Textbooks summarize the science around a specific topic, such as forest or wildlife ecology.

Because the natural world, our understanding of the natural world, and our interaction with the natural world all change, textbooks require regular updates of the peer-reviewed, scientific papers they summarize.

Undergraduate students often have textbooks as the basis of their studies. Those who seek advanced degrees (e.g., master’s, doctorate) are expected to focus more on peer-reviewed, scientific papers. Many of those students are also expected to conduct their own research and publish their findings in a journal. By doing so, those students act as scientists and add to the body of science.

As scientists develop professionally, one of the more significant compliments they receive is when a colleague asks for an opinion on a draft of a textbook.

I still remember the first time I was honored to conduct a textbook review and provide some specific content. The review, specifically, refreshed my understanding of fundamentals and corrected errors in my use of terminology.

To communicate forest and wildlife concepts effectively requires adherence to definitions. Too often, however, terminology is misused or misapplied, even by scientists and other professionals.

The term “wildlife,” for instance, refers to species of animals, including those with or without backbones, that are neither human nor domesticated species. Wildlife is therefore a very general term and includes both game species (e.g., white-tailed deer, ruffed grouse) and nongame species (e.g., black-capped chickadee, wood turtle).

People often speak about being interested in wildlife, but are not aware that most of the wildlife around them are nongame species, that the needs of wildlife differ by species, and that management for one species can preclude habitat being available for other species.

The term “habitat” is misused even more often.

A professional definition of “habitat” is “an area with a combination of resources (e.g., food, cover, water) and environmental conditions … that promotes occupancy by a given species … and allows those individuals to survive and reproduce.”

However, a paper in the Journal of Wildlife Management (2019, v.83, pg. 782-plus) quantified the widespread misuse of the term “habitat.” Results suggested that professionals may learn to misuse the term as undergraduates and continue to use it in agency or nonprofit jobs, thereby proliferating the misuse.

Because “habitat” is species-specific and the term “wildlife” is general, the combined term “wildlife habitat” is uninformative. Even more nonsensical is the term “optimal wildlife habitat,” as no one area can have habitats for all species.

Habitat is everywhere, just for different species and perhaps not the species of one’s interest.

Thus, within a management context, one cannot have it all, but must make informed decisions based on tradeoffs in habitat elements and their management.

To communicate more effectively, terms such as “community” and “ecosystem” should be used more often.

A “community” is the mix of species that may be found together. The “ecosystem” encompasses the community, the specific habitat of the community members, and includes the nonliving factors such as water, temperature, wind, fire, geology, etc.

In each part of a forest ecosystem, for instance, one can have a different wildlife community. Habitats for different species within a community are “nested” under the overarching ecosystem.

Many wildlife populations are declining. A paper in the journal Science (v.366, pg. 120-plus) suggested most North American bird species are experiencing population declines. While some examples exist of wildlife species being recovered from population declines, those and other data suggest management for single species — from game species to endangered species — are unlikely to address the needs of all species currently undergoing population declines.

Conservation and restoration of those populations and the ecosystems in which habitat of specific species are nested requires better communication to begin with.

Side note: There have been some recent efforts to change common names of many birds because the people associated with those names did things unacceptable in current society.

I, for one, will put my hand up and call such an approach ridiculous. Science has a history that we should know and understand. We build upon past science. We do not destroy it.

Greg Corace is the forest and wildlife ecologist for the Alpena-Montmorency Conservation District. For more information, including assistance with the Qualified Forest Program and related forest planning and management, email greg.corace@macd.org.