Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The proximate causes of asymmetric movement across heterogeneous landscapes

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

Abstract

Context

Asymmetric movements, in which the probability of moving from patch i to patch j is not necessarily the same as moving in the opposite direction, may be the rule more than the exception in nature where organisms move through spatially heterogeneous environments. Empirical tests of dispersal asymmetries are rare with even fewer tests of the mechanisms driving such patterns.

Objectives

We tested for the mechanisms of asymmetric movement in the cactus-feeding insect, Chelinidea vittiger, using a combination of observational and experimental approaches.

Methods

In the observational approach, we analyzed movements from mark-recapture data in a large plot for over 4–5 generations and tested for the role of differences in patch area and wind direction driving broad-scale asymmetric movements. In the field experiment, we translocated individuals to experimental arenas where we tested for the roles of patch area, wind, presence of conspecifics, and matrix height driving directed movements at fine spatio-temporal scales.

Results

We found that population-level patterns of movements in C. vittiger were generally asymmetric. At broad scales, observational data suggested that these asymmetries were related to variations in patch size, with movements being directed from small to large patches. At fine scales, experiments showed that movement was also directed from small to large patches, but this effect was mediated by the structure of the surrounding matrix.

Conclusions

Our results illustrate how and why movement asymmetries can occur across landscapes. Accounting for such asymmetries may improve our understanding and prediction of spatially structured population dynamics and landscape connectivity.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acevedo MA, Fletcher RJ Jr, Tremblay RL, Meléndez-Ackerman EJ (2015) Spatial asymmetries in connectivity influence colonization-extinction dynamics. Oecologia 179:415–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso JC, Martin CA, Alonso JA, Palacin C, Magana M, Lane SJ (2004) Distribution dynamics of a Great Bustard metapopulation throughout a decade: influence of conspecific attraction and recruitment. Biodivers Conserv 13:1659–1674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armsworth P, Bode L (1999) The consequences of non-passive advection and directed motion for population dynamics. Proc R Soc A-Math Phys 455:4045–4060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armsworth P, Roughgarden J (2005) The impact of directed versus random movements on population dynamics and biodiversity patterns. Am Nat 165:449–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baguette M, Petit S, Quéva F (2000) Population spatial structure and migration of three butterfly species within the same habitat network: consequences for conservation. J Appl Ecol 37:100–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bode M, Burrage K, Possingham H (2008) Using complex network metrics to predict the persistence of metapopulations with asymmetric connectivity patterns. Ecol Model 214:201–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler D, Benton T (2005) Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev 80:205–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman J, Cappuccino N, Fahrig L (2002) Patch size and population density: the effect of immigration behavior. Conserv Ecol 6:9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellon TD, Sieving KE (2006) An experimental test of matrix permeability and corridor use by an endemic understory bird. Conserv Biol 20:135–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Compton S (2002) Sailing with the wind: dispersal by small flying insects. In: Bullock J, Kenward RE, Hails R (eds) Dispersal ecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, pp 113–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft DP, Madden JR, Franks DW, James R (2011) Hypothesis testing in animal social networks. Trends Ecol Evol 26:502–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Vol J, Goeden R (1973) Biology of Chelinidea vittiger with notes on its host-plant relationships and value in biological weed control. Environ Entomol 2:231–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Development Core Team R (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Dey S, Goswami B, Joshi A (2014) Effects of symmetric and asymmetric dispersal on the dynamics of heterogeneous metapopulations: two-patch systems revisited. J Theor Biol 345:52–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diffendorfer J, Gaines M, Holt R (1995) Habitat fragmentation and movements of three small mammals (Sigmodon, Microtus, and Peromyscus). Ecology 76:827–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreras P (2001) Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian Lynx. Biol Conserv 100:125–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ (2009) Does attraction to conspecifics explain the patch-size effect? An experimental test. Oikos 118:1139–1147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ, Acevedo MA, Reichert B, Pias K, Kitchens W (2011) Social network models predict movement and connectivity in ecological landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:19282–19287

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ, Acevedo MA, Robertson EP (2014) The matrix alters the role of path redundancy on patch colonization rates. Ecology 95:1444–1450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ, Maxwell C, Andrews J, Helmey-Hartman W (2013a) Signal detection theory clarifies the concept of perceptual range and its relevance to landscape connectivity. Landscape Ecol 28:57–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ, Miller C (2008) The type and timing of social information alters offspring production. Biol Lett 4:482–485

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ, Revell A, Reichert BE, Kitchens WM, Dixon JD, Austin JD (2013b) Network modularity reveals critical scales for connectivity in ecology and evolution. Nat Commun 4:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson E, Gardner R (1996) The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77:94–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn BA, Silverman ED (2006) Social cues facilitate habitat selection: American redstarts establish breeding territories in response to song. Biol Lett 2:337–340

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Henry RC, Coulon A, Travis JM (2015) Dispersal asymmetries and deleterious mutations influence metapopulation persistence and range dynamics. Evol Ecol 29:833–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt R (1996) Adaptive evolution in source-sink environments: direct and indirect effects of density-dependence on niche evolution. Oikos 75:182–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadoya T, Washitani I (2012) Use of multiple habitat types with asymmetric dispersal affects patch occupancy of the damselfly Indolestes peregrinus in a fragmented landscape. Basic Appl Ecol 13:178–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawecki T, Holt R (2002) Evolutionary consequences of asymmetric dispersal rates. Am Nat 160:333–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keddy P (1981) Experimental demography of the sand-dune annual, Cakile edentula, growing along an environmental gradient in Nova Scotia. J Ecol 69:615–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kindvall O, Petersson A (2000) Consequences of modelling interpatch migration as a function of patch geometry when predicting metapopulation extinction risk. Ecol Model 129:101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebhold A, Koenig WD, Bjørnstad ON (2004) Spatial synchrony in population dynamics. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:467–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller C, Fletcher R, Anderson B, Nguyen L (2012) Natal social environment influences habitat selection later in life. Anim Behav 83:473–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser D, Drapela T, Zaller J, Frank T (2009) Interacting effects of wind direction and resource distribution on insect pest densities. Basic Appl Ecol 10:208–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prevedello J, Vieira M (2010) Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodivers Conserv 19:1205–1223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy RJ, Owens ED (1983) Visual detection of plants by herbivorous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 28:337–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam H (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray C, Gilpin M, Smith AT (1991) The effect of conspecific attraction on metapopulation dynamics. Biol J Linn Soc 42:123–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revilla E, Wiegand T, Palomares F, Ferreras P, Delibes M (2004) Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behavior to metapopulation-level parameters. Am Nat 164:E130–E153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez A, Andrén H, Jansson G (2001) Habitat-mediated predation risk and decision making of small birds at forest edges. Oikos 95:383–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon Y, Connolly S, Bode L (2010) Effects of asymmetric dispersal on the coexistence of competing species. Ecol Lett 13:432–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schick R, Lindley F (2007) Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine network. J Appl Ecol 44:1116–1126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schooley R, Wiens J (2003) Finding habitat patches and directional connectivity. Oikos 102:559–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schooley R, Wiens J (2004) Movements of cactus bugs: patch transfers, matrix resistance, and edge permeability. Landscape Ecol 19:801–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schooley R, Wiens J (2005) Spatial ecology of cactus bugs: area constraints and patch connectivity. Ecology 86:1627–1639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serrano D, Tella J (2003) Dispersal within a spatially structured population of lesser kestrels: the role of spatial isolation and conspecific attraction. J Anim Ecol 72:400–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serrano D, Tella J, Forero M, Donázar J (2001) Factors affecting breeding dispersal in the facultatively colonial lesser kestrel: individual experience vs. conspecific cues. J Anim Ecol 70:568–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skellam JG (1945) The frequency distribution of the difference between two Poisson variates belonging to different populations. J R Stat Soc Ser A-G 109:296–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith A, Peacock M (1990) Conspecific attraction and the determination of metapopulation colonization rates. Conserv Biol 4:320–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamps JA (1988) Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. Am Nat 131:329–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D, May R, Lehman C, Nowak M (1994) Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371:65–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treml E, Halpin P, Urban D, Pratson L (2008) Modeling population connectivity by ocean currents, a graph-theoretic approach for marine conservation. Landscape Ecol 23:19–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vuilleumier S, Bolker B, Lévêque O (2010) Effects of colonization asymmetries on metapopulation persistence. Theor Popul Biol 78:225–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vuilleumier S, Possingham H (2006) Does colonization asymmetry matter in metapopulations? P R Soc B 273:1637–1642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Haegeman B, Loreau M (2015) Dispersal and metapopulation stability. PeerJ 3:e1295

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegand T, Moloney K, Naves J, Knauer F (1999) Finding the missing link between landscape structure and population dynamics: a spatially explicit perspective. Am Nat 154:605–627

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA, Chr N, Van Horne B, Ims RA (1993) Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66:369–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson-Herbots HM, Ettridge R (2004) The effect of unequal migration rates on FST. Theor Popul Biol 66:185–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams I, Frearson D, Barari H, McCartney A (2007) First field evidence that parasitoids use upwind anemotaxis for host-habitat location. Entomol Exp Appl 123:299–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yee TW (2015) Vector generalized linear and additive models: with an implementation in R. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zeigler SL, Neel MC, Oliveira L, Raboy BE, Fagan WF (2011) Conspecific and heterospecific attraction in assessments of functional connectivity. Biodivers Conserv 20:2779–2796

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Madan Oli, Robert Holt, Katherine Sieving, and J. Cole Smith for their suggestions on previous versions of this manuscript. We also thank Andre Revell, Conor Egan, and Kaan Kerman for their invaluable help in the field. This work was partially funded by the National Science Foundation (DDIG DEB-1110441 and DEB-1343144).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico—Río Piedras, PO Box 23360, San Juan, 00931, Puerto Rico

    Miguel A. Acevedo

  2. Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, PO Box 110430, Gainesville, FL, 32611-0430, USA

    Robert J. Fletcher Jr.

Authors
  1. Miguel A. Acevedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert J. Fletcher Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel A. Acevedo.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 122 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Acevedo, M.A., Fletcher, R.J. The proximate causes of asymmetric movement across heterogeneous landscapes. Landscape Ecol 32, 1285–1297 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0522-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0522-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation