Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 77–89 | Cite as

The Viability of Metapopulations: Individual Dispersal Behaviour Matters

  • Simone K. HeinzEmail author
  • Christian Wissel
  • Karin Frank
Research article

Abstract

Metapopulation models are frequently used for analysing species–landscape interactions and their effect on structure and dynamic of populations in fragmented landscapes. They especially support a better understanding of the viability of metapopulations. In such models, the processes determining metapopulation viability are often modelled in a simple way. Animals’ dispersal between habitat fragments is mostly taken into account by using a simple dispersal function that assumes the underlying process of dispersal to be random movement. Species-specific dispersal behaviour such as a systematic search for habitat patches is likely to influence the viability of a metapopulation. Using a model for metapopulation viability analysis, we investigate whether such specific dispersal behaviour affects the predictions of ranking orders among alternative landscape configurations rated regarding their ability to carry viable metapopulations. To incorporate dispersal behaviour in the model, we use a submodel for the colonisation rates which allows different movement patterns to be considered (uncorrelated random walk, correlated random walk with various degrees of correlation, and loops). For each movement pattern, the landscape order is determined by comparing the resulting mean metapopulation lifetime Tm of different landscape configurations. Results show that landscape orders can change considerably between different movement patterns. We analyse whether and under what circumstances dispersal behaviour influences the ranking orders of landscapes. We find that the ‘competition between patches for migrants’ – i.e. the fact that dispersers immigrating into one patch are not longer available as colonisers for other patches – is an important factor driving the change in landscape ranks. The implications of our results for metapopulation modelling, planning and conservation are discussed.

Keywords

Landscape assessment Landscape ranking Modelling Movement patterns Patchy populations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adler, F.R., Nuernberger, B. 1994Persistence in patchy irregular landscapesTheor. Popul. Biol.454175Google Scholar
  2. Bell, W.J. 1985Source of information controlling motor pattern in arthropod local search orientationJ. Insect Physiol.31837847Google Scholar
  3. Cain, M.L. 1985Random search by herbivorous insects: a simulation modelEcology66876888Google Scholar
  4. Conradt, L., Bodsworth, E.J., Roper, T.J., Thomas, C.D. 2000Non-random dispersal in the butterfly Maniola jurtina: implications for metapopulation modelsProc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B26715051510Google Scholar
  5. Conradt, L., Roper, T.J., Thomas, C.D. 2001Dispersal behaviour of individuals in metapopulations of two British butterfliesOikos95416424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conradt, L., Zollner, P.A., Roper, T.J., Frank, K., Thomas, C.D. 2003Foray search: an effective systematic dispersal strategy in fragmented landscapesAm. Nat.161905915CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Darroch, J.N., Senata, E. 1965On quasi-stationary distributions of absorbing discrete-time finite Markov chainsJ. Appl. Probability288100Google Scholar
  8. Drechsler, M. 2000A model-based decision aid for species protection under uncertaintyBiol. Conserv.942330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Durier, V., Rivault, C. 1999Path integration in cockroach larvaeBlattella germanica (L.) (insect : Dictyoptera): Direction and distance estimationAnimal Learning & Behavior27108118Google Scholar
  10. Etienne, R.S., Hesterbeck, J.A.P. 2001On optimal size and number of reserves for metapopulation persistenceJ. Theoret. Biol.2033350Google Scholar
  11. Fahrig, L. 1992Relative importance of spatial and temporal scales in a patchy environmentTheor. Popul. Biol.41300314Google Scholar
  12. Frank, K. 2004Ecologically differentiated rules of thumb for habitat network design: lessons from a formulaBiodiv. Conserv.13189206Google Scholar
  13. Frank K., Lorek H., Koester F., Sonnenschein M., Wissel C. and Grimm V. 2002. META-X: Software for Metapopulation Viability Analysis. Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Frank, K., Wissel, C. 1998Spatial aspects of metapopulation survival: from model results to rules of thumb for landscape managementLandscape Ecol.13363379Google Scholar
  15. Frank, K., Wissel, C. 2002A formula for the mean lifetime of metapopulations in heterogeneous landscapesAm. Nat.159530552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillman M. and Hails R. 1997. An Introduction to Ecological Modelling: Putting Practice into Theory. Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
  17. Grimm, V., Lorek, H., Finke, J., Koester, F., Malachinski, M., Sonnenschein, M., Moilanen, A., Stroch, I., Singer, A., Wissel, C., Frank, K. 2004META-X: a generic software for metapopulation viability analysisBiodiv. Conserv.13165188Google Scholar
  18. Grimm, V., Wissel, C. 2004The intrinsic mean time to extinction: a unifying approach to analyze persistence and viability of populationsOikos105501511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haddad, N.M. 1999Corridor and distance effects on interpatch movements: a landscape experiment with butterfliesEcol. Appl.9612622Google Scholar
  20. Hanski, I. 1994A practical model of metapopulation dynamicsJ. Anim. Ecol.63151162Google Scholar
  21. Hanski I. 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hanski, I., Ovaskainen, O. 2000The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscapeNature404755758CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hein, S., Pfenning, B., Hovestadt, T., Poethke, H.J. 2004Patch density, movement pattern, and realised dispersal distances in a patch-matrix landscape – a simulation studyEcol. Modell.174411420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heinz S.K. 2004. Dispersal in fragmented landscapes: From individual movement behaviour to metapopulation viability. Ph.D. ThesisPhilipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg Germany 128 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Heinz, S.K., Conradt, L., Wissel, C., Frank, K. 2005Dispersal in fragmented landscapes: Deriving a practical formula for patch accessibilityLandscape Ecol.208399Google Scholar
  26. Hoffmann, G. 1983The search behaviour of the desert isopod Hemilepistus reaumuri as compared with a systematic searchBehav. Ecol. Sociobiol.1393106Google Scholar
  27. Keilson, J. 1979Markov Chain Models – Rarity and Exponentiality (Applied Mathematical Sciences 28)Springer VerlagNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. King, A.W., With, K.A. 2002Dispersal success on spatially structured landscapes: when do spatial pattern and dispersal behavior really matter?Ecol. Modell.1472339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lima, S.L., Zollner, P.A. 1996Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapesTrends Ecol. Evol.11131135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindenmayer, D.W., Possingham, H.P. 1996Ranking conservation and timber management options for Leadbeater's possum in southeastern Australia using Population Viability AnalysisConserv. Biol.10118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Merriam G. 1991. Corridors and connectivity: animal populations in heterogeneous environments. In: Saunders D.A. and Hobbs R.J. (eds), Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors. Surrey Beatty & Sons, pp.133–142.Google Scholar
  32. Morales, J.M., Ellner, S.P. 2002Scaling up animal movements in heterogeneous landscapes: the importance of behaviorEcology8322402247Google Scholar
  33. Müller, M., Wehner, R. 1994The hidden spiral-systematic search and path integration in desert ants, Cataglyphis fortisJ. Comp. Physiol. A175525530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ovaskainen, O. 2002The effective size of a metapopulation living in a heterogeneous patch networkAm. Nat.160612628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pollett, P.K. 1997Limiting conditional distributions for metapopulation modelsMcDonal, A.D.McAleer, L. eds. Proc. Int. Congr. on Modeling and Simulation, Vol. 2Modeling and Simulation Society of AustraliaHobartAustralia807812Google Scholar
  36. Possingham, H.P., Ball, I.R., Andelman, S. 2000Mathematical models for reserve designFerson, S.Burgman, M. eds. Quantitative Methods for Conservation BiologySpringerNew York291306Google Scholar
  37. Roitberg, B.D., Mangel, M. 1997Individuals on the landscape: behavior can mitigate landscape differences among habitatsOikos80234240Google Scholar
  38. Verboom J., Metz J.A.J. and Meelis E. 1993. Metapopulation models for impact assessment of fragmentation. In: Vos C.C. and Opdam P. (eds), Landscape Ecology of a Stressed Environment. Chapman & Hall, pp. 172–192.Google Scholar
  39. Vos, C.C., Verboom, J., Opdam, P.F.M., Ter Braak, C.J.F. 2001Toward ecologically scaled landscape indicesAm. Nat.1832441Google Scholar
  40. Weaver, J.L., Paquet, P.C., Ruggiero, L.F. 1996Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky MountainsConserv. Biol.10964976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wissel, C., Stöcker, S. 1991Extinction of populations by random influencesTheor. Popul. Biol.39315328Google Scholar
  42. Zollner, P.A., Lima, S.L. 1997Landscape-level perceptual abilities in white-footed mice: perceptual range and the detection of forested habitatOikos805160Google Scholar
  43. Zollner, P.A., Lima, S.L. 1999Search strategies for landscape-level interpatch movementEcology8010191030Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simone K. Heinz
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Christian Wissel
    • 1
  • Karin Frank
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecological ModellingUFZ – Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig HalleLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations