Premium
The generality of abundance‐environment relationships in microhabitats: A comment on Lancaster and Downes (2009)
Author(s) -
Lamouroux N.,
Mérigoux S.,
Capra H.,
Dolédec S.,
Jowett I. G.,
Statzner B.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
river research and applications
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.679
H-Index - 94
eISSN - 1535-1467
pISSN - 1535-1459
DOI - 10.1002/rra.1366
Subject(s) - generality , assertion , criticism , preference , habitat , computer science , abundance (ecology) , point (geometry) , ecology , river management , environmental science , environmental resource management , psychology , mathematics , biology , art , statistics , geometry , literature , psychotherapist , programming language
We comment on a criticism of hydraulic preference models and instream habitat models. We provide evidence of the generality of many hydraulic preference models, which supports their use in instream habitat modelling even if the detailed mechanistic causes of the observed preferences are not fully known. We also reply to the assertion that preference models are not based on sound ecological theory. We identify unbalanced use of available knowledge and point out limitations relating to too detailed biological focusses. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.