Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantifying and disentangling dispersal in metacommunities: how close have we come? How far is there to go?

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Much of ecological research centers around discovering the underlying factors for species distribution; three such factors are of central importance: local environment, landscape features and dispersal. While all have been simplified in the past, the recent increase in metapopulation and metacommunity research makes being able to quantify dispersal all that much more necessary. In order to increase our knowledge about metacommunities in the “real word”, it is clearly time to start thinking critically about whether and how the methods that are currently available for measuring dispersal within metapopulations can be adapted. The goal of this contribution is to present and argue the technical difficulties involved in measuring dispersal within metacommunities through: (1) discussing the merits and pitfalls of some potential direct (e.g., mark-recapture) and indirect methods (e.g., isolation measures, patchiness) for studying the effects of dispersal at the metapopulation and metacommunity level; (2) discuss the types of questions that can be tackled at the metacommunity level in light of methodological decisions; and (3) make the point that the technical difficulties of measuring dispersal for multiple species may leave us with little other options than using indirect methods to estimate dispersal in metacommunities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arens P, van der Sluis T, van’t Westende WPC et al (2007) Genetic population differentiation and connectivity among fragmented Moor frog (Rana arvalis) populations in The Netherlands. Landscape Ecol 22:1489–1500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baguette M (2004) The classical metapopulation theory and the real, natural world: a critical appraisal. Basic Appl Ecol 5:213–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecol 22:1117–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahn V, Krohn WB, O’Connor RJ (2008) Dispersal leads to spatial autocorrelation in species distributions: a simulation model. Ecol Modell 213:285–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balkenhol N, Gugerli F, Cushman SA et al (2009) Identifying future research needs in landscape genetics: where to from here? Landscape Ecol 24:455–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender DJ, Fahrig L (2005) Matrix structure obscures the relationship between interpatch movement and patch size and isolation. Ecology 86:1023–1033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender DJ, Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2003) Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landscape Ecol 18:17–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry O, Tocher MD, Sarre SD (2004) Can assignment tests measure dispersal? Mol Ecol 13:551–561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P (1992) Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73:1045–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broquet T, Ray N, Petit E et al (2006) Genetic isolation by distance and landscape connectivity in the American marten (Martes americana). Landscape Ecol 21:877–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadotte MW, Fukami T (2005) Dispersal, spatial scale, and species diversity in a hierarchically structured experimental landscape. Ecol Lett 8:548–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caudill CC (2003) Measuring dispersal in a metapopulation using stable isotope enrichment: high rates of sex-biased dispersal between patches in a mayfly metapopulation. Oikos 101:624–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottenie K (2005) Integrating environmental and spatial processes in ecological community dynamics. Ecol Lett 8:1175–1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieckmann U, O’Hara B, Weisser W (1999) The evolutionary ecology of dispersal. TREE 14:88–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Driezen K, Adriaensen R, Rondinini C et al (2007) Evaluating least-cost model predictions with empirical dispersal data: a case-study using radiotracking data of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). Ecol Modell 209:314–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis AM, Lounibos LP, Holyoak M (2006) Evaluating the long-term metacommunity dynamics of tree-hole mosquitos. Ecology 87:2582–2590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fagan WF, Calabrese JM (2006) Quantifying connectivity: balancing metric performance with data requirements. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 297–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Freestone AL, Inouye BD (2006) Dispersal limitation and environmental heterogeneity shape scale-dependent diversity patterns in plant communities. Ecology 87:2425–2432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fukami T (2005) Integrating internal and external dispersal in metacommunity assembly: preliminary theoretical analysis. Ecol Res 20:623–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert B, Lechowicz MJ (2004) Neutrality, niches and dispersal in a temperate forest understory. PNAS (USA) 101:7651–7656

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith DA, Peres-Neto PR (2006) Spatial modeling in ecology: the flexibility of eigenfunction spatial analyses in exploiting relative location information. Ecology 87:2603–2613

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1994a) Patch-occupancy dynamics in fragmented landscapes. TREE 9:131–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1994b) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63:151–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I, Moilanen A, Pakkala T, Kuussaari M (1996) The quantitative incidence function model and persistence of an endangered butterfly metapopulation. Conserv Biol 10:578–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heino M (1998) Noise colour, synchrony and extinctions in spatially structured populations. Oikos 83:368–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinz SK, Conradt L, Wissel C, Frank K (2005) Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: deriving a practical formula for patch accessibility. Landscape Ecol 20:83–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobson KA (2005) Using stable isotopes to trace long-distance dispersal in birds and other taxa. Diversity Distrib 11:157–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre P, Dale MRT, Fortin MJ et al (2002) The consequences of spatial structure for the design and analysis of ecological field surveys. Ecolography 25:601–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N et al (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon TE, Matter MJ (2006) Linking habitat selection, emigration and population dynamics of freshwater fishes: a synthesis of ideas and approaches. Ecol Freshw Fish 15:200–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Hanski I (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95:147–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan R (2001) The challenges of studying dispersal. TREE 16:481–483

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan R (2005) Long-distance dispersal research: building a network of yellow brick roads. Diversity Distrib 11:125–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan R, Perry G, Cronin JT et al (2003) Methods for estimating long-distance dispersal. Oikos 103:261–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien D, Manseau M, Fall A, Fortin MJ (2006) Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: an application of graph theory. Biol Conserv 130:70–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peres-Neto PR, Legendre P, Dray S, Borcard D (2006) Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87:2614–2625

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto N, Keitt TH (2009) Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach. Landscape Ecol 24:253–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumaker NH (1996) Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77:1210–1225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semlitsch RD (2008) Differentiating migration and dispersal processes for pond-breeding amphibians. J Wildl Manage 72:260–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skarpaas O, Shea K, Bullock JM (2005) Optimizing dispersal study design by Monte Carlo simulation. J App Ecol 42:731–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2001) On the use of connectivity measures is spatial ecology. A reply. Oikos 95:152–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travis JMJ, French DR (2000) Dispersal functions and spatial models: expanding our dispersal toolbox. Ecol Lett 3:163–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomisto H, Ruokolainen K, Yli-Halla M (2003) Dispersal, environment, and floristic variation of western Amazonian forests. Science 299:241–244

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turchin P, Thoeny WT (1993) Quantifying dispersal of southern pine beetles with mark-recapture experiments and a diffusion model. Ecol Appl 3:187–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanschoenwinkel B, De Vries C, Seaman M, Brendonck L (2007) The role of metacommunity processes in shaping invertebrate rock pool communities along a dispersal gradient. Oikos 116:1255–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner HH, Fortin MJ (2005) Spatial analysis of landscapes: concepts and statistics. Ecology 86:1975–1987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker SR, Novaro AJ, Branch LC (2007) Functional connectivity defined through cost-distance and genetic analyses: a case study for the rock-dwelling mountain vizcacha (Lagidum viscacia) in Patagonia, Argentina. Landscape Ecol 22:1303–1314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA, Stenseth NC, VanHorne B, Ims RA (1993) Ecological mechanisms in landscape ecology. Oikos 66:369–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by an NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) and an FQRNT (Le Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la nature et les technologies) grant to PPN.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Quebec at Montreal, C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montreal, QC, H3C3P8, Canada

    Bailey Jacobson & Pedro R. Peres-Neto

Authors
  1. Bailey Jacobson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pedro R. Peres-Neto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bailey Jacobson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jacobson, B., Peres-Neto, P.R. Quantifying and disentangling dispersal in metacommunities: how close have we come? How far is there to go?. Landscape Ecol 25, 495–507 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9442-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9442-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation