Skip to main content

Homing fidelity and reproductive rate for migratory populations

Abstract

Short-term and long-term population growth rates can differ considerably. While changes in growth rates can be driven by external factors, we consider another source for changes in growth rate. That is, changes are generated internally by gradual modification of population structure. Such a modification of population structure may take many generations, particularly when the populations are distributed spatially in heterogeneous environments. Here, the net reproductive rate R 0 is not sufficient to characterize short-term growth. Indeed, a population with net reproductive rate greater than one could initially decline precipitously, or a population with net reproductive rate less than one could initially grow substantially. Thus, we augment the net reproductive rate with lower and upper bounds for the transient reproductive rate, R l and R u . We apply these measures to the study of spatially structured salmon populations and show the effect of variable homing fidelity on short-term and long-term generational growth rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

  • Al-Chokhachy R, Budy P (2008) Demographic characteristics, population structure, and vital rates of a fluvial population of bull trout in Oregon. Trans Am Fish Soc 137:262–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen L (1987) Extinction and critical patch number for islands populations. J Math Biol 24:617–625

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berman A, Plemmons RJ (1994) Nonnegative matrices in the mathematical sciences, Society for Industrial and applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. U.S.A

  • Bowerman T, Budy P (2012) Incorporating movement patterns to improve survival estimates for juvenile bull trout. North Am J Fish Manag 32:1123–1136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De-Camino-Beck T, Lewis MA (2007) A new method for calculating net reproductive rate from graph reduction with application to the control of invasive species. Bull Math Biol 69:1341–1354

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caswell H (2001) Matrix Population Models. Sinauer Assosiate, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Caswell H, Neubert MG (2005) Reactivity and transient dyanmics of discrete-time ecological systems. J Differ Equ Appl II 4-5:295–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushing J, Zhou Y (1994) The net reproductive value and stability in matrix population models. Nat Resour Model 8:297–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Deangelis DL, Post WM, Travis CC (1986) Positive Feedback In Natural Systems, vol 15. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ellner S (1984) Asymptotic behavior of some stochastic difference equation population models. J Math Biol 19:169–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezard THG, Bullock JM, Dalgleish HJ, Million A, Pelletier F, Ozgul A, Koons DN (2010) Matrix models for a changeable world: the importance of transient dynamics in population management. J Appl Ecol 47:515–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Merriam G (1985) Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66:1762–1768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraley JJ, Shepard BB (1989) Life history, ecology and population status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead lake and river system, Montana. Northwest Sci 63:133–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadgil M (1971) Dispersal: Population consequences and evolution. Ecology 52:253–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD, May RM (1977) Dispersal in stable habitats. Nature 269:578–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski IA, Gilpin ME (1997) Metapopulation biology: Ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastings A (2001) Transient dynamics and persistence of ecological systems. Ecol Lett 4:215–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastings A (2004) Transients: the key to long-term ecological understanding Trends Ecol Evol 19:39–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hastings A, Botsford L (2006) Persistence of spatial populations depends on returning home. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 103:6067–6072

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horn HL, Macarthur RH (1972) Competition among fugitive species in harlequin environment. Ecology 53:749–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn RA, Johnson CR (2013) Matrix Analysis. 2nd edition

  • Kareiva P (1990) Population dynamics in spatially comples environments: Theory and data. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 330:175–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koons DN, Holmes RR, Grand JB (2007) Population inertia and its sensitivity to changes in vital rates and population structure. Ecology 88:2857–2867

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levin SA, Cohen D, Hastings A (1984) Dispersal stratgies in patch environment. Theor Popul Biol 26:165–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li C, Schneider H (2002) Applications of Perron-Frobenius theory to population dynamics. J Math Biol 44:450–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macarthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • McPhail JD, Baxter JS (1996) A review of bull trout life-history and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities, Fisheries Management Report No. 104

  • Neubert MG, Caswell H (1997) Alternatives to resilience for measuring the responses of eoclogical systems to perturbations. Ecology 78:653–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega JD (1987) Matrix Thory: A Second Course. Plenum Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pacific Salmonids (2014) Major Threats and Impacts, NOAA fisheries office of protected resource, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/salmon.htm

  • Rieman BE, Dunham JB (2009) Metapopulations and salmonids: a synthesis of life history patterns and empirical observations. Ecol Freshwat Fish 9:51–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers A (1968) Matrix analysis of international population growth and distribution. University of California Press, Berkeley, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers A (1995) Multiregional demography: Principles, methods and extensions. Wiely, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rueffler C, Metz JAJ (2013) Necessary and sufficient conditions for R 0 to be a sum of contributions of fertility loops. J Math Biol 66:1099–1122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber SJ (2010) Interactive effects of temporal correlations, spatial heterogeneity and dispersal on population persistence. Proc Royal Soc B 277:1907–1914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart IJ, Carlson SM, Boatright CP, Buck GB, Quinn TP (2004) Site fidelity of spawning sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka W.) in the presence and absence of olfactory cues. Ecol Freshwat Fish 13:104–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stott I, Townley S, Hodgson DJ (2011) A framework for studying transient dynamics of population projection matrix models. Ecol Lett 14:959–970

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Townley S, Carsilake D, Smith OK, Mccarthy D, Hodgson D (2007) Predicting transient amplification in perturbed ecological systems. J Appl Ecol 44:1243–1251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CD, Kunin WE (1999) The spatial structure of populations. J Anim Ecol 68:647–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood K, Cramer SP (2007) simulation of human effects on bull trout population dynamics in Rimrock Reservoir, Washington. Ametican Fish Soc 53:191–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Vance RR (1984) The effect of dispersal on population stability in one-species, discrete-space population growth models. Am Nat 123:230–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmonidae (2014) Animal diversity web, http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Salmonidae/

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Alex Potapov, Andrew Paul, P. van den Driessche, and Lewis Lab for fruitful discussions. Q.H. gratefully acknowledges support from the Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development and the Alberta Water Research Institute. M.A.L. also gratefully acknowledges a Canada Research Chair, NSERC Discovery and Accelerator grants, and a Killam Research Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qihua Huang.

Appendices

Appendix A: Graph reduction method

This method starts with the description of the projection matrix as a life cycle graph. Once the life cycle graph has been specified, the calculation procedure is as follows. (1) Identify survivorship and fecundity transitions. (2) Multiply all fecundity transitions in the graph by \(R^{-1}_{0}\).(3) Eliminate survivorship self-loops, using rule a in Fig. 10. (4) Reduce the graph using the graph reduction rules defined in Figure I until only nodes with fecundity self-loops are left. When a node is eliminated, all pathways that go through that node have to be recalculated. (5) If only one node with a single self-loop is left, eliminate the final node by setting the self-loop equal to 1 and solve this equation for R 0.

Fig. 10
figure 10

Graph reduction rules. a self-loop elimination with b < 1. b Parallel path elimation. c Node elimination. Rules a and b show elimination of paths, and rule c shows the elimination of node 2. Graph reduction is done by repeatedly applying these rules until only nodes are left

Appendix B: Proof of (1.6)

To investigate the function P x, we let P = (p i j ) n×n and x = [x 1, x 2, ⋯ , x n ]T. A simple calculation gives

$$ ||\mathbf{P}x||_{1}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}p_{i1}x_{1}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}p_{i2}x_{2}+\cdots+ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}p_{in}x_{n}, $$
(24)

Noticing that \(\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}p_{ij} (j=1, \cdots , n)\) is the j th column sum of the matrix P, we consider the smallest such column sum of P. Suppose that for some 1 ≤ kn, \(\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}p_{ik}=\min _{1\leq j\leq n}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}p_{ij}\), then the function ||P x||1 has minimum value \(\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}p_{ik}\) when x is a unit vector with x k = 1 and x j = 0 (jk). That is to say,

$$ \lambda_{l}=\min\limits_{1\leq j\leq n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}p_{ij}, $$
(25)

the minimum sum of column vectors of projection matrix P.

Appendix C: R 0 for resident salmonids

In terms of the life cycle of resident species, we divide the population into four groups: fertilized egg (E), fry (F), juvenile (J), and adult (A). We take time unit to be 1 year. The population vector is x(t) = [E(t), F(t), J(t), A(t)]T, which represents the population density of each stage at the end of the breeding season in year t. We relate the population density of each stage at time t + 1 to time t by the matrix equation

$$ x(t+1) = \mathbf{P}x(t), $$
(26)

where the projection matrix P is

$$ \mathbf{P}=\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & 0& b \\ p_{fe} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & p_{jf} & p_{jj}& 0\\ 0 & 0& p_{aj}& p_{aa} \end{array} \right). $$

Here, b is the average number of fertilized eggs produced per adult per year, p f e is the proportion of eggs that hatch to fry stage each year, p j f is the proportion of fry that survive to the juvenile stage each year, p j j is the proportion of juveniles that survive to remain as a juvenile per year, p a j is the proportion of juveniles that survive to become adults each year, p a a is the proportion of adults that survive each year. The vital rates of salmonids living a variety of environment have been estimated by many researchers (e.g., (Al-Chokhachy and Budy 2008; Bowerman and Budy 2012; McPhail and Baxter 1996)).

The matrix Eq. 26 models the dynamics of resident salmonids population. The net reproductive rate, R 0, for this population can be calculated using the graph reduction method, as mentioned in Appendix A. The graph reduction method is shown in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11
figure 11

a The full transformed graph. b Eliminating self-loops. c Eliminating nodes F, J, and A. d Solving for R 0

From the equation of R 0 (Fig. 11d), we see that the proportion of individuals that start as eggs and eventually mature and survive to become breeding adults is p f e p j f p a j /[(1−p j j )(1−p a a )], and the expected number of eggs produced per breeding adult is b. Multiplying these quantities yields R 0.

Appendix D

Fig. 12
figure 12

b Eliminating self-loops. c Eliminating node J 1. d Eliminating nodes F 1, J 2, and A 2

Appendix E

Fig. 13
figure 13figure 13figure 13

b Eliminating self-loops. c Eliminating nodes E 1, E 3, A 2 and A 4. d Eliminating nodes J 1 and J 3. e Eliminating nodes J 2 and J 4. f Eliminating nodes F 3

Appendix F: An analytical calculation of R/ 𝜖 when 𝜖 is close to 0 and 1

We differentiate the Eq. 15 with respect to 𝜖 to get

$$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} &&2R_{0}\frac{\partial R_{0}}{\partial\epsilon}+[2A(1-\epsilon)-2B\epsilon]R_{0}- \left[A(1-\epsilon)^{2}+B\epsilon^{2}\right]\frac{\partial R_{0}}{\partial\epsilon}\\ &&-C\left(2\epsilon-6\epsilon^{2}+4\epsilon^{3}\right) +4D\epsilon^{3}-4E(1-\epsilon)^{3}=0. \end{array} $$

Thus,

$$ \frac{\partial R_{0}}{\partial\epsilon} =\frac{2AR_{0}(\epsilon-1)+2BR_{0}\epsilon+C\left(2\epsilon-6\epsilon^{2}+4\epsilon^{3}\right) -4D\epsilon^{3}+4E(1-\epsilon)^{3}}{2R_{0}-A(1-\epsilon)^{2}-B\epsilon^{2}}. $$
(27)

Hence,

$$ \lim\limits_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0^{+}}\frac{\partial R_{0}}{\partial\epsilon}=\frac{-2AR_{0}\left(0^{+}\right)+4E}{2R_{0}(0^{+})-A}. $$
(28)

Noticing that R 0(0+) = max{G 21 G 12, G 43 G 34}, we find

$$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \lim\limits_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0^{+}}\frac{\partial R_{0}}{\partial\epsilon}&=&\frac{-2(G_{21}G_{12}+G_{43}G_{34}) \max\{G_{21}G_{12}, G_{43}G_{34}\} +4G_{21}G_{12}G_{43}G_{34}}{2\max\{G_{21}G_{12}, G_{43}G_{34}\}-G_{21}G_{12}-G_{43}G_{34}}\\ &=&-2\max\{G_{21}G_{12}, G_{43}G_{34}\}. \end{array} $$
(29)

Since R 0(1) = max{G 23 G 32, G 41 G 14}, similar computation yields

$$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \lim\limits_{\epsilon\rightarrow 1^{-}}\frac{\partial R_{0}}{\partial\epsilon}=2 \max\{G_{23}G_{32}, G_{41}G_{14}\}. \end{array} $$
(30)

If 0 < 𝜖 ≪ 1, the function R 0(𝜖) can be approximated by a straight line

$$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} R_{0}(\epsilon)&\approx& R_{0}\left(0^{+}\right)+\left(\lim\limits_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0^{+}}\frac{\partial R_{0}}{\partial\epsilon}\right)\epsilon\\ &=&\max\{G_{21}G_{12}, G_{43}G_{34}\}\\ &&-2\max\{G_{21}G_{12}, G_{43}G_{34}\}\epsilon, \end{array} $$
(31)

with negative slope.

Similarly, if 𝜖 is less than and sufficiently close to 1, then we have

$$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} R_{0}(\epsilon)&\approx& R_{0}(1^{-})+\left(\lim\limits_{\epsilon\rightarrow 1^{-}}\frac{\partial R_{0}}{\partial\epsilon}\right)(\epsilon-1)\\ &=&-\max\{G_{23}G_{32}, G_{41}G_{14}\}\\ &&+2\max\{G_{23}G_{32}, G_{41}G_{14}\}\epsilon. \end{array} $$
(32)

with positive slope.

Appendix G: Further discussion about R l and R u

For the matrix Q, we define the range of Q as Ran\((\mathbf {Q}) = \{\mathbf {Q}x|x\in \mathbb {R}^{n}\}\), and the null space of Q as \(\mathcal {N}(\mathbf {Q}) = \{x\in \mathbb {R}^{n}|\mathbf {Q}x=0\}\).

Then both Ran (Q) and \(\mathcal {N}(\mathbf {Q})\) are subspaces of \(\mathbb {R}^{n}\), and \(\mathbb {R}^{n}=\text {Ran}(\mathbf {Q})\bigoplus \mathcal {N}(\mathbf {Q})\). Therefore, for any \(x\in \mathbb {R}^{n},\) there exists unique x Ran ∈ Ran(Q) and unique \(x_{\mathcal {N}}\) such that \(x=x_{\text {Ran}}+x_{\mathcal {N}}\). Thus, for any \(x\in \mathbb {R}^{n},\) \(\mathbf {Q}x=\mathbf {Q}x_{\text {Ran}}+\mathbf {Q}x_{\mathcal {N}}=\mathbf {Q}x_{\text {Ran}}+0\). The projection of any \(x\in x_{\mathcal {N}}\) will give zero individual in the next generation, which is not of biological interest. For this reason, we restrict x ∈ Ran(Q) when defining R l and R u .

Appendix H: A multiple-patch model

If we assume that there are I small rivers in upstream and K big rivers in downstream, it is not difficult to extend the four-patch model (12) to a multiple-patch model:

$$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} E_{i}(t+1)&=&\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K} b_{i}m_{a}^{ik}A_{k}(t)\\ F_{i}(t+1)&=&p_{fe}^{i}E_{i}(t)\\ J_{i}(t+1)&=&\left(1-\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}m_{f}^{ki}\right)p_{jf}^{i}F_{i}(t) +\left(1-\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}m_{j}^{ki}\right)p_{jj}^{i}J_{i}(t)\\ J_{k}(t+1)&=&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{I}\left(m_{f}^{ki}p_{jf}^{ki}F_{i}(t)+ m_{j}^{ki}p_{jj}^{ki}J_{i}(t)\right)\\ A_{k}(t+1)&=&p_{aj}^{k}J_{k}(t)+p_{aa}^{k}A_{k}(t), \end{array} $$
(33)

for i = 1, 2, ⋯ , I and k = 1, 2, ⋯ , K.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huang, Q., Lewis, M.A. Homing fidelity and reproductive rate for migratory populations. Theor Ecol 8, 187–205 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-014-0243-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-014-0243-7

Keywords

  • Homing fidelity
  • Net reproductive rate
  • Matrix models
  • Migration
  • Salmonidae
  • Transient growth rate