Landscape Ecology

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 39–50

Migration rates of grassland plants along corridors in fragmented landscapes assessed with a cellular automation model

  • Dirk van Dorp
  • Peter Schippers
  • Jan M. van Groenendael


This study investigated the efficacy of linear landscape elements in fragmented landscapes as corridors for perennial grassland species with short-range seed dispersal. Corridors are assumed to be essential for the persistence of metapopulations in fragmented landscapes, but it is unclear to what extent linear landscape elements such as ditch banks and road verges can function as corridors for those species. The principal factors that determine the rate of migration through corridors include the width and habitat quality of patches within a corridor (expressed as the population growth rate λ) and the dispersal capacity of plants (expressed as the slope α of the relationship between seed number and log-distance).

A cellular automation model was used to simulate the effects of the principal factors on the rate of migration. Simulations with different levels of the principal factors showed highly significant and positive main effects of dispersal capacity, habitat quality and width of corridors on the migration rate. Significant interactions existed between dispersal capacity × width and dispersal capacity × habitat quality (p<0.0001), indicating that the effects of width and habitat quality depended on the dispersal capacity. In narrow corridors most of the dispersed seeds were deposited outside the corridor, which significantly reduced migration rates, especially for species with long-range dispersal (α=−0.4). In wide corridors (up to 20 m), seed losses were much smaller and migration rates approximated those of continuous habitats. The contribution of the few long-range seeds to the rate of migration was significant when habitat quality was high (population growth rates up to 2.5). However, in all simulations migration rates were very low,i.e.<5 m/yr.

It is concluded that linear landscape elements are not effective corridors in fragmented landscapes for plants with short-range seed dispersal, because migration rates are low (<5 m/yr), landscape elements vary in the percentage of high quality patches, and refugia and suitable habitat patches are frequently several kilometres apart, making a cohesive infrastructure of corridors for plants elusive. It is argued that the best way to conserve endangered plant species that encounter dispersal barriers is to harvest seeds from nearby source populations and introduce them as suitable habitats.


seed dispersal migration corridor restoration grassland plants fragmentation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bullock, S.H. and Primack, R.B. 1977. Comparative experimental study of seed dispersal on animals. Ecology 58: 681–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bunce, R.H.G. and Howard, D.C. 1990. Species dispersal in agricultural habitats. Belhaven Press, London.Google Scholar
  3. Czárán, T. and Bartha, S. 1992. Spatiotemporal dynamic models of plant populations and communities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7(2): 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fahrig, L. 1991. Simulation methods for developing general landscape-level hypotheses of single-species dynamics.In Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. pp. 417–442. Edited by M.G. Turner and R.H. Gardner. Springer Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Falk, D.A. 1992. From conservation biology to conservation practice: strategies for protecting plant diversity.In Conservation Biology: the Theory and Practice of Nature Conservation, Preservation and Management. pp. 397–431. Edited by P.L. Fieldler and S.K. Jain. Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Gilpin, M. and Hanski, I. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: empirical and theoretical investigations. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  7. Herben, T., Rydin, H. and Söderström, L. 1991. Spore establishment probability and the persistence of the fugitive invading moss,Orthodontium lineare: a spatial simulation model. Oikos 60: 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Howe, H.F. and Smallwood, J. 1982. Ecology of seed dispersal. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13: 201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Janzen, D.H. 1984. Dispersal of small seeds by big herbivores: foliage is the fruit. American Naturalist 123: 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leishman, M.R., Hughes, L., French, K., Armstrong, D. and Westoby, M. 1992. Seed and seedling biology in relation to modelling vegetation dynamics under global climate change. Australian Journal of Botany 40: 599–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McClanahan, T.R. 1986. Seed dispersal from vegetation islands. Ecological Modelling 32: 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McEvoy, P.B. and Cox, C.S. 1987. Wind dispersal distances in dimorphic achenes of ragwort,Senecio jacobaea. Ecology 68: 2006–2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Melman, Th.C.P., Clausman, P.H.M.A. and van Strien, A.J. 1988. Ditch banks in the western Netherlands as connectivity Connectivity in Landscape Ecology. pp. 157–161. Edited by K.-F. Schreiber. Proc. of the second IALE seminar. Münstersche Geographische Arbeiten 29, Münster.Google Scholar
  14. Merriam, G. 1984. Connectivity: a fundamental ecological characteristic of landscape pattern.In Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research and Planning. Volume 1, pp. 5–15. Edited by J. Brandt and P. Agger. Roskilde University Centre.Google Scholar
  15. Nip-van der Voort, J., Hengeveld, R. and Haeck, J. 1979. Immigration rates of plant species in three Dutch polders. Journal of Biogeography 6: 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ouborg, N.J. 1993. On the relative contribution of genetic erosion to the chance of population extinction. PhD-Thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  17. Primack, R.B. and Miao, S.L. 1992. Dispersal can limit local plant distribution. Conservation Biology 6: 513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rabinowitz, D. and Rapp, J.K. 1981. Dispersal abilities of seven sparse and common grasses from a Missouri prairie. American Journal of Botany 68: 596–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saunders, D. and Hobbs, R.J. 1991. The role of corridors. Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton, New South Wales, Australia.Google Scholar
  20. Schmidt, W. 1989. Plant dispersal by motor cars. Vegetatio 80: 147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Silvertown, J., Holtier, S., Johnson, J. and Dale, P. 1992. Cellular automaton models of interspecific competition for space — the effect of pattern on process. Journal of Ecology 80: 527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Skoglund, S.J. 1990. Seed dispersing agents in two regularly flooded river sites. Canadian Journal of Botany 68: 754–760.Google Scholar
  23. Sykora, K.V., de Nijs, L.J. and Pelsma, T.A.H.M. 1993. Plantengemeenschappen van Nederlandse wegbermen, Vol. 59. KNNV, 279 pp.Google Scholar
  24. van Dorp, D. 1996. Seed dispersal in agricultural habitats and the restoration of species-rich meadows. PhD-Thesis. Wageningen Agricultural University.Google Scholar
  25. van Dorp, D., van den Hoek, W.P.M. and Daleboudt, C. 1996. Seed dispersal capacity of six perennial grassland species measured in a wind-tunnel at varying wind speed and height. Canadian Journal of Botany (in press).Google Scholar
  26. van Groenendael, J.M., de Kroon, H. and Caswell, H. 1988. Projection matrices in population biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 3: 264–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van Groenendael, J.M. and Kalkhoven, J.T.R. 1990. Oecologische infrastructuur, zaaddispersie en natuurontwikkeling.In Natuurontwikkeling en Landbouw. Agrobiologische thema’s 1. pp. 67–77. Edited by F. Berendse. CABO, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  28. van Strien, A., van der Linden, J., Melman, Th.C.P. and Noordervliet, M.A. 1989. Factors affecting the vegetation of ditch banks in peat areas in the western Netherlands. Journal of Applied Ecology 26: 989–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Verkaar, H.J., Schenkeveld, A.J. and van de Klashorst, M.P. 1983. The ecology of short-lived forbs in chalk grasslands: dispersal of seeds. New Phytologist 95: 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Verkaar, H.J. 1990. Corridors as a tool for plant species conservation?In Species Dispersal in Agricultural Habitats. pp. 82–97. Edited by R.H.G. Bunce and D.C. Howard. Belhaven Press, London.Google Scholar
  31. Vermeulen, H. 1994. Corridor function of a road verge for dispersal of stenotopic heathland ground beetles Carabidae. Biological Conservation 69: 339–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vos, C.C. and Zonneveld, J.I.S. 1993. Pattern and processes in a landscape under stress: the study area.In Landscape ecology of a stressed environment. pp. 1–27. Edited by C.C. Vos and P. Opdam. IALE Studies in Landscape Ecology 1. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  33. Werner, P. 1975. A seed trap for determining patterns of seed deposition in terrestrial plants. Canadian Journal of Botany 53: 810–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Willson, M.F. 1992. The ecology of seed dispersal.In The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. pp. 61–85. Edited by M. Fenner. C.A.B. International, Wallingford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SPB Academic Publishing bv 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk van Dorp
    • 1
  • Peter Schippers
    • 2
  • Jan M. van Groenendael
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Terrestrial Ecology and Nature ConservationAgricultural UniversityPD WageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Theoretical Production EcologyPD WageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Ecology, Aquatic Ecology and Environmental Biology sectionUniversity of NijmegenED NijmegenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Larenstein International Agricultural CollegeGB VelpThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations