Advertisement

Population Ecology

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 79–89 | Cite as

Modeling vital rates improves estimation of population projection matrices

  • Kevin Gross
  • William F. Morris
  • Michael S. Wolosin
  • Daniel F. Doak
Original Article

Abstract

Population projection matrices are commonly used by ecologists and managers to analyze the dynamics of stage-structured populations. Building projection matrices from data requires estimating transition rates among stages, a task that often entails estimating many parameters with few data. Consequently, large sampling variability in the estimated transition rates increases the uncertainty in the estimated matrix and quantities derived from it, such as the population multiplication rate and sensitivities of matrix elements. Here, we propose a strategy to avoid overparameterized matrix models. This strategy involves fitting models to the vital rates that determine matrix elements, evaluating both these models and ones that estimate matrix elements individually with model selection via information criteria, and averaging competing models with multimodel averaging. We illustrate this idea with data from a population of Silene acaulis (Caryophyllaceae), and conduct a simulation to investigate the statistical properties of the matrices estimated in this way. The simulation shows that compared with estimating matrix elements individually, building population projection matrices by fitting and averaging models of vital-rate estimates can reduce the statistical error in the population projection matrix and quantities derived from it.

Keywords

Information criteria Model selection Multimodel averaging Vital rates 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Hal Caswell, Massa Nakaoka, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments and discussion. This work was supported by NSF grant DEB-0087096 to WFM and DFD.

References

  1. Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petran B and Csáki F (eds) International symposium on information theory. Akadémiai Kiadi, Budapest, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  3. Batista WB, Platt WJ, Macchiavelli RE (1998) Demography of a shade-tolerant tree (Fagus grandifolia) in a hurricane-disturbed forest. Ecology 79:38–53Google Scholar
  4. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Caswell H (2000) Prospective and retrospective perturbation analyses: their roles in conservation biology. Ecology 81:619–627Google Scholar
  6. Caswell H (2001) Matrix population models, 2nd edn. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Crowder LB, Crouse DT, Heppell SS, Martin TH (1994) Predicting the impact of turtle excluder devices on loggerhead sea turtle populations. Ecol Appl 4:437–445Google Scholar
  8. Doak DF, Morris WF (1999) Detecting population-level consequences of ongoing environmental change without long-term monitoring. Ecology 80:1537–1551Google Scholar
  9. Easterling MR, Ellner SP, Dixon PM (2000) Size-specific sensitivity: applying a new structured population model. Ecology 81:694–708Google Scholar
  10. Fujiwara M, Caswell H (2001) Demography of the endangered North Atlantic right whale. Nature 414:537–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gotelli NJ (1991) Demographic models for Leptogorgia virgulata, a shallow-water gorgonian. Ecology 72:457–467Google Scholar
  12. Hultén E (1974) Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Hurvich CM, Tsai CL (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76:297–307Google Scholar
  14. Lande R (1988) Demographic models of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Oecologia 75:601–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mertens SK, van den Bosch F, Heesterbeek JAP (2002) Weed populations and crop rotations: Exploring dynamics of a structured periodic system. Ecol Appl 12:1125–1141Google Scholar
  16. Moloney KA (1986) A generalized algorithm for determining category size. Oecologia 69:176–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Monson DH, Doak DF, Ballachey BE, Johnson A, Bodkin JL (2000) Long-term impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on sea otters, assessed through age-dependent mortality patterns. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 97:6562–6567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Morris WF, Doak DF (1998) Life history of the long-lived gynodioecious cushion plant Silene acaulis (Caryophyllaceae), inferred from size-based population projection matrices. Am J Bot 85:784–793Google Scholar
  19. Morris WF, Doak DF (2002) Quantitative conservation biology. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  20. Morris WF, Doak DF (2005) How general are the determinants of the stochastic population growth rate across nearby sites? Ecol Mon 75:119–137Google Scholar
  21. Nichols JD, Sauer JR, Pollock KH, Hestbeck JB (1992) Estimating transition probabilities for stage-based population projection matrices using capture-recapture data. Ecology 73:306–312Google Scholar
  22. Rees M, Rose KE (2002) Evolution of flowering strategies in Oenothera glazioviana: an integral projection model approach. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 269:1509–1515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tuljapurkar S, Caswell H (1997) Structured-population models in marine, terrestrial, and freshwater systems. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Vandermeer J (1978) Choosing category size in a stage projection matrix. Oecologia 32:79–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wielgus RB (2002) Minimum viable population and reserve sizes for naturally regulated grizzly bears in British Columbia. Biol Cons 106:381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer-Verlag Tokyo 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Gross
    • 1
  • William F. Morris
    • 2
  • Michael S. Wolosin
    • 2
  • Daniel F. Doak
    • 3
  1. 1.Biomathematics ProgramNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biology and Program in EcologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of California at Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations