TL;DR: The model allows us to compare the relative contribution of different types of habitats to a species' growth rate and population size and predict how the loss of habitat of a particular type may affect a population.
Abstract: In the model described, we attempt to link breeding-site selection to population dynamics for situations in which there is more than one distinct type of habitat. The distribution of individuals between habitat types depends on the selective abilities of the species. This distribution, in turn, influences the population dynamics of the species as a whole. We show that the consequences of habitat selection on population dynamics for an ideal free distribution of individuals across habitats is predictably different from what would be predicted if habitat selection were preemptive, that is, if individuals, upon selecting a site, prevented others from sharing the site. If preemptive selection is ideal, average reproductive success declines with increasing density because each individual selects the best site available from those sites not yet occupied. The model allows us to compare the relative contribution of different types of habitats to a species' growth rate and population size. Furthermore, we can also...
TL;DR: Habitat selection demonstrates how it can be used to map microevolutionary strategies in behavior onto their population and community consequences, and from there, onto macroevolutionARY patterns of speciation and adaptive radiation.
Abstract: Habitat selection, and its associated density and frequency-dependent evolution, has a profound influence on such vital phenomena as population regulation, species interactions, the assembly of ecological communities, and the origin and maintenance of biodiversity. Different strategies of habitat selection, and their importance in ecology and evolution, can often be revealed simply by plots of density in adjacent habitats. For individual species, the strategies are closely intertwined with mechanisms of population regulation, and with the persistence of populations through time. For interacting species, strategies of habitat selection are not only responsible for species coexistence, but provide one of the most convenient mechanisms for measuring competition, and the various community structures caused by competitive interactions. Other kinds of interactions, such as those between predators and prey, demonstrate that an understanding of the coevolution of habitat-selection strategies among strongly interacting species is essential to properly interpret their spatial and temporal dynamics. At the evolutionary scale, the frequency dependence associated with habitat selection may often allow populations to diverge and diversify into separate species. Habitat selection thereby demonstrates how we can map microevolutionary strategies in behavior onto their population and community consequences, and from there, onto macroevolutionary patterns of speciation and adaptive radiation. We can anticipate that future studies of habitat selection will not only help us complete those maps, but that they will also continue to enrich the panoply of ideas that shape evolutionary ecology.
TL;DR: A heuristic argument is developed for why passive dispersal should always be selectively disadvantageous in a spatially heterogeneous but temporally constant environment and a discussion of the disparate effects habitat selection might have on the geographical range occupied by a species is discussed.
TL;DR: Regression and fitness tests were used to explore the pattern of density-dependent habitat use in two temperate-zone rodents and found habitat selection models appeared to be much less capable of predicting variation in population density.
Abstract: A simple regression analysis can be used to assess the response of animal density to differences in habitat quality. The same test can evaluate general predictions of habitat selection theory as well as search for differences in the shapes of habitat suitability- density functions, something previous tests have been unable to do. Combined with de- mographic or other estimates of fitness, regression tests can provide new insights into the evolution of habitat selection. Regression and fitness tests were used to explore the pattern of density-dependent habitat use in two temperate-zone rodents. The intensity of population regulation appeared to be inversely related to a habitat's carrying capacity. Variation in density-dependent habitat choice suggests new and unexpected dispersal strategies that vary with habitat heterogeneity. The predictions of the theory are complicated when habitat quality varies independently of population density. Sweepstake fitness rewards may be reaped by animals that would previously have been assumed to have made a suboptimal habitat choice. At the level of microhabitat, habitat selection models appeared to be much less capable of predicting variation in population density. Such a relation could be due to complex and inverse relationships between microhabitat quality and carrying capacity, or it could simply reflect scaling patterns in habitat selection.
TL;DR: Empirical data on deer mice occupying prairie and badland habitats in southern Alberta confirm the ability of isodar analysis to differentiate between foraging and dispersal scales, which are likely to influence patterns of animal density in heterogeneous landscapes.
Abstract: Two scales of habitat selection are likely to influence patterns of animal density in heterogeneous landscapes. At one scale, habitat selection is determined by the differential use of foraging locations within a home range. At a larger scale, habitat selection is determined by dispersal and the ability to relocate the home range. The limits of both scales must be known for accurate assessments of habitat selection and its role in effecting spatial patterns in abundance. Isodars, which specify the relationships between population density in two habitats such that the expected reproductive success of an individual is the same in both, allow us to distinguish the two scales of habitat selection because each scale has different costs. In a two-habitat environment, the cost of rejecting one of the habitats within a home range can be expressed as a devaluation of the other, because, for example, fine-grained foragers must travel through both. At the dispersal scale, the cost of accepting a new home range in a different habitat has the opposite effect of inflating the value of the original habitat to compensate for lost evolutionary potential associated with relocating the home range. These costs produce isodars at the foraging scale with a lower intercept and slope than those at the dispersal scale. Empirical data on deer mice occupying prairie and badland habitats in southern Alberta confirm the ability of isodar analysis to differentiate between foraging and dispersal scales. The data suggest a foraging range of approximately 60 m, and an effective dispersal distance near 140 m. The relatively short dispersal distance implies that recent theories may have over-emphasized the role of habitat selection on local population dynamics. But the exchange of individuals between habitats sharing irregular borders may be substantial. Dispersal distance may thus give a false impression of the inability of habitat selection to help regulate population density.