Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Propagating sinks, ephemeral sources and percolating mosaics: conservation in landscapes

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present a framework that uses both sources and sinks as elements in the construction of a landscape matrix. We propose that the matrix be conceived as a collection of temporary habitats, some of which are sources, others of which are sinks, that form a landscape mosaic. The key element in this framing is that the sources are ephemeral and the sinks are propagating. A mean field approach is used to modify the classic metapopulation model, taking this new framework into account. Additionally a spatially explicit approach reveals different scaling rules for the percolation probability and the propagating probability.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amarasekare P, Nisbet R (2001) Spatial heterogeneity, source-sink dynamics, and the local coexistence of competing species. Am Nat 158:572–584

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi FJJA, Booij CJH, Tscharntke T (2006) Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 273:1715–1727

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carwardine J, Rochester WA, Richardson KS, Williams KJ, Pressey RL, Possingham HP (2007) Conservation planning with irreplaceability: does the method matter? Biodivers Conserv 16:245–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark PJ (2003) Composition of grazed and cleared temperate grassy woodlands in eastern Australia: patterns in space and inferences in time. J Veg Sci 14:5–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielson BJ (1991) Communities in a landscape: the influence of habitat heterogeneity on the interactions between species. Am Nat 138:1105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie J (1974) The role of environmental grain in the maintenance of genetic variation. Am Nat 108:831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt R (1985) On the evolutionary stability of sink populations. Evol Ecol 11:723–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson GE (1951) Copepodology for the ornithologist. Ecology 32:571–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp DR, King McG (2001) Plant competition in pastures–implications for management. In: Tow PG, Lazenby A (eds) Competition and succession in pwastures. CABI, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments: some theoretical explorations. Princeton Univ Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc America 15:237–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Malarz K, Galam S (2005) Square-lattice site percolation at increasing ranges of neighbor bonds. Phys Rev 71:06125-1-4

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald-Madden EP, Baxter WJ, Possingham HP (2008) Subpopulation triage: how to allocate conservation effort among populations. Conserv Biol 22:656–665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecol 23:633–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ovaskainen O, Hanski I (2002) Spatially structured metapopulation models: global and local assessment of metapopulation capacity. Theor Popul Biol 60:281–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual M, Guichard F (2005) Criticality and disturbance in spatial ecological systems. Trends Ecol Evol 20:88–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto I, Armbrecht I (2003) The coffee agroecosystem in the neotropics: combining ecological and economic goals. In: Vandermeer J (ed) Tropical agroecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 159–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto I, Vandermeer JH (2001) The quality of the agroecological matrix in a tropical montane landscape: ants in coffee plantations in southern Mexico. Conserv Biol 16:174–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2008) Spatial pattern and ecological process in the coffee agroecosystem. Ecology 89:915–920 Special Feature

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto I, Rice R, Greenberg R, Van der Voolt M (1996) Shade coffee as refuge of biodiversity. Bioscience 46:589–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philpott SM, Lin BB, Jha S, Brines SJ (2008) A multi-scale assessment of hurricane impacts on agricultural landscapes based on land use and topographic features. Agric Ecosyst Environ 128:12–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pullian HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellhorn NA, Andow DA (1999) Mortality of coccinellid (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) larvae and pupae when prey become scarce. Environ Entomol 228:1092–1100

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellhorn NA, Glatz RV, Wood GM (2010) The risk of exotic and native plants as hosts for four pest thrips. Bull Entomol Res (in press)

  • Schroth G, Harvey CA (2007) Biodiversity conservation in cocoa production landscapes: an overview. Biodivers Conserv 16:2237–2244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turcotte DL, Malamud BD (2004) Landslides, forest fires, and earthquakes: examples of self-organized critical behavior. Physica A: Stat Mechanics Appl 340:580–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wimberly MC (2006) Species dynamics in disturbed landscapes: when does a shifting habitat mosaic enhance connectivity? Landscape Ecol 21:35–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Levin SA (1994) A spatial patch dynamic modeling approach to patern and process in an annual grassland. Ecol Monogr 64:447–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Levin SA (1997) A patch-based spatial modeling approach: conceptual framework and simulation scheme. Ecol Model 101:325–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Joan Nassauer for reading an earlier version of the manuscript. This work was partially supported by a grant from NSF to JV and IP.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    John Vandermeer

  2. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    John Vandermeer & Ivette Perfecto

  3. CSIRO Entomology, Indooroopilly, QLD, 4068, Australia

    Nancy Schellhorn

Authors
  1. John Vandermeer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivette Perfecto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nancy Schellhorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Vandermeer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vandermeer, J., Perfecto, I. & Schellhorn, N. Propagating sinks, ephemeral sources and percolating mosaics: conservation in landscapes. Landscape Ecol 25, 509–518 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9449-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9449-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation