Abstract
Many populations are spatially structured with frequent extinction–colonization events. A clear understanding of these processes is necessary for making informed and effective management decisions. Due to the spatially and temporally dynamic nature of many systems, population connectivity and local extinction–colonization processes can be difficult to assess, but graph theoretic and occupancy modeling approaches are increasingly being utilized to answer such vital ecological questions. In our study, we used 6 years of egg mass counts from 34 ponds for Rana sylvatica to parameterize spatially explicit demographic network models. Our models revealed that the studied populations have spatial structure with strong source–sink dynamics. We also assessed the colonization and persistence probability of each pond using multi-season occupancy modeling. We observed extreme fluctuation in reproductive effort among years, resulting in variable levels of connectivity across the landscape. Pond colonization and persistence were most influenced by local population dynamics, but colonization was also affected by precipitation. Our demographic network model had moderate ability to predict reproductive effort, but accuracy was hindered by variation in annual precipitation. Source populations had higher colonization and persistence rates as well as a greater proportion of ravine habitat within 1,000 m than sink populations. By linking a spatially explicit connectivity model with a temporal occupancy/persistence model, we provide a framework for interpreting patterns of occupancy and dispersal that can serve as an initial guide for future habitat management and restoration.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecol 22:1117–1129
Bang-Jensen J, Gutin GZ (2010) Digraphs: theory algorithms and applications. Springer, New York
Berven KA (1990) Factors affecting population fluctuations in larval and adult stages of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Ecology 71:1599–1608
Berven KA, Grudzien TA (1990) Dispersal in the wood frog (Rana sylvatica): implications for genetic population structure. Evolution 44:2047–2056
Bowne DR, Bowers MA (2004) Interpatch movements in spatially structured populations: a literature review. Landscape Ecol 19:1–20
Brooks CP (2006) Quantifying population substructure: extending the graph-theoretic approach. Ecology 87:864–872
Brown JH (1984) On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. Am Nat 124:255–279
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New York
Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536
Charney ND (2012) Evaluating expert opinion and spatial scale in an amphibian model. Ecol Model 242:37–45
Church DR (2008) Role of current versus historical hydrology in amphibian species turnover within local pond communities. Copeia 2008:115–125
Crosby MKA, Licht LE, Fu J (2008) The effect of habitat fragmentation on finescale population structure of wood frogs (Rana sylvatica). Conserv Genet 10:1707–1718
Dilts T (2010) Topography tools for ArcGIS v. 9.3. http://arcscripts.esri.com/details.asp?dbid=15996. Accessed 10 June 2013
Fronhofer EA, Kubisch A, Hilker FM, Hovestadt T, Poethke HJ (2012) Why are metapopulations so rare? Ecology 93:1967–1978
Gustafson EJ, Gardner RH (1996) The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77:94–107
Hanski I, Gilpin M (1997) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego
Harary F (1969) Graph theory. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Harrison S, Taylor AD (1997) Empirical evidence for metapopulation dynamics. In: Hanski I, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego
Hecnar SJ, M’Closkey RT (1996) Regional dynamics and the status of amphibians. Ecology 77:2091–2097
Hocking DJ, Rittenhouse TAG, Rothermel BB, Johnson BR, Conner CA, Harper EB, Semlitsch RD (2008) Breeding and recruitment phenology of amphibians in Missouri oak-hickory forests. Am Midl Nat 160:41–60
Jenness J (2006). Jenness Enterprises. Topopgraphic Position Index (tpi_jen.avx) extension for ArcView 3.x, v. 1.3a. http://www.jennessent.com/Arcview/tpi.htm. Accessed 22 March 2013
Kool JT, Moilanen A, Treml EA (2013) Population connectivity: recent advances and new perspectives. Landscape Ecol 28:165–185
Kuussaari M, Bommarco R, Heikkinen RK, Helm A, Krauss J, Lindborg R, Öckinger E, Pärtel M, Pino J, Rodà F, Stefanescu C, Teder T, Zobel M, Steffan-Dewenter I (2009) Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 24:564–571
Lannoo MJ (ed) (2005) Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley
MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Knutson MG, Franklin AB (2003) Estimating site occupancy, colonization, and local extinction when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 84:2200–2207
Minor ES, Urban DL (2007) Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol Appl 17:1771–1782
Nathan R, Getz WM, Revilla E, Holyoak M, Kadmon R, Saltz D, Smouse PE (2008) A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19052–19059
O’Connor MP, Sieg AE, Dunham AE (2006) Linking physiological effects on activity and resource use to population level phenomena. Integr Comp Biol 46:1093–1109
Peterman WE, Feist SM, Semlitsch RD, Eggert LS (2013) Temporal and spatial influences on the genetic structure of peripheral wood frog (Rana sylvatica) populations. Biol Conserv 158:351–358
Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661
Richardson JL (2012) Divergent landscape effects on population connectivity in two co-occurring amphibian species. Mol Ecol 21:4437–4451
Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD (2007) Postbreeding habitat use of wood frogs in a Missouri oak-hickory forest. J Herpetol 41:645–653
Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD (2009) Behavioral response of migrating wood frogs to experimental timber harvest surrounding wetlands. Can J Zool 87:618–625
Rittenhouse TAG, Harper EB, Rehard LR, Semlitsch RD (2008) The role of microhabitats in the desiccation and survival of anurans in recently harvested oak-hickory forest. Copeia 2008:807–814
Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD, Thompson FR III (2009) Survival costs associated with wood frog breeding migrations: effects of timber harvest and drought. Ecology 90:1620–1630
Rozenfeld AF, Arnaud-Haond S, Hernández-García E, Eguíluz VM, Serrão EA, Duarte CM (2008) Network analysis identifies weak and strong links in a metapopulation system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:18824–18829
Saura S, Rubio L (2010) A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33:523–537
Saura S, Torne J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ Model Softw 24:135–139
Schick RS, Lindley ST (2007) Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine network. J Appl Ecol 44:1116–1126
Semlitsch RD, Conner CA, Hocking DJ, Rittenhouse TAG, Harper EB (2008) Effects of timber harvesting on pond-breeding amphibian persistence: testing the evacuation hypothesis. Ecol Appl 18:283–289
Taylor BE, Scott DE (1997) Effects of larval density dependence on population dynamics of Ambystoma opacum. Herpetologica 53:132–145
Taylor P, Fahrig L, With KA (2006) Landscape connectivity: a return to basics. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 29–43
Thomas CD, Kunin WE (1999) The spatial structure of populations. J Anim Ecol 68:647–657
Trauth SE, Robison HW, Plummer MV (2004) The amphibians and reptiles of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville
Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218
Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick RS (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12:260–273
Verbeke G, Molenberghs G (2000) Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Springer, New York
Wennergren U, Ruckelshaus M, Kareiva P (1995) The promise and limitations of spatial models in conservation biology. Oikos 74:349–356
Werner EE, Yurewicz KL, Skelly DK, Relyea RA (2007) Turnover in an amphibian metacommunity: the role of local and regional factors. Oikos 116:1713–1725
Wilbur HM (1987) Regulation of structure in complex systems: experimental temporary pond communities. Ecology 68:1437–1452
Wright AH, Wright AA (1949) Handbook of frogs and toads. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca
Zellmer AJ, Knowles LL (2009) Disentangling the effects of historic vs. contemporary landscape structure on population genetic divergence. Mol Ecol 18:3593–3602
Acknowledgments
We thank D. Leach, T. Luhring, M. S. Osbourn, S. E. Pittman, B. Scheffers, J. Sias, and E. Wengert for assistance with field surveys. This manuscript was greatly improved by N. Schumaker and two anonymous reviewers. Partial support for this research was provided by Trans World Airlines, University of Missouri Research Board (CB000402), DoD Strategic Environmental Research Development Program (RC2155), and NSF (DEB 0239943).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peterman, W.E., Rittenhouse, T.A.G., Earl, J.E. et al. Demographic network and multi-season occupancy modeling of Rana sylvatica reveal spatial and temporal patterns of population connectivity and persistence. Landscape Ecol 28, 1601–1613 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9906-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9906-9