Landscape connectivity and predator–prey population dynamics
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.
KeywordsNetworks Landscape Predator–prey Coexistence Survival probabilities ABM IBM
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.
- Benson DL, Sherratt JA, Maini PK (1993) Diffusion driven instability in an inhomogeneous domain. Bull Math Biol 55(2):365–384Google Scholar
- Droz M, Pekalski A (2001) Coexistence in a predator-prey system. Phys Rev E 63(5), 051909.051901-051909.051906Google Scholar
- 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
- Grimm V, Railsback SF (2005) Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Latora V, Marchiori M (2001) Efficient behavior of small-world networks. Phys Rev Lett 87(19), 198701-198701 198701-198704Google Scholar
- 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
- 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