Journal of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 66, Issue 3, pp 423–476 | Cite as

Stochastic population growth in spatially heterogeneous environments

  • Steven N. Evans
  • Peter L. Ralph
  • Sebastian J. Schreiber
  • Arnab Sen


Classical ecological theory predicts that environmental stochasticity increases extinction risk by reducing the average per-capita growth rate of populations. For sedentary populations in a spatially homogeneous yet temporally variable environment, a simple model of population growth is a stochastic differential equation dZtμZtdtσZtdWt, t ≥ 0, where the conditional law of ZttZt given Ztz has mean and variance approximately zμΔt and z2σ2Δt when the time increment Δt is small. The long-term stochastic growth rate \({\lim_{t \to \infty} t^{-1}\log Z_t}\) for such a population equals \({\mu -\frac{\sigma^2}{2}}\) . Most populations, however, experience spatial as well as temporal variability. To understand the interactive effects of environmental stochasticity, spatial heterogeneity, and dispersal on population growth, we study an analogous model \({{\bf X}_t = (X_t^1, \ldots, X_t^n)}\) , t ≥ 0, for the population abundances in n patches: the conditional law of Xtt given Xtx is such that the conditional mean of \({X_{t+\Delta t}^i - X_t^i}\) is approximately \({[x^i \mu_i + \sum_j (x^j D_{ji} - x^i D_{ij})] \Delta t}\) where μi is the per capita growth rate in the ith patch and Dij is the dispersal rate from the ith patch to the jth patch, and the conditional covariance of \({X_{t+\Delta t}^i - X_t^i}\) and \({X_{t + \Delta t}^j - X_t^j}\) is approximately xixjσijΔt for some covariance matrix Σ = (σij). We show for such a spatially extended population that if \({S_t = X_t^1 + \cdots + X_t^n}\) denotes the total population abundance, then YtXt/St, the vector of patch proportions, converges in law to a random vector Y as \({t \to \infty}\) , and the stochastic growth rate \({\lim_{t \to \infty} t^{-1}\log S_t}\) equals the space-time average per-capita growth rate \({\sum_i \mu_i \mathbb{E}[Y_\infty^i]}\) experienced by the population minus half of the space-time average temporal variation \({\mathbb{E}[\sum_{i,j}\sigma_{ij}Y_\infty^i Y_\infty^j]}\) experienced by the population. Using this characterization of the stochastic growth rate, we derive an explicit expression for the stochastic growth rate for populations living in two patches, determine which choices of the dispersal matrix D produce the maximal stochastic growth rate for a freely dispersing population, derive an analytic approximation of the stochastic growth rate for dispersal limited populations, and use group theoretic techniques to approximate the stochastic growth rate for populations living in multi-scale landscapes (e.g. insects on plants in meadows on islands). Our results provide fundamental insights into “ideal free” movement in the face of uncertainty, the persistence of coupled sink populations, the evolution of dispersal rates, and the single large or several small (SLOSS) debate in conservation biology. For example, our analysis implies that even in the absence of density-dependent feedbacks, ideal-free dispersers occupy multiple patches in spatially heterogeneous environments provided environmental fluctuations are sufficiently strong and sufficiently weakly correlated across space. In contrast, for diffusively dispersing populations living in similar environments, intermediate dispersal rates maximize their stochastic growth rate.


Stochastic population growth Spatial and temporal heterogeneity Dominant Lyapunov exponent Ideal free movement Evolution of dispersal Single large or several small debate Habitat fragmentation 

Mathematics Subject Classification

92D25 37H15 60H10 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material (103 kb)
ESM 1 (ZIP 104 kb)


  1. Adler FR (1992) The effects of averaging on the basic reproduction ratio. Math Biosci 111: 89–98MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bascompte J, Possingham H, Roughgarden J (2002) Patchy populations in stochastic environments: critical number of patches for persistence. Am Nat 159: 128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benaïm M, Schreiber SJ (2009) Persistence of structured populations in random environments. Theor Popul Biol 76: 19–34MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhattacharya RN (1978) Criteria for recurrence and existence of invariant measures for multidimensional diffusions. Ann Probab 6(4):541–553. ISSN 00911798. Google Scholar
  5. Bogachev VI, Röckner M, Stannat W (2002) Uniqueness of solutions of elliptic equations and uniqueness of invariant measures of diffusions. Sbornik: Math 193(7):945.
  6. Bogachev Vladimir I, Krylov Nikolai V, Röckner Michael (2009) Elliptic and parabolic equations for measures. Russ Math Surv 64(6):973. Google Scholar
  7. Boyce MS, Haridas CV, Lee CT, the NCEAS Stochastic Demography Working Group (2006) Demography in an increasingly variable world. Trends Ecol Evol 21: 141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cantrell RS, Cosner C (1991) The effects of spatial heterogeneity in population dynamics. J Math Biol 29: 315–338MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cantrell RS, Cosner C, Lou Y (2006) Movement toward better environments and the evolution of rapid diffusion. Math Biosci 204(2): 199–214MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cantrell RS, Cosner C (1989) Diffusive logistic equations with indefinite weights: population models in disrupted environments. Proc Royal Soc Edinburgh Section A Math 112(3–4): 293–318MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cantrell RS, Cosner C, Deangelis DL, Padron V (2007) The ideal free distribution as an evolutionarily stable strategy. J Biol Dyn 1: 249–271MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chesson PL (2000) General theory of competitive coexistence in spatially-varying environments. Theor Popul Biol 58: 211–237MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Da Prato G, Zabczyk J (1996) Ergodicity for Infinite-Dimensional Systems, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol 229. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. DeAngelis DL, Wolkowicz GSK, Lou Y, Jiang Y, Novak M, Svanbäck R, Araújo MS, Jo YS, Cleary EA (2011) The effect of travel loss on evolutionarily stable distributions of populations in space. Am Nat 178: 15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Delibes M, Gaona P, Ferreras P (2001) Effects of an attractive sink leading into maladaptive habitat selection. Am Nat 158: 277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dennis B, Munholland PL, Scott JM (1991) Estimation of growth and extinction parameters for endangered species. Ecol Monogr 61: 115–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diaconis P (1988) Group representations in probability and statistics. Institute of Mathematical Statistics Lecture Notes—Monograph Series, vol 11. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, HaywardGoogle Scholar
  18. Diamond JM (1975) The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biol Conserv 7: 129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dias PC (1996) Sources and sinks in population biology. Trends Ecol Evol 11:326–330Google Scholar
  20. Dockery J, Hutson V, Mischaikow K, Pernarowski M (1998) The evolution of slow dispersal rates: a reaction diffusion model. J Math Biol 37: 61–83MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Durrett R, Remenik D (2012) Evolution of the dispersal distance. J Math Biol (in press)Google Scholar
  22. Fahrig L (1997) Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. J Wildl Manag 61: 603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fahrig L (2002) Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. Ecol Appl 12: 346–353Google Scholar
  24. Foley P (1994) Predicting extinction times from environmental stochasticity and carrying capacity. Conserv Biol 8:124–137Google Scholar
  25. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL Jr. (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheoretica 19:16–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gardiner CW (2004) Handbook of Stochastic Methods: for Physics, Chemistry and the Natural Sciences, Series in synergetics, vol 13, 4th edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. Geiß C, Manthey R (1994) Comparison theorems for stochastic differential equations in finite and infinite dimensions. Stoch Processes Appl 53: 23–35MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gilpin ME (1988) A comment on Quinn and Hastings: extinction in subdivided habitats. Conserv Biol 2: 290–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gonzalez A, Holt RD (2002) The inflationary effects of environmental fluctuations in source-sink systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99: 14872–14877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gradshteyn IS, Ryzhik IM (2007) Table of integrals, series, and products. Elsevier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, 7th edn, 2007. Translated from the Russian, Translation edited and with a preface by Alan Jeffrey and Daniel ZwillingerGoogle Scholar
  31. Harper DGC (1982) Competitive foraging in mallards: “ideal free” ducks. Animal Behav 30: 575–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harrison S, Quinn JF (1989) Correlated environments and the persistence of metapopulations. Oikos 56: 293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hastings A (1983) Can spatial variation alone lead to selection for dispersal?. Theor Popul Biol 24: 244–251MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holt RD (1985) Patch dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribtuion. Theor Popul Biol 28: 181–208MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holt RD (1997) On the evolutionary stability of sink populations. Evol Ecol 11: 723–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Holt RD, McPeek MA (1996) Chaotic population dynamics favors the evolution of dispersal. Am Nat 148(44): 709–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hutson V, Mischaikow K, Poláčik P (2001) The evolution of dispersal rates in a heterogeneous time-periodic environment. J Math Biol 43: 501–533MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ikeda N, Watanabe S (1989) Stochastic differential equations and diffusion processes, North-Holland Mathematical Library, vol 24, 2nd edn. North-Holland Publishing Co, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  39. Jansen VAA, Yoshimura J (1998) Populations can persist in an environment consisting of sink habitats only. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95: 3696–3698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keagy J, Schreiber SJ, Cristol DA (2005) Replacing sources with sinks: when do populations go down the drain?. Restor Ecol 13: 529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Khas’minskii RZ (1960) Ergodic properties of recurrent diffusion processes and stabilization of the solution to the cauchy problem for parabolic equations. Theory Probab Appl 5(2):179–196, 1960. ISSN 0040585X. doi:10.1137/1105016.
  42. Kirkland S, Li CK, Schreiber SJ (2006) On the evolution of dispersal in patchy landscapes. SIAM J Appl Math 66: 1366–1382MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kreuzer MP, Huntly NJ (2003) Habitat-specific demography: evidence for source-sink population structure in a mammal, the pika. Oecologia 134: 343–349Google Scholar
  44. Lande R, Engen S, Sæther BE (2003) Stochastic population dynamics in ecology and conservation: an introduction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Levin SA, Cohen D, Hastings A (1984) Dispersal strategies in patchy environments. Theor Popul Biol 26: 165–191MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull ESA 15: 237–240Google Scholar
  47. Lonsdale WM (1993) Rates of spread of an invading species-mimosa pigra in northern Australia. J Ecol 81: 513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lundberg P, Ranta E, Ripa J, Kaitala V (2000) Population variability in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 15: 460–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Matthews DP, Gonzalez A (2007) The inflationary effects of environmental fluctuations ensure the persistence of sink metapopulations. Ecology 88: 2848–2856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. May RM (1975) Stability and complexity in model ecosystems, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  51. McPeek MA, Holt RD (1992) The evolution of dispersal in spatially and temporally varying environments. Am Nat 6: 1010–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Metz JAJ, de Jong TJ, Klinkhamer PGL (1983) What are the advantages of dispersing; a paper by Kuno extended. Oecologia 57: 166–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Murphy MT (2001) Source-sink dynamics of a declining eastern kingbird population and the value of sink habitats. Conserv Biol 15: 737–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Oksanen T, Power ME, Oksanen L (1995) Ideal free habitat selection and consumer-resource dynamics. Am Nat 146: 565–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Petchey OL, Gonzalez A, Wilson HB (1997) Effects on population persistence: the interaction between environmental noise colour, intraspecific competition and space. Proc Biol Sci 264: 1841–1847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Philippi T, Seger J (1989) Hedging one’s evolutionary bets, revisited. Trends Ecol Evol 4: 41–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132: 652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Quinn JF, Hastings A (1987) Extinction in subdivided habitats. Conserv Biol 1: 198–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Remeš V (2000) How can maladaptive habitat choice generate source-sink population dynamics?. Oikos 91: 579–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roy M, Holt RD, Barfield M (2005) Temporal autocorrelation can enhance the persistence and abundance of metapopulations comprised of coupled sinks. Am Nat 166: 246–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ruelle D (1979) Analycity properties of the characteristic exponents of random matrix products. Adv Math 32: 68–80MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmidt KA (2004) Site fidelity in temporally correlated environments enhances population persistence. Ecol Lett 7: 176–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schreiber SJ (2010) Interactive effects of temporal correlations, spatial heterogeneity, and dispersal on population persistence. Proc Royal Soc Biol Sci 277: 1907–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schreiber SJ, Lloyd-Smith JO (2009) Invasion dynamics in spatially heterogenous environments. Am Nat 174: 490–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schreiber SJ, Saltzman E (2009) Evolution of predator and prey movement into sink habitats. Am Nat 174: 68–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schreiber SJ, Vejdani M (2006) Handling time promotes the coevolution of aggregation in predator–prey systems. Proc Royal Soc Biol Sci 273: 185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schreiber SJ, Fox LR, Getz WM (2000) Coevolution of contrary choices in host-parasitoid systems. American Naturalist 637–648Google Scholar
  68. Serre JP (1977) Linear representations of finite groups. Springer, New York. Translated from the second French edition by Leonard L. Scott, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol 42Google Scholar
  69. Slatkin M (1974) Hedging one’s evolutionary bets. Nature 250: 704–705Google Scholar
  70. Talay Denis (1991) Approximation of upper Lyapunov exponents of bilinear stochastic differential systems. SIAM J Numer Anal 28(4):1141–1164. ISSN 00361429.
  71. Tuljapurkar S (1990) Population dynamics in variable environments. Springer, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  72. Turelli M (1978) Random environments and stochastic calculus. Theor Popul Biol 12: 140–178MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. van Baalen M, Sabelis MW (1999) Nonequilibrium population dynamics of “ideal and free” prey and predators. Am Nat 154: 69–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilbur HM, Rudolf VHW (2006) Life-history evolution in uncertain environments: bet hedging in time. Am Nat 168: 398–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wilcox BA, Murphy DD (1985) Conservation strategy: the effects of fragmentation on extinction. Am Nat 125: 879–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven N. Evans
    • 1
  • Peter L. Ralph
    • 2
  • Sebastian J. Schreiber
    • 2
  • Arnab Sen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Statistics #3860University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Evolution and EcologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  3. 3.Statistical LaboratoryCentre for Mathematical SciencesCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations