Mark J. Whittingham

1. The biases and shortcomings of stepwise multiple regression are well established within the statistical literature. However, an examination of papers published in 2004 by three leading ecological and behavioural journals suggested that the use of this technique remains widespread: of 65 papers in which a multiple regression approach was used, 57% of studies used a stepwise procedure. 2. The principal drawbacks of stepwise multiple regression include bias in parameter estimation, inconsistencies among model selection algorithms, an inherent (but often overlooked) problem of multiple hypothesis testing, and an inappropriate focus or reliance on a single best model. We discuss each of these issues with examples. 3. We use a worked example of data on yellowhammer distribution collected over 4 years to highlight the pitfalls of stepwise regression. We show that stepwise regression allows models containing significant predictors to be obtained from each year's data. In spite of the significance of the selected models, they vary substantially between years and suggest patterns that are at odds with those determined by analysing the full, 4-year data set. 4. An information theoretic (IT) analysis of the yellowhammer data set illustrates why the varying outcomes of stepwise analyses arise. In particular, the IT approach identifies large numbers of competing models that could describe the data equally well, showing that no one model should be relied upon for inference.

It has been suggested that increased predation rates may rival habitat alteration as a causal agent in farmland bird population declines. Such a view may be over‐simplistic, however, as changes in habitat structure may influence habitat selection and foraging efficiency through their influence on perceived and actual predation risk. We review evidence from the literature on the effects of habitat structure on predation risk of foraging and nesting birds and apply these principles to investigate the likely effects on the 20 species that comprise the UK Government's ‘Farmland Bird Index’. Shorter vegetation is likely to enhance foraging efficiency and reduce predation risk (when ground foraging) for 15 of the 20 species. However, within grassland systems longer vegetation is known to enhance food supplies (e.g. Tipulid larvae and voles) of several farmland bird species and so mosaics of short and long vegetation may provide the optimum conditions for most species (e.g. Lapwing Vanellus vanellus , Starling Sturnus vulgaris , Barn Owl Tyto alba ). Agricultural intensification has encouraged uniform dense swards, thus reducing habitat diversity, and agri‐environment schemes that provide heterogeneous sward structure may thus facilitate farmland bird conservation. Intensification has also resulted in less dense hedgerows; although a reversal of this trend may improve foraging efficiency for many species, it may be detrimental to a smaller number of species that prefer shorter, less dense hedges for nesting. Before these tentative conclusions can be confirmed, more research is required that considers how the effects of habitat structure on individuals is likely to translate into population‐level impacts.