The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Comparison of Usage and Availability Measurements for Evaluating Resource Preference
Abstract
Modern ecological research often involves the comparison of the usage of habitat types or food items to the availability of those resources to the animal. Widely used methods of determining preference from measurements of usage and availability depend critically on the array of components that the researcher, often with a degree of arbitrariness, deems available to the animal. This paper proposes a new method, based on ranks of components by usage and by availability. A virtue of the rank procedure is that it provides comparable results whether a questionable component is included or excluded from consideration. Statistical tests of significance are given for the method. The paper also offers a hierarchical ordering of selection processes. This hierarchy resolves certain inconsistencies among studies of selection and is compatible with the analytic technique offered in this paper.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Scale and heterogeneity in habitat selection by elk in Yellowstone National Park
Boyce, M. S., Mao, J. S., Merrill, E. H., Fortin, D., Turner, M. G., Fryxell, J., & Turchin, P. (2003) · Écoscience · doi:10.1080/11956860.2003.11682790 · Cited by 391
Habitat–performance relationships: finding the right metric at a given spatial scale
Gaillard, J.-M., Hebblewhite, M., Loison, A., Fuller, M., Powell, R., Basille, M., & Van Moorter, B. (2010) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0085 · Cited by 359
Hebblewhite, M., Merrill, E. H., & McDonald, T. L. (2005) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13858.x · Cited by 342
Analysis of Resource Selection Using Utilization Distributions
MILLSPAUGH, J. J., NIELSON, R. M., McDONALD, L., MARZLUFF, J. M., GITZEN, R. A., RITTENHOUSE, C. D., HUBBARD, M. W., & SHERIFF, S. L. (2006) · Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2193/0022-541x(2006)70[384:aorsuu]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 266
Northrup, J. M., Vander Wal, E., Bonar, M., Fieberg, J., Laforge, M. P., Leclerc, M., Prokopenko, C. M., & Gerber, B. D. (2022) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1002/eap.2470 · Cited by 227
“Furthermore, researchers have often aimed to vary the spatial extent of availability to assess the factors influencing habitat selection at different extents (Boyce 2006), typically chosen based on the Johnson (1980) orders of selection.”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnson, D. H.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1980-02
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 65-71
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2117445811
- Cited by
- 4,388
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Comparison of Usage and Availability Measurements for Evaluating Resource Preference. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1937156
- The paper
- Johnson, D. H. (1980). The Comparison of Usage and Availability Measurements for Evaluating Resource Preference. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937156
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
