Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 33–45 | Cite as

Landscape connectivity and predator–prey population dynamics

  • Jacopo A. Baggio
  • Kehinde Salau
  • Marco A. Janssen
  • Michael L. Schoon
  • Örjan Bodin
Research article

Abstract

Landscapes are increasingly fragmented, and conservation programs have started to look at network approaches for maintaining populations at a larger scale. We present an agent-based model of predator–prey dynamics where the agents (i.e. the individuals of either the predator or prey population) are able to move between different patches in a landscaped network. We then analyze population level and coexistence probability given node-centrality measures that characterize specific patches. We show that both predator and prey species benefit from living in globally well-connected patches (i.e. with high closeness centrality). However, the maximum number of prey species is reached, on average, at lower closeness centrality levels than for predator species. Hence, prey species benefit from constraints imposed on species movement in fragmented landscapes since they can reproduce with a lesser risk of predation, and their need for using anti-predatory strategies decreases.

Keywords

Networks Landscape Predator–prey Coexistence Survival probabilities ABM IBM 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the two anonymous referees as well as the financial support of Arizona State University to facilitate the first author to visit ASU during the first half of 2009.

Supplementary material

10980_2010_9493_MOESM1_ESM.doc (4.9 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 4985 kb)

References

  1. Benson DL, Sherratt JA, Maini PK (1993) Diffusion driven instability in an inhomogeneous domain. Bull Math Biol 55(2):365–384Google Scholar
  2. Blasius B, Huppert A, Stone L (1999) Complex dynamics and phase synchronization in spatially extended ecological systems. Nature 399:356–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boccaletti S, Latora V, Moreno Y, Chavez M, Hwang D-H (2006) Complex networks: structure and dynamics. Phys Rep 424(4–5):175–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodin Ö, Norberg J (2007) A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecol 22(1):31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolker BM (2003) Combining endogenous and exogenous spatial variability in analytical population models. Theor Popul Biol 64(3):255–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Breckling B, Middelhoff U, Reutera H (2006) Individual-based models as tools for ecological theory and application: Understanding the emergence of organisational properties in ecological systems. Ecol Modell 194(1–3):102–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cleveland WS (1979) Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. J Am Stat Assoc 74(368):829–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cleveland WS, Devlin SJ (1988) Locally weighted regression: an approach to regression analysis by local fitting. J Am Stat Assoc 83(403):569–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cominsa HN, Hassell MP (1996) Persistence of multispecies host–parasitoid interactions in spatially distributed models with local dispersal. J Theor Biol 183(1):19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coppolillo P, Gomez H, Maisels F, Wallace R (2004) Selection criteria for suites of landscape species as a basis for site-based conservation. Biol Conserv 115(3):419–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creel S, Winnie J Jr, Maxwell B, Hamlin K, Creel M (2005) Elk alter habitat selection as an antipredator response to wolves. Ecology 86(12):3387–3397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crucitti P, Latora V, Marchiori M, Rapisarda A (2004) Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Physica A 340(1–3):388–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cuddington KM, Yodzis P (2000) Diffusion-limited predator–prey dynamics in euclidean environments: an allometric individual-based model. Theor Popul Biol 58(4):259–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. da Fontoura Costa L, Rodrigues FA, Travieso G, Villas Boas PR (2007) Characterization of complex networks: a survey of measurements. Adv Phys 56(1–2):167–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeAngelis DL, Mooij WM (2005) Individual-based modeling of ecological and evolutionary processes. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:147–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Droz M, Pekalski A (2001) Coexistence in a predator-prey system. Phys Rev E 63(5), 051909.051901-051909.051906Google Scholar
  17. Estrada E, Bodin Ö (2008) Using network centrality measures to manage landscape connectivity. Ecol Appl 18(7):1810–1825CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fahrig L (1998) When does fragmentation of breeding habitat affect population survival? Ecol Modell 105(2–3):273–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fahrig L, Nuttle WK (2005) Population ecology in spatially heterogeneous environments. In: Lovett GM, Turner MG, Jones CG, Weathers KC (eds) Ecosystem function in heterogeneous landscapes. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischhoff IR, Sundaresan SR, Cordingley J, Rubenstein DI (2007) Habitat use and movements of plains zebra (Equus burchelli) in response to predation danger from lions. Behav Ecol 18(4):725–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grimm V, Railsback SF (2005) Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  22. Grimm V, Berger U, Bastiansen F, Eliassen S, Ginot V, Giske J, Goss-Custard J, Grand T, Heinz SK, Huse G, Huth A, Jepsen JU, Jørgensen C, Mooij WM, Müller B, Pe’er G, Piou C, Railsback SF, Robbins AM, Robbins MM, Rossmanith E, Rüger N, Strand E, Souissi S, Stillman RA, Vabø R, Visser U, DeAngelis DL (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Modell 198(1–2):115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hastings A (2001) Transient dynamics and persistence of ecological systems. Ecol Lett 4(3):215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hilty JA, Lidicker WZ Jr, Merenlender AM (2006) Corridor ecology: the science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Holland MD, Hastings A (2008) Strong effect of dispersal network structure on ecological dynamics. Nature 456(7395):792–794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hovel KA, Regan HM (2008) Using an individual-based model to examine the roles of habitat fragmentation and behavior on predator–prey relationships in seagrass landscapes. Landscape Ecol 23(Suppl 1):75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Inchausti P, Ballesteros S (2008) Intuition, functional responses and the formulation of predator–prey models when there is a large disparity in the spatial domains of the interacting species. J Anim Ecol 77(5):891–897CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Ioannou CC, Ruxton GD, Krause J (2008) Search rate, attack probability, and the relationship between prey density and prey encounter rate. Behav Ecol 19(4):842–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ives AR, Dobson AP (1987) Antipredator behavior and the population dynamics of simple predator-prey systems. Am Nat 130(3):431–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jansen VAA (2001) The dynamics of two diffusively coupled predator–prey populations. Theor Popul Biol 59(2):119–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kareiva P (1987) Habitat fragmentation and the stability of predator–prey interactions. Nature 326:388–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Latora V, Marchiori M (2001) Efficient behavior of small-world networks. Phys Rev Lett 87(19), 198701-198701 198701-198704Google Scholar
  33. Lima SL (2002) Putting predators back into behavioral predator–prey interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 17(2):70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Linhares A (1999) Synthesizing a predatory search strategy for VLSI layouts. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(2):147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luttberg B, Schmitz OJ (2000) Predator and prey models with flexible individual behavior and imperfect information. Am Nat 155(5):669–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCauley E, Wilson WG, de Roos AM (1993) Dynamics of age-structured and spatially structured predator–prey interactions: individual-based models and population-level formulations. Am Nat 142(3):412–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. McLaughlin JF, Roughgarden JD (1991) Pattern and stability in predator-prey communities: how diffusion in spatially variable environments affects the Lotka-Volterra model. Theor Popul Biol 40(2):148–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Michalski F, Peres CA (2005) Anthropogenic determinants of primate and carnivore local extinctions in a fragmented forest landscape of southern Amazonia. Biol Conserv 124(3):383–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Minor ES, Urban DL (2007) Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol Appl 17(6):1771–1782CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Minor ES, Urban DL (2008) A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 22(2):297–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Nelson EH, Matthews CE, Rosenheim JA (2004) Predators reduce prey population growth by inducing changes in prey behavior. Ecology 85(7):1853–1858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nonaka E, Holme P (2007) Agent-based model approach to optimal foraging in heterogeneous landscapes: effects of patch clumpiness. Ecography 30(6):777–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ortega-Huerta MA, Medley KE (1999) Landscape analysis of jaguar (Panthera onca) habitat using sighting records in the Sierra de Tamaulipas, Mexico. Environ Conserv 26(4):257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecol 21(7):959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Planesa S, Jones GP, Thorrold SR (2009) Larval dispersal connects fish populations in a network of marine protected areas. PNAS (0808007106v1-pnas.0808007106)Google Scholar
  46. Rougharden JD (1977) Patchiness in the spatial distribution of a population caused by stochastic fluctuations in resources. Oikos 29(1):52–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rougharden JD (1978) Influence of competition on patchiness in a random environment. Theor Popul Biol 14(2):185–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Terborgh J, Estes JA, Paquet P, Ralls K, Boyd-Heger D, Miller BJ, Noss RF (1999) The role of top carnivores in regulating terrestrial ecosystems. In: Soule ME, Terborgh J (eds) Continental conservation: scientific foundations of regional reserve networks. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82(5):1205–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick R (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12(3):260–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilson WG (1998) Resolving discrepancies between deterministic population models and individual-based simulations. Am Nat 151(2):116–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. With KA, Pavuk DM, Worchuck JL, Oates RK, Fisher JL (2002) Threshold effects of landscape structure on biological control in agroecosystems. Ecol Appl 12(1):52–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacopo A. Baggio
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kehinde Salau
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marco A. Janssen
    • 2
  • Michael L. Schoon
    • 2
  • Örjan Bodin
    • 4
  1. 1.School of International DevelopmentUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  2. 2.Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, School of Human Evolution and Social ChangeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.Mathematical, Computational and Modeling Science CenterArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  4. 4.Stockholm Resilience CenterStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations