{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0508595988538682, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01504297994269341, 'mean_word_length': 4.869747899159663, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Niche, Habitat, and Ecotope

The confusion comes from use of the same word, "niche," for different concepts. We shall distinguish three senses of the word as: (a) the niche as the position or role of a species within a given community-the functional concept of niche; (b) the niche as the distributional relation of a species to a range of environments and communities-the niche as habitat, or the place niche concept; and (c) the niche as an amalgam of both these ideas, and thus defined by both intracommunity and intercommunity factors. Of these (b) makes "'niche'" synonymous with "'habitat"; for the present, we term (c) the "'habitat + niche" concept. Grinnell (1917, p. 433) first proposed "niche" to designate the place in an association occupied by a single species, emphasizing for the California thrasher not only food relations but dependence on cover, and adaptation thereto in physical structure and temperament. The thrasher's "ultimate associational niche . . . is one of the minor niches which with their occupants all together make the chaparral association." Grinnell (1924, p. 227) later called the ecologic niche the ultimate unit of habitat, and still later (1928, p. 435) defined it as the "ultimate distributional unit, within which each species is held by its structural and functional limitations." Grinnell's intention was probably closest to concept (c) of the habitat