THE HABITAT CONCEPT AND A PLEA FOR STANDARD TERMINOLOGY

We compared the uses and definitions of habitat-related terms in 50 ar ticles from 1980 to 1994 to operational definitions we derived from th e literature. Only 9 (18%) of the articles we reviewed defined and use d habitat-related terms consistently and according to our definitions of the terms. Forty-seven articles used the term ''habitat;'' however, it was only defined and used consistent with our definition in 5 arti cles (11%) and was confused with vegetation association or defined inc ompletely in 42 papers (89%). ''Habitat type'' was the term most commo nly used incorrectly; 16 of 17 times (94%) it was used to indicate veg etation association, but habitat and vegetation association are not sy nonymous. Authors did not provide definitions for habitat use, selecti on, preference, or availability 23 of 28 times (82%). We concluded tha t habitat terminology was used vaguely in 82% of the articles we revie wed. This distorts our communication with scientists in other discipli nes and alienates the public because we give ambiguous, indefinite, an d unstandardized answers to ecological questions in public and legal s ituations. Scientists should define and use habitat terminology operat ionally, so that the concepts are measurable and accurate. We must tak e the challenge to standardize terminology seriously, so that we can m ake meaningful statements to advance science.