Suppr超能文献

我们对一个概念的使用、误用及摒弃:栖息地何去何从?

Our use, misuse, and abandonment of a concept: Whither habitat?

作者信息

Kirk David Anthony, Park Allysia C, Smith Adam C, Howes Briar J, Prouse Brigid K, Kyssa Naschelly G, Fairhurst Elizabeth N, Prior Kent A

机构信息

Aquila Conservation & Environment Consulting Ottawa ON Canada.

School of Science and the Environment Memorial University Corner Brook NL Canada.

出版信息

Ecol Evol. 2018 Apr 2;8(8):4197-4208. doi: 10.1002/ece3.3812. eCollection 2018 Apr.

Abstract

The foundational concept of habitat lies at the very root of the entire science of ecology, but inaccurate use of the term compromises scientific rigor and communication among scientists and nonscientists. In 1997, Hall, Krausman & Morrison showed that 'habitat' was used correctly in only 55% of articles. We ask whether use of the term has been more accurate since their plea for standardization and whether use varies across the broader range of journals and taxa in the contemporary literature (1998-2012). We searched contemporary literature for 'habitat' and habitat-related terms, ranking usage as either correct or incorrect, following a simplified version of Hall et al.'s definitions. We used generalized linear models to compare use of the term in contemporary literature with the papers reviewed by Hall et al. and to test the effects of taxa, journal impact in the contemporary articles and effects due to authors that cited Hall et al. Use of the term 'habitat' has not improved; it was still only used correctly about 55% of the time in the contemporary data. Proportionately more correct uses occurred in articles that focused on animals compared to ones that included plants, and papers that cited Hall et al. did use the term correctly more often. However, journal impact had no effect. Some habitat terms are more likely to be misused than others, notably 'habitat type', usually used to refer to vegetation type, and 'suitable habitat' or 'unsuitable habitat', which are either redundant or nonsensical by definition. Inaccurate and inconsistent use of the term can lead to (1) misinterpretation of scientific findings; (2) inefficient use of conservation resources; (3) ineffective identification and prioritization of protected areas; (4) limited comparability among studies; and (5) miscommunication of science-based findings. Correct usage would improve communication with scientists and nonscientists, thereby benefiting conservation efforts, and ecology as a science.

摘要

栖息地这一基础概念是整个生态学的核心,但该术语的不当使用损害了科学的严谨性,也影响了科学家与非科学家之间的交流。1997年,霍尔、克劳斯曼和莫里森指出,仅有55%的文章正确使用了“栖息地”一词。我们探讨自他们呼吁标准化以来,该术语的使用是否更为准确,以及在当代文献(1998 - 2012年)中,其使用在更广泛的期刊和分类群中是否存在差异。我们在当代文献中搜索“栖息地”及与栖息地相关的术语,依据霍尔等人定义的简化版本,将用法分为正确或错误两类。我们使用广义线性模型,将当代文献中该术语的使用情况与霍尔等人所审查的论文进行比较,并检验分类群、当代文章中的期刊影响力以及引用霍尔等人研究的作者所产生的影响。“栖息地”一词的使用并无改善;在当代数据中,其正确使用率仍仅约为55%。与包含植物的文章相比,专注于动物的文章中正确用法的比例更高,且引用霍尔等人研究的论文更常正确使用该术语。然而,期刊影响力并无影响。某些栖息地术语比其他术语更容易被误用,尤其是“栖息地类型”,通常用于指代植被类型,以及“适宜栖息地”或“不适宜栖息地”,从定义上讲,它们要么冗余要么无意义。该术语不准确和不一致的使用可能导致:(1)对科学发现的误解;(2)保护资源的低效利用;(3)保护区识别和优先级确定的无效;(4)研究之间可比性有限;(5)基于科学的研究结果的错误传达。正确的用法将改善与科学家和非科学家的交流,从而使保护工作以及作为一门科学的生态学受益。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/44d6/5916312/117685f52267/ECE3-8-4197-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验