, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 846–853 | Cite as

Spatial Heterogeneity in Habitat Quality and Cross-Scale Interactions in Metapopulations



Integration of habitat heterogeneity into spatially realistic metapopulation approaches reveals the potential for key cross-scale interactions. Broad-scale environmental gradients and land-use practices can create autocorrelation of habitat quality of suitable patches at intermediate spatial scales. Patch occupancy then depends not only on habitat quality at the patch scale but also on feedbacks from surrounding neighborhoods of autocorrelated patches. Metapopulation dynamics emerge from how demographic and dispersal processes interact with relevant habitat heterogeneity. We provide an empirical example from a metapopulation of round-tailed muskrats (Neofiber alleni) in which habitat quality of suitable patches was spatially autocorrelated most strongly within 1,000 m, which was within the expected dispersal range of the species. After controlling for factors typically considered in metapopulation studies—patch size, local patch quality, patch connectivity—we use a cross-variogram analysis to demonstrate that patch occupancy by muskrats was correlated with habitat quality across scales ≤1,171 m. We also discuss general consequences of spatial heterogeneity of habitat quality for metapopulations related to potential cross-scale interactions. We focus on spatially correlated extinctions and metapopulation persistence, hierarchical scaling of source–sink dynamics, and dispersal decisions by individuals in relation to information constraints.


dispersal habitat heterogeneity metapopulation source-sink spatial autocorrelation 



Our research on metapopulation ecology of round-tailed muskrats was funded by a grant from the US Department of Defense. We thank J. Bridges, P. Ebersbach, P. Margosian, and P. Walsh for facilitating our study at Avon Park Air Force Range. We are grateful to J. Christopoulos, L. Showen, S. Cardiff, B. Gilbreath, M. McDermott, A. Pries, M. Shumar, and C. Wolf for assistance with fieldwork. B. Bestelmeyer, D. Peters and M. Turner provided helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.


  1. Armstrong DP. 2005. Integrating the metapopulation and habitat paradigms for understanding broad-scale declines of species. Conserv Biol 19:1402–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bascompte J, Solé RV. 1998. Effects of habitat destruction in a prey-predator metapopulation model. J Theor Biol 195:383–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergstrom BJ, Farley T, Hill HL Jr, Hon T. 2000. Ecology and conservation of a frontier population of the round-tailed muskrat (Neofiber alleni). Occas Pap North Carol Mus Nat Sci 12:74–82Google Scholar
  4. Birkenholz DE. 1963. A study of the life history and ecology of the round-tailed muskrat (Neofiber alleni True) in north-central Florida. Ecol Monogr 33:255–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boughton DA. 1999. Empirical evidence for complex source–sink dynamics with alternative states in a butterfly metapopulation. Ecology 80:2727–39Google Scholar
  6. Branch LC, Schooley RL. 2005. Wetlands assessment in a landscape context on Avon Park Air Force Range: surveys for wading birds and round-tailed muskrats (Neofiber alleni). Avon Park (FL): US Department of Defense. p 191Google Scholar
  7. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A. 1977. Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crist TO. 1998. The spatial distribution of termites in shortgrass steppe: a geostatistical approach. Oecologia 114:410–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. David PG. 1999. Response of exotics to restored hydroperiod at Dupuis Reserve, Florida. Restor Ecol 7:407–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dennis RLH, Eales HT. 1997. Patch occupancy in Coenonympha tullia (Müller, 1764) (Lepidoptera: Satyrinae): habitat quality matters as much as patch size and isolation. J Insect Conserv 1:167–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diffendorfer JE. 1998. Testing models of source–sink dynamics and balanced dispersal. Oikos 81:417–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fahrig L. 2002. Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. Ecol Appl 12:346–53Google Scholar
  13. Fleishman E, Ray C, Sjögren-Gulve P, Boggs CL, Murphy DD. 2002. Assessing the roles of patch quality, area, and isolation in predicting metapopulation dynamics. Conserv Biol 16:706–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fortin M-J, Dale M. 2005. Spatial analysis: a guide for ecologists. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. 365 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Franken RJ, Hik DS. 2004. Influence of habitat quality, patch size and connectivity on colonization and extinction dynamics of collared pikas Ochotona collaris. J Anim Ecol 73:889–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gamma Design Software. 2004. GS+: geostatistics for the environmental sciences. Plainwell (MI): Gamma Design SoftwareGoogle Scholar
  17. González-Megías A, Gómez JM, Sánchez-Piñero F. 2005. Consequences of spatial autocorrelation for the analysis of metapopulation dynamics. Ecology 86:3264–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanski I. 1994. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63:151–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanski I, Ovaskainen O. 2000. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404:755–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE. 2004. Metapopulation biology: past, present, and future. In: Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE, Eds. Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic. pp 3–22Google Scholar
  21. Harrison S, Quinn JF. 1989. Correlated environments and the persistence of metapopulations. Oikos 56:293–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hokit DG, Stith BM, Branch LC. 1999. Effects of landscape structure in Florida scrub: a population perspective. Ecol Appl 9:124–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hokit DG, Stith BM, Branch LC. 2001. Comparison of two types of metapopulation models in real and artificial landscapes. Conserv Biol 15:1102–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ims RA, Hjermann DO. 2001. Condition-dependent dispersal. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD, Eds. Dispersal. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp 203–16Google Scholar
  25. Johnson DM. 2005. Metapopulation models: an empirical test of model assumptions and evaluation methods. Ecology 86:3088–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johst K, Drechsler M. 2003. Are spatially correlated or uncorrelated disturbance regimes better for the survival of species? Oikos 103:449–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kalmbacher RS, Long KR, Johnson MK, Martin FG. 1984. Botanical composition of diets of cattle grazing south Florida rangeland. J Range Manage 37:334–40Google Scholar
  28. Kawecki TJ. 2004. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of source–sink population dynamics. In: Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE, Eds. Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic. pp 387–414Google Scholar
  29. Kindvall O. 1996. Habitat heterogeneity and survival in a bush cricket metapopulation. Ecology 77:207–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knapp RA, Matthews KR, Preisler HK, Jellison R. 2003. Developing probabilistic models to predict amphibian site occupancy in a patchy landscape. Ecol Appl 13:1069–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kreuzer MP, Huntly NJ. 2003. Habitat-specific demography: evidence for source–sink population structure in a mammal, the pika. Oecologia 134:343–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kristan WB. 2003. The role of habitat selection behavior in population dynamics: source–sink systems and ecological traps. Oikos 103:457–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lefebvre LW, Tilmant JT. 1992. Round-tailed muskrat (Neofiber alleni). In: Humphrey SR, Ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume I. Mammals. Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida. pp 276–86Google Scholar
  34. Lima SL, Zollner PA. 1996. Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:131–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCarthy MA, Lindenmayer DB. 2000. Spatially-correlated extinction in a metapopulation model of Leadbeater’s possum. Biodivers Conserv 9:47–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moilanen A, Nieminen M. 2002. Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ovaskainen O, Kazunori S, Bascompte J, Hanski I. 2002. Metapopulation models for extinction threshold in spatially correlated landscapes. J Theor Biol 215:95–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pellet J, Fleishman E, Dobkin DS, Gander A, Murphy DD. 2007. An empirical evaluation of the area and isolation paradigm of metapopulation dynamics. Biol Conserv 136:483–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peters DPC, Pielke RA, Bestelmeyer BT, Allen CD, Munson-McGee S, Havstad KM. 2004. Cross-scale interactions, nonlinearities, and forecasting catastrophic events. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101:15130–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pulliam HR. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ranta E, Lundberg P, Kaitala V. 1999. Resource matching with limited knowledge. Oikos 86:383–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Revilla E, Wiegand T, Palomares F, Ferreras P, Delibes M. 2004. Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behavior to metapopulation-level parameters. Am Nat 164:E130–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ricketts TH. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rossi RE, Mulla DJ, Journel AG, Franz EH. 1992. Geostatistical tools for modeling and interpreting ecological spatial dependence. Ecol Monogr 62:277–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. SAS Institute. 2002. SAS for Windows, version 9.0. Cary, North Carolina: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
  46. Sawada M. 1999. ROOKCASE: An Excel 97/2000 Visual Basic (VB) add-in for exploring global and local spatial autocorrelation. Bull Ecol Soc Am 80:231–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schooley RL, Branch LC. 2005. Survey techniques for determining occupancy of isolated wetlands by round-tailed muskrats. Southeast Nat 4:745–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schooley RL, Wiens JA. 2005. Spatial ecology of cactus bugs: area constraints and patch connectivity. Ecology 86:1627–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schooley RL, Branch LC. 2006. Space use by round-tailed muskrats in isolated wetlands. J Mammal 87:495–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith AT, Gilpin M. 1997. Spatially correlated dynamics in a pika metapopulation. In: Hanski I, Gilpin ME, Eds. Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. San Diego: Academic. pp 407–28Google Scholar
  51. Thomas CD. 1994. Extinction, colonization, and metapopulations: environmental tracking by rare species. Conserv Biol 8:373–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thomas CD, Hanski I. 2004. Metapopulation dynamics in changing environments: butterfly responses to habitat and climate change. In: Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE, Eds. Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic. pp 489–514Google Scholar
  53. Trenham PC, Koenig WD, Shaffer HB. 2001. Spatially autocorrelated demography and interpond dispersal in the salamander Ambystoma californiense. Ecology 82:3519–30Google Scholar
  54. Wiens JA. 1997. Metapopulation dynamics and landscape ecology. In: Hanski I, Gilpin ME, Eds. Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. San Diego: Academic. pp 43–62Google Scholar
  55. With KA. 2004. Metapopulation dynamics: perspectives from landscape ecology. In: Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE, Eds. Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic. pp 23–44Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences and Program in Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations