This is how Hutchinson defined it, and his disciples have blocked any attempt to generalise the term, but many of us feel that a more general definition is more useful. For example, if a species becomes extinct, does its niche vanish with it? Since generally something will replace it, it makes sense to describe the displacing species as moving into a vacant niche.
Of course the new species may have a somewhat different niche, but I think of a niche as similar to an apartment -- new occupants my move the walls and make some changes, but basically they occupy the same space. Unfortunately any attempt to generalise the niche concept runs into the philosophy that definitions should never change. I have written about the niche as a fuzzy set for example (which is basically what you see in any book on niche packing even though they don't use the word), but since Hutchinson didn't use the word fuzzy, the concept is verboten. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Hilmy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 4:25 AM Subject: Re: "unoccupied" niches and 'coppetitive exclusion" > The concept of =93niche=94 is very much defined around a specific = > species- the > term itself is something of a misnomer in ecological terms because we = > assume > the traditional noun to describe a physical space or an element of = > habitat, > or in the argument of some posted here, a set of > habitat/ecosystem/geographical parameters that are independent of the > species itself as though somehow =93vacant=94, yet the term as I have = > always > understood it to be refers more accurately to the way in which a = > particular > organism fits into the ecosystem...
