The Condor 89:23C-233 0 The CooperOrnithological Society 1987

BOOK REVIEWS

MARCY F. LAWTON, EDITOR

Habitat selectionin birds.-Martin L. Cody [ed.]. is a processof hierarchicalchoices. For example, Hutto 1985. Academic Press. Orlando. FL. xvi + 558 D. notes that at general levels (i.e., geographicalregions), $69.50. the selection of a habitat may be made only once or In 1933 David Lack publisheda pathbreakingpaper twice during the lifetime of a bird, and at such levels entitled Habitat selectionin birds which disnuted the habitat choice tends to be based more on innate re- reigning notion that birds chose habitats solely on the sponsesthan learnedpreferences. At finer levels,choices basis of climate, food, or nest sites. Equally important are made repeatedlyon the basisof learning, and prox- in Lack’s view was the “nsvcholonical factor.” Everv imate cues more closely match ultimate factors such decade or two since then, > major contribution has as food abundanceor safe nesting sites. appeareddealing with the sametopic: Svlrdson in 1949, Various authors sound the cry for an experimental Hildtn in 1965, Partridge in 1978, and, most recently, approach. To elucidate the mechanismsof habitat se- this collection of papers whose title recalls Lack. lection and to advancebeyond the correlationalstudies The collection is made up of 18 chapterscontributed of the past, argueMorse, Sherry and Holmes, we need by 22 authorsfrom sevencountries. Many ofthe papers to manipulate habitat structure or alter speciescom- represent long-term studies (for example, Sherry and positions,while simultaneouslygathering observation- Holmes at Hubbard Brook, Terborgh in Peru). All of al data in control plots. In this light, Greenberg’s (1983) the authors are recognized authorities in their field. important experimental work on neophobia in wood The papersare groupedsomewhat arbitrarily into four warblers should have been included in Morse’s review. sections: an introductory section by Cody, a section The difficulty of investigating habitat selection exper- called “Habitat selection in specific bird taxa,” a sec- imentally may be reflected in the fact that the only tion called “Habitat selectionin specifichabitat types,” experimental studyin the book is that ofAlatalo, Lund- and a catch-all sectioncalled “A variety of approaches berg, and Ulfstrand, who added nest boxes to Pied to habitat selectionin birds.” The title of nearly everv Flycatcher territories, thereby elevating population paper contains the phrase “habitat selection” (;‘. . in densities and altering social systems.A most provoc- island versusmainland birds,” “. in raptorial birds,” ative paper is that of Herrera, who hypothesizesthat “ . in Amazonian birds,” etc.) which raisesthe hope birds that consume fruits and disperseseeds have the that the book comprises an integrated series of com- unusualcapacity to improve their habitat over ecolog- prehensive essayson the subject. The book falls short ical and evolutionary time, increasingits carrying ca- of achieving such a synthesisbecause of the diversity pacity. Herrera’s argument could be extended to pol- of authors, viewpoints, and methodologies, not to linators as well. Rosenzweigcloses the volume with an mention the sheer enormity of the problem of habitat optimistic appraisalof the role theory can play in guid- selection in birds. It also could have profited by in- ing studiesof habitat selectionand a demonstration of cluding a concluding chapter taking stock of how far the application of foragingmodels to habitat selection. we have progressedsince Lack and by having abstracts As editor, Cody deserves credit for the volume’s or summaries of individual papers. These are minor three major strengths. First, this is an exceptionally quibbles, however, in view of the fact that this is un- eclectic book, citing the relevant contemporary liter- questionably the best collective work to be published ature on habitat selectionin birds worldwide. The in- on the topic of habitat selection in birds. troductory chapter by Cody, for instance,contains ten The importance of consideringscale and the level of pages of references, many of which, drawn from the resolution in habitat selection is stressed repeatedly Europeanliterature, may be unfamiliar to most North throughout the volume. In Klopfer’s long-term view, American ornithologists. (Cody’s bibliographic con- this is one of three critical insights of the last 20 years tributions make up for the impenetrable figures that (the other two being the recognition of the importance illustrate each of his three chapters.) Second, the con- of sensoryphysiology and the interaction of experience tributions to this volume were selectedto allow com- and innate preferences in habitat choice by birds). parisonsbetween avian taxa, geographicalregions, and Wiens, who emphasized the problem in earlier papers seasons.For example, Cody’s censusessuggest that Old with Rotenberry, is joined here by Sherry and Holmes, World sylviine warblersoverlap broadly in habitat use; Burger,and Hutto. Yet each author develops a slightly interspecificterritoriality is common in the group.New different interpretation of the usefulnessof considering World wood warblers, on the other hand, exhibit dis- scale.In a paper notable for its clarity, statisticalrigor, tinct species-specifichabitat preferences,according to and originality, Sherry and Holmes demonstrate that Morse. Other aspectsof habitat selectionin these same the dispersionof passerineterritories at Hubbard Brook subfamiliesof birds are discussedby Winkler and Leis- can be consideredto be clumped, random, or uniform, ler (ecomorphology of sylviine warblers), Sherry and depending upon quadrate size. An important conclu- Holmes (dispersion of breeding wood warblers), and sion is that distinct factors (social facilitation, intra- Hutto (habitat use by migrating wood warblers). For specificterritoriality, interspecificaggression, floristics) Old and New World warblers,at least,an exceptionally determine dispersionpatterns at different spatialscales. complete picture of habitat selection emerges. Cody, Burgerand Hutto both point out that habitat selection Wiens and Burger’s reviews of grassland,shrub-steppe, v301 BOOK REVIEWS 231 and marsh-inhabitingbirds, respectively,allow a useful The dialectical biologist.-Richard Levins and comparison of habitat selection in different open hab- Richard Lewontin. 1985. Harvard University Press, itats. Several authors encouragethe consideration of Cambridge, MA. ix + 303 p. alternative explanationsof habitat selection by taking Anyone who is not brain-dead will be jolted into a mechanistic approach, with Walsberg discussing seriousreflection by The Dialectical Biologist,Levins physiologicalconsequences of microhabitat selection, and Lewontin’s recent attempt to show how to ap- Winkler and Leisler concentrating on morphological proach the businessof sciencefrom a dialectical per- adaptations, and Klopfer and Ganzhom focusing on spective. A collection of polemics and essays,many behavior. The latter paper is of particular interest be- previously published, the book is meant as a sampler causeit actually addressesthe question of “selection” of dialecticalthinking, rather than a linearly developed (i.e., choice) of habitats. Too many papers in this area textbook on how to think dialectically. Except for the tacitly equate the observed distributionsof birds with last chapter, a rather formal description of dialectical habitat selection-regardlessof whether distributions principles that should have come first, the essaysclus- result from historical accident, randomly directed dis- ter loosely around three themes: evolution, statistical persal, aggressiveexclusion by other animals, or other analysis,and the relationship of scienceand society. causesor constraints.Hutto consequentlyrecommends One goal of the book is to show that science and the more neutral term “habitat use.” societyare parts of a seamlesswhole and that Cartesian The third strengthof this book is that it raises once reductionism is both ontologically incorrect and had again a central questionin avian ecology:why do birds to result in scientific service to capitalist atrocities. occur where they do? The question is so enduring and Levins and Lewontin are far from successfulin this intractable becausethe subject of habitat selectionen- endeavor. The philosophical stance differs little from compassesforaging theory, dispersal theory, biogeog- that in Engel’s Anti-Diihring (1878) and Dialectics OJ raphy, social behavior and mate choice, reproductive Nature (1940) except that, where Engels saw meta- biology,physiological ecology, the development of cog- physics as the evil force, Levins and Lewontin view nition and the role of learning, functional morphology, Cartesian reductionism as the enemy. The key beliefs speciation,and community ecology,to name just a few of the opposition, however, remain the same: related fields touched on in this book. Rosenzweigla- (a) Any whole system can be analyzed into homoge- ments the paucity of theory in the study of habitat neous parts. selection,but the greater problem may be that each of (2) The parts are ontologicallyprior to the whole and the fields listed above has its own, independently have intrinsic properties that they possessin iso- evolving body of theory. The key breakthroughin the lation and convey to the whole. studyof habitat selectionmay be the discovery of prin- (3) Causesare separatefrom effects. Causesare prop- ciples that unify these fields while taking into account erties of subjectsand effects are properties of ob- problems ofscale and hierarchy. The synthesiswill not jects. There is no difficulty distinguishing subject be easy, needless to say. As these papers effectively from object or causefrom effect. demonstrate, habitat use even in closely related bird speciesmay be dictated by distinct factors, suchas food In contradistinction to this schema, Levins and supply, nest sites, predators or competitors; the same Lewontin present their version of dialectical materi- speciesmay be sensitiveto different factors at different alism, which consistsroughly of five principles: times of the year or at different levels of resolution. (1) The whole is a relation of heterogeneousparts. These complicationsmake the challengeof unraveling (2) The parts have no prior existenceas parts. the causesof habitat selectionin birds even more pro- (3) Parts and wholes interpenetrate one another as a vocative. consequenceof the interchangeability of subject I came away from reading this volume with a new and object or of causeand effect. enthusiasmfor the subject and a better understanding (4) Change is a characteristicof all systemsand of all of why the question of habitat selection in birds re- aspectsof all systems. mains alive a half century after Lack’s original paper. (5) The Biggie:Contradictions exist everywherein na- I suspectthat it will be with us for at least another half ture. century. But this does not mean that we have not pro- gressedor will not continue to do so. The descriptive This rendition does not differ appreciably from En- study of habitat selectionin birds is much more quan- gels’ (1878, 1940) who made many of the same points titative now than in the past, taking advantage of so- about how to do researchand how to think about sci- phisticated statistical analyses of many habitat vari- entific questionsand did it in much livelier, lessjargon- ables simultaneously.The data basefor comparingthe ridden prose. (The writing in The Dialectical Biologist distribution of diverse species has expanded explo- is often turgid.) Yet Engelsfailed to transform science, sively; if this book is as widely read as it deservesto or else The DialecticalBiologist would be unnecessary. be, it will convince many biologistsof the importance It is terribly difficult to tell people how to do research, of understandinghabitat selection, and the data base and even harder to exhort them to do research ac- will grow even more rapidly. Finally, the recognition cording to a particular philosophicalstance. The prox- of interactive effects, complexity, and scale preclude imate aspectsof how to do scientific research-frame the return to single-factor explanations of an exceed- hypotheses,conduct day-to-day operations, examine ingly knotty but important problem in ecologythat is assumptions-are probably more effectively transmit- admirably addressedin this book.-NATHANIEL T. ted by example and osmosis,through years ofwatching WHEELWRIGHT, Department of Biology, Bowdoin or collaboratingwith colleagues. College, Brunswick, ME 04011. Levins and Lewontin do a good job of conveying 232 BOOK REVIEWS what they mean by such connotation-laden concepts flexively, on political grounds.However, conservative as part and whole, interpenetration, cause and effect, as well as liberal academicswill find that “The com- and even contradiction.Once one knows the meanings, moditization of science” has a disturbing ring of truth, many examples and even some dialectical principles while anyone who has worked on agroecosystems,es- seem straightforward. I will wager that many readers pecially in the tropics, should applaud “The political who would as soon be accusedof pederasty as of di- economy of agriculturalresearch” and “The pesticide alectical materialism will find themselves saying, “Of system.” course I always knew that . .“We all know that or- How we think about the nature of nature, and the ganismsmodify their environments; this action is clas- nature of science- thesecharacteristics certainly influ- sically viewed as driving ecological succession(e.g., ence how we perform research,and a well-arguedessay Odum 1971). Similarly, the self-negation, interpene- shouldbe able to affect our views on thesematters. For tration of seeminglymutually exclusivecategories, and instance, anyone who usesanalysis of variance and is coexistenceof opposingprinciples that are key aspects not just plugging numbers into a computer program of dialectical contradiction seem straightforward and will be forced to think very carefully and in new ways unassailablewhen translated into terms of thresholds, about what he or she is doing. Sometimes Levins and deterministicaspects of random processes,positive and Lewontin score in this way. More often, they are less negative feedback mechanisms, and other rather pro- convincing. saic concepts. The authors’ treatment of ecologyis particularly dis- What is really distinctive about Levins and Lewon- turbing, questionableat best and remarkably free from tin’s viewpoint is their thorough commitment to a di- alternative considerations. For instance, we are told alecticalconception ofall problems. One might be con- that the interaction between owls and lemmings helps vinced by The Dialectical Biologist that a dialectical to establish their population cycles. Some people feel approach to biology could be a fruitful philosophy or this might be true (e.g., Taylor 1984). Others think it mental framework, but that is exactly where Levins less likely that owls affect lemming cycles(e.g., Krebs and Lewontin, following Engels, demur from Hegel; 1985) which is the point of Levins and Lewontin’s their contention is that, independently of laws of example. All researchersagree that the final word is thought, nature itself is dialectical and that is why it not yet in, but Levins and Lewontin seem not to rec- can only be understoodby a dialectical approach. ognize that there is a debate. Similarly, discussingthe The biaaest vroblem with The Dialectical Biolokst discrediteddictum that speciesdiversity and ecological is that, while the Preface implies that the essayswill complexity beget stability, Levins and Lewontin con- be examplesof scienceconducted dialectically and that tend that this line of reasoning“can only be understood these examples will help us to think and work under asideological in origin” (p. 22). Certainly one can argue the sameinspiration, none of the thirteen essaysreports that there is an ideological component to the persis- on empirical researchperformed dialectically. Instead, tence of this idea, but it is not the only argument pos- the first six are more or less didactic tracts telling us sible. For examvle. Goodman (1975) outlines a num- how to do scienceor how to think about certain ques- ber of common empirical observations, such as the tions. Six of the remaining seven are largely polemics instability of crop monoculturesand apparent vulner- about the role of scienceand scientistsin perpetrating ability of island communities to invasion, that he and various capitalist horrors. many others feel led to the persistent dogma. Dearth of empirical resultsaside, however, one can- This kind of presentationis unlikely to convince us not simply reject as preposterousLevins and Lewon- that Cartesian reductionism is dead wrong and dialec- tin’s provocative statements:one is forced to confront tical materialism the correct view. Much less do such them. Tuberculosis,we are told, is causedas much by arguments demonstrate that sciencein a reductionist capitalist exploitation of workers as by a bacterium. mode must inevitably contribute to societal ills. Classicalanalysis of variance is not only often unable Does the book convince us that, whatever the state to do the jobs we expect but is frequently misleading. of nature, a dialectical approach is most fruitful in Reductionists are biological determinists. The call at science?There is not much evidence one way or the UNESCO for a new information order was aimed at other. The authors cite the impact of their own books, fighting the information monopoly and commerciali- Evolution in Changing Environments (Levins 1968) zation of the means of communication. The jarring and The Genetic Basis for Evolutionary Change proclamations occur about one per ten pages. Argu- (Lewontin 1974) as “confirmation of the power of di- ments are generallyepideictic, stating as revealedtruths alectical analysis” (p. viii). The latter was certainly that nature is a certain way, or that we think a certain widely cited and perhapsinspirational for severalyears; way, or that the way we think is the result of something it seemed to define a set of fundamental problems in other than nature, with occasional examples or cita- evolutionary genetics.However, it is not clear to me tions. About half the contentions are carefully argued. upon re-readingit why it could only have resultedfrom The rest seem at first as if they are meant only to rattle “a consciousapplication of Marxist philosophy” (p. our chains, but are embedded in discussionsthat ul- 165) or even that it did result from suchan approach. timately make most of them seem at least plausible. The former work is more problematic. I believe one The polemics, except for part of “What is human could arguethat its influence was never large and that nature?,” seemexcellent to me. Not sinceJ. D. Bernal’s several contemporary works that were surely not con- The SocialFunction of Science(1939) has as trenchant sciousproducts of a Marxist approachwere much more and insightful an indictment been handed down. Many important in setting the ecologicalagenda, and many scientistswill reject much of this material almost re- of them treated a similar set of problems. Levins and BOOK REVIEWS 233

Lewontin ask (p. 193) as an aside whether Monad’s BUTLER,R. W., B. G. STUSHNOFF,AND E. MCMACKIN. Marxism was critical to his role in the discovery of 1986. The birds of the Creston Valley and south- geneticfeedback mechanisms, an eminently dialectical easternBritish Columbia. OccasionalPaper Num- process,but do not pursue this intriguing possibility. ber 58, Canadian Wildlife Service.Box 340. Delta. So it remains an open question whether, whatever the BC V4K 3Y3. 37 p. state of nature, a Marxist dialectical approachis likely CANADIANWILDLIFE SERVICE. Transactions 1985. 49th to increaseunderstanding of natural phenomena. Federal-Provincial Wildlife Conference. 280 p. The Dialectical Biologist is thus unconvincing on COLORADOASSOCIATED UNIVERSITY PRESS, Boulder, many points that it statesas aims. However, it presents CO. Birds of the Rocky Mountains: with partic- such a battery of ideas and so frequently juxtaposes ular reference to national parks in the northern customarily disparatenotions that it is a joy to read.- Rocky Mountain region. 1986. 516 p. $39.50 DANIEL SIMBERLOFF, Dept. of Biological Science, (cloth), $16.95 (kivar cover). Florida State University, Tallahassee,FL 32306. DAWK~NS.R.. AND M. RIDLEY.leds.1. 1985. Oxford surveys in evolutionary biblogy, vol. 2. 243 p. REFERENCES $42.50. BERNAL,J. D. 1939. The social function of science. INTENDENCIAMUNICIPAL DE MONTEVIDEO.Museo Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Damaso Antonio Larranaga. 1985. Lista de ENGELS,F. 1878. Herr Eugen Dtihring’s revolution referencia y bibliografia de las aves Uruguayas. in science (Anti-Diihring). Reprinted, 1939. In- 116 p. ternational Publishers,New York. KAUFMAN,L., AND K. MALLORY,teds.]. The last ex- ENGELS,F. 1940. Dialectics of nature. International tinction. 1986. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. ix + Publishers,New York. 288 p. $16.95. GOODMAN,D. 1975. The theory of diversity-stability KEAST,A., H. RECHER,H. FORD, AND D. SAUNDERS. relationships in ecology. Q. Rev. Biol. 50:237- 1985. Birds of eucalypt forest and woodlands: 266. ecology, conservation and management. Surrey KREBS, C. J. 1;125. Ecology: The experimental anal- Beatty & Sons, 43-45 Rickard Road, Chipping ysis of distribution and abundance.3rd ed. Harper Norton, N.S.W. 2170, Australia. 384 p. $47.00 & Row, New York. plus $7.00 postage. LEVINS, R. 1968. Evolution in changing environ- KING, A. S., ANDJ. MCLELLAND,[EDS.]. 1985. Form ments. Princeton Univ. Press, NJ. and function in birds. Vol. 3. Academic Press, LEWONTIN,R. 1974. The genetic basis of evolution- New York. xi + 582 p. ary change. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. NITECKI, M. H., AND J. A. K~TCHELL,[EDS.]. 1986. ODUM, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. 3rd ed. Evolution of animal behavior: paleontologicaland W. B. Saunders,Philadelphia. field aunroaches.Oxford SciencePublications. New TAYLOR,R. J. 1984. Predation. Chapman and Hall, York.‘184 p. $35.00. New York. SUTTON,G. M. 1986. Birds worth watching. Univ. ofoklahoma Press,Norman. xv + 208 p. $19.95. WRIGHT,P 1“ 1, ’ r!. ’ PROVINE,[EDS.]. 1986. Evo- BOOKS RECEIVED lution. Select_.: nduers. Univ. of Chicano Press. ALCORN,G. D. 1986. Owls: an introduction for the IL. $70.00 (cloth), $25.00 (paper). - amateur naturalist. PhalaropeBook/Prentice Hall VERNER,J., M. L. MORRISON,AND C. J. RALPH,[EDS.] Press, New York. xiv + 176 p. $9.95. 1986. Wildlife 2000: Modelina habitat relation- ships of terrestrial vertebrates.The Univ. of Wis- BOUCHER,D. H. 1985. The biology of mutualism: .r 1. 1-n ecology and evolution. Douglas H. Boucher. Ox- consin Press, Macnson. xxv + 4 /u p. ford Univ. Press ~~-T-\x;York. x + 388 p. $49.95.