Habitat Selection Studies in Avian Ecology: A Critical Review

By Jason M. Jones. 2001

755 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0e1112e4dafc8668d9f737ad4c1d295fca737012

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Migrant–habitat relationships during stopover along an ecological barrier: extrinsic constraints and conservation implications (2011, neutral): “Avian distribution patterns result from the hierarchical process of habitat selection in which birds respond to factors operating at a series of different scales (Hutto 1985; Wiens 1989; Jones 2001; Moore et al. 2005).”
Research Needs and Recommendations for the use of Conspecific-Attraction Methods in the Conservation of Migratory Songbirds (2010, background): “Avian habitat selection is a hierarchical progression of choices that leads to a distribution of habitat use (Jones 2001).”
MEASURING HABITAT QUALITY: A REVIEW (2007, background): “The disproportionate use of a habitat relative to its availability—called habitat selection (Jones 2001)—can indicate high-quality habitats, and the field and analytical methods to investigate habitat selection are well described (Manly et al. 2002, Morrison et al. 2006, Thomas and Taylor 2006).”
Species Distribution Models: Ecological Explanation and Prediction Across Space and Time (2009, neutral): “RSFs or related techniques are useful for species where the important distinction is between locations that are “available” (can be reached by the animal, used or not) versus those that are “used” (for example, habitat selection studies for birds; Jones 2001).”
The attraction of the known: the importance of spatial familiarity in habitat selection in wapiti Cervus elaphus (2009, background): “By and large, resource availability has been considered the most important component in habitat selection studies and a diversity of approaches have evolved to model the relationship between these two ( Jones 2001, Manly et al. 2002, Marzluff et al. 2004).”
Assessments of habitat preferences and quality depend on spatial scale and metrics of fitness (2007, background): “Actual habitat preferences and the resulting fitness consequences are seldom quantified (Martin 1998; Clark & Shutler 1999; Garshelis 2000; Jones 2001) and, when they are, many results suggest neutral or even inverse relationships between preferred habitats and indices of fitness across a wide…”
TERRITORY AND NEST-SITE SELECTION OF CERULEAN WARBLERS IN EASTERN ONTARIO (2001, neutral): “JONES, J. 2001.”
High juvenile mortality during migration in a declining population of a long-distance migratory raptor (2015, background): “To assess which habitats were preferred by Egyptian Vultures, the habitat available to the birds had to be quantified (Jones 2001).”
Nesting habitat of ground‐nesting bees: a review (2020, background): “Well-developed methods to detect habitat selection (by comparing factors at the nest site and at unused sites nearby) have been reviewed for birds by Jones (2001) and for all animals by Montgomery & Roloff (2017).”
Cross-scale Correlations and the Design and Analysis of Avian Habitat Selection Studies (2006, background): “Such studies aim to address the effects of habitat characteristics on bird distributions (O’Connor et al. 1999), the relationship between habitat selection and habitat quality (Esely and Bollinger 2001, Tarvin and Garvin 2002), and avian responses to habitat change (Luck 2002), among other issues.”
Modelling breeding habitat preferences of Bonelli’s eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus) in relation to topography, disturbance, climate and land use at different spatial scales (2005, methodology): “Habitat selection and habitat preference have usually been used as synonyms in the literature (Jones 2001; Manly et al. 2002; Martı́nez et al. 2003).”
Nest cavity availability and selection in aspenconifer groves in a grassland landscape (2004, background): “Measuring resource use without knowing availability, habitat conditions, or fitness consequences can provide misleading information about species–habitat associations, especially across a range of habitat conditions (Jones 2001).”
EFFECTS OF NEST HABITAT, FOOD, AND PARENTAL BEHAVIOR ON SHOREBIRD NEST SUCCESS (2007, background): “However, far fewer studies have clearly demonstrated that such nest microhabitat preferences are adaptive (Martin 1998, Clark and Shutler 1999, Jones 2001); i.e., that individuals nesting in preferred microhabitats experience higher reproductive success.”
Interseasonal Movements of Greater Sage-Grouse, Migratory Behavior, and an Assessment of the Core Regions Concept in Wyoming (2012, neutral): “For the Moneta study site minimum convex polygons around each study were separated by less than 15 km at their nearest point.”
Study Designs and Tests for Comparing Resource Use and Availability II (2006, background): “Jones (2001) found that few avian studies defined availability in a manner relevant to a species or an individual bird.”
Tree and shrub invasion in northern mixed-grass prairie: implications for breeding grassland birds (2004, background): “Preference or avoidance of woody vegetation by grassland birds, within what was historically a landscape dominated by herbaceous plants, presumes survival and fitness advantages for individual species (Jones 2001).”
Integrating individual habitat choices and regional distribution of a biodiversity indicator and top predator (2004, background): “Such disproportionate use of habitat features which maximize reproduction suggests that the observed habitat choices were adaptive (sensu Jones, 2001; see also Clark & Schutler, 1999; Sergio et al., 2003b,c) and that our logistic model could yield a reliable estimate of suitable habitat.”