome (e.g., survival, productivity) and is not a user-defined inherent property of a location. For example, Hall et al. (1997) suggested low habitat quality represents the resources available for survival, medium habitat quality represents resources available for survival and reproduction, and high-quality habitat includes resources available for population persistence. These are critical distinctions because a geographic location (e.g., study area) could fluctuate from year-to-year in some critical resource (e.g., berry or insect production) yet retain the same basic vegetation composition and structure. Thus, habitat quality could vary from year to year. Habitat type.—This term refers only to the type of vegetation association in an area or to the potential of vegetation to reach a specified climax stage (Daubenmire 1968:72–73). Habitat type describes vegetation, not an animal species' habitat. To describe vegetation in an animal's habitat, use vegetation types and associations to avoid confusion with habitat type. Habitat use.—The way an animal uses or consumes a collection of physical and biological resources. Habitat selection.—Habitat selection is a hierarchical process that an animal uses to choose habitat components (Johnson 1980, Hutto 1985). Terms are useful when there is a constant way to measure them (Peters 1991). Thus, they will have the same meaning to different readers in an array of disciplines. When authors use different terms than those initially intended, the terms lack clear operational definitions (Peters 1991:81–82), different users then use different definitions, and new authors begin to use whatever term they choose and thus, meanings are not relevant. Using proper terminology is critical for understanding among sciences, management, and the public, and goes back to one of the basic principles of scientific writing: always cite the original source of concepts and describe differences in use. Standardized terminology is especially important as the published literature continues to proliferate, and practitioners in other disciplines (e.g., restorationists) turn to wildlife and other animal ecology journals for guidance. We regularly review manuscripts where authors switch between habitat type, habitat, vegetation type and structure, and so on. Multiply this inconsistency by literally thousands of manuscripts annually across the many animal ecology and management-conservation journals and you might start to understand the problem of interpretation, understanding, and application. Because many terms used in scientific literature are ambiguous, we again encourage authors to use terms that are measurable and accurate, recognize the original authors of terms and concepts, and continue to strive toward standardized terminology whenever possible so the profession moves to a useful terminology that is more science than opinion or art (Hall et al. 1997). Your writing will reflect an understanding of important terminology, will be direct, and readers will not have to guess or assume your intended meaning. A. S. Cox reviewed an earlier draft of this editorial and provided thoughtful comments. Many thanks. —Paul R. Krausman Editor-in-Chief —Michael L. Morrison Professor, Texas A&M University

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 38 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.