It easily qualifies both. Some question may help you to decide. Would you classify yourself in the context of the research as ecologist or geographer.? Would you submit the resulting article in a journal with 'ecology' or with 'geography' in the title? Or may be in the Journal of Biogeography?

On your research design, the vulture distributions I know seem indeed to be associated with anthropogenic variables (e.g. free-ranging livestock, veterinarian regulations/practices, carrion competitors). However, the climatic range is mostly so wide that I doubt whether this will help. Suitable nesting sites could be a promising explanatory variable.  

Respected Talo Biju,

Vultures are getting extinct due to anthropogenic factors as they are slower to adapt the man made ecosystem.

Thus you should put your effort on studying their distribution now and before the industrial revolution if possible.

REGARDS

Talo:

This link would provide you with insights:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51885212_Dropping_dead_Causes_and_consequences_of_vulture_population_declines_worldwide

Best

Syed

Article Dropping dead: Causes and consequences of vulture population...

Yes, indeed, it will be both. Ecology refers to how the species interacts with its environment, which in turn may be biotic or abiotic or both. Biogeography molds how and where the ecological factors can act. See paper attached.

Article Interpretation of Models of Fundamental Ecological Niches an...

Recently, I have been writing about this and I found some interesting references. In my view, Biogeography is more related to geographical factors, in the broad sense of the word "geography": the role of accessible areas, historical factors, human activities, etc. Many authors refer to "SDMs" incorrectly; when (really) they are predicting ecological niches (or environmental similarities). In my opinion, there is a main difference: "Ecological niche models" are more related to Ecology, and "Species distribution models" are more related to Biogeography. At the same time, other autors do not make the distinction between Macroecology and Biogeography.

References:

Fisher, H.J., 2002. Macroecology: new, or biogeography revisited? Nature 417, 787. doi:10.1038/417787c

Kent, M., 2007. Biogeography and macroecology: now a significant component of physical geography. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 31, 643–657. doi:10.1177/0309133307087088

Kent, M., 2005. Biogeography and macroecology. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 29, 256–264. doi:10.1191/0309133305pp447pr

Thank you so much all for your helpful inputs and references. Was bit confused with title for my work, i think ill go for  ecological factors and distribution of species to be more precise.

correctly if geographical distribution than biogeography  is more relvent or as suggested put macroecology

In India see BNHS, SACON , WII  or vulture conservation centre at Pinjor, Chandigarh.

Will you also you considered the population dynamics and pop epidemiology in your study or only anthropogenic and climatic factors?

Best regards,

GL

Have you heard of conservation biogeography? Here's a link to the foundational paper: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.620.7358&rep=rep1&type=pdf

As suggested by Adeline, Conservation Biogeography by R.J.Ladle and R.J.Whittaker, Wiley-Blackwell.

Best,

Guy

If you are interested in climate and man as factors determining the distribution of a species, that would seem to fall within the field of ecology. Biogeography is more concerned with history, speciation, extinction, and changes in the geographic range of a given taxon, i.e., processes of large spatial and temporal scales. However, ecological precesses also influence biogeographic processes, and in that case we are within the domain of what is known as ecological biogeography, a subdiscipline of Biogeography. In brief, although your study looks more ecological, you could give it a more biogeographical perspective if that is your interest

Dear colleague,

I think that a macroecological study would be a proper approach in your case. The distribution of birds covers much territory and could implies the study of subspecies or different habitats with a diversity of climate and anthropogenic factors. But if you planned a research focused in a single habitat I recommend an ecological approach.

Regards,

José Pizarro-Neyra

Escuela Post grado UNJBG Tacna Peru

It seems environmental ecology, or species distribution ecology.. different environmental gradient including disturbance gradient.

VANARAJ

111 ecology Lab

Bharathiar university

I strongly agree with Ramiro Pablo López.

Ernst Haeckel coined the term “ökologie” in1866. Today “ecology” is commonly referred to as  “the scientific study of the relationships that living organisms have with each other and with their natural environment.”

In some ways, biogeography vs ecology is a matter of spatial scale. If your study is considering factors affecting the entire range of the vulture species then biogeography seems more appropriate in the title. If the study is considering local populations then ecology. So, where in the middle is the dividing line? If the data are robust enough to extend to over half of the range, then biogeography. However, if the topic considers the factors driving the decline of populations, even if those factors can be extended range-wide, then that is an ecological topic (factors affecting distribution and abundance). Does the manuscript have many maps (biogeography)? or does it have many graphs and measurements (ecology)? These would be simple, first steps in classifying the topic.

@Wayne. Why 'living'? Why 'natural'? On the latter, how do we know in each case a priori? What is the time scale of natural? Is, for example Yellowstone NP natural on a time scale of one or two centuries?

@Roman. Geography and biology overlap considerably. Geography is the older one. Both sciences share five of the ten most well-known concepts of ecology (ESA survey): scale, ecosystem, habitat, population and community. Both sciences operates on a range of scales.