Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 369–379 | Cite as

Spatially structured populations: how much do they match the classic metapopulation concept?

  • Jakub Szacki
Article

Abstract

In the classic metapopulation concept a specific range of animal movements is assumed, not too large and not too small. Thus, knowledge of animal mobility is necessary to determine the degree to which a given population matches a specific metapopulation model. It seems that usually small mammal mobility is underestimated, and this has important consequences for the way we view metapopulation dynamics. Data on small mammal movements (Clethrionomys glareolus and Apodemus flavicollis) are presented in this paper. The material was collected in a two year study in western Poland using a set of six woodlots of different sizes and degree of isolation, located among agricultural fields. Various methods were used in the study: colored bait, live-trapping, and radio-telemetry. It is suggested that the populations under study match the concept of patchy population (sensu Harrison 1991), being poorly isolated in individual patches and with the range of animal movements encompassing the whole set of patches. Moreover, the use of patches changes between seasons according to changing needs and/or resource abundance in the woodlots. Density and composition of local populations may be influenced both by the patch area and its isolation, and also by the filtering effect of the matrix that depends on the season. In this context it is pointed out that more attention should be paid to the matrix, both in research practice and conservation as it is a factor influencing population functioning in quantitative and qualitative ways. It is suggested that any generalizations about population spatial organization may be impossible without more detailed knowledge of long distance movements of focal animals and their use of matrix.

dispersal landscape long range movements metapopulation small mammals 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Åberg, J., Jansson, G., Swenson, J.E. and Angelstam, P. 1995. The effects of matrix on the occurrence of hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia) in isolated habitat fragments. Oecologia 103: 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrzejewski, R., BabiŃska-Werka, J., Liro, A., Owadowska, E. and Szacki J. 1999. Homing and space activity in bank voles, Clethrionomys glareolus (Schreber, 1780). Acta Theriologica (in press).Google Scholar
  3. Danielson, B.J. 1992. Habitat selection, inter-specific interactions and landscape composition. Evol. Ecol. 6: 399–411.Google Scholar
  4. Dickman, C.R., Predavec, M. and Downey, F.J. 1995. Long range movements of small mammals in arid Australia: implications for land management. J. Arid Env. 31: 441–452.Google Scholar
  5. Diffendorfer, J.E., Gaines, M.S. and Holt, R. 1995. Habitat fragmentation and movements of three small mammals (Sigmodon, Microtus, and Peromyscus). Ecology, 76: 827–839.Google Scholar
  6. Djawdjan, M. and Garland, T., Jr. 1988. Maximal running speeds of bipedal and quadrupedal rodents. J. Mammal. 69: 765–772.Google Scholar
  7. Dunning, J.B., Danielson, B.J. and Pulliam, R.H. 1992. Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65: 169–175.Google Scholar
  8. Fahrig, L. and Merriam, G. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Cons. Biol. 8: 50–59.Google Scholar
  9. Gottfried, B.M. 1979. Small mammals populations in woodlot islands. Am. Midland Naturalist 102: 105–112.Google Scholar
  10. Gottfried, B.M. 1982. A seasonal analysis of small mammals populations on woodlot islands. Can. J. Zool. 60: 1660–1664.Google Scholar
  11. Gurnell, J. and Gipps, J.H.W. 1989. Inter-trap movement and estimating rodent densities. J. Zool. (London) 217: 241–254.Google Scholar
  12. Hanski, I. A. and Gilpin, M.E. (eds.). 1997. Metapopulation biology. ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 512 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Hansson, L. 1987. Dispersal routes of small mammals at an abandoned field in central Sweden. Holarctic Ecol. 10: 154–159.Google Scholar
  14. Harrison, S. 1991. Local extinction in a metapopulation context: an empirical evaluation. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 42: 73–88.Google Scholar
  15. Henderson, M.T., Merriam, G. and Wegner, J. 1985. Patchy environments and species survival: chipmunks in an agricultural mosaic. Biol. Cons. 31: 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holišova, V. 1968. Marking small mammals by means of coloured admixtures to bait. Small Mammals Newsletter 2: 36–40.Google Scholar
  17. Knight, T.W. and Morris, D.W. 1996. How many habitats do landscapes contain? Ecology 77: 1756–1764.Google Scholar
  18. Kotliar, N. B. and Wiens, J.A. 1990. Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59: 253–260.Google Scholar
  19. Kozakiewicz, M and Gortat, T. 1994. Abundance and seasonal dynamics of bank voles in a patchy agricultural landscape. Polish Ecol. Stud. 20: 209–214.Google Scholar
  20. Kozakiewicz, M. and JurasiŃska, E. 1989. The role of habitat barriers in woodlot recolonization by small mammals. Holarctic Ecol. 12: 106–111.Google Scholar
  21. Kozakiewicz, M., Kozakiewicz, A., ?ukowski, A. and Gortat, T. 1993. Use of space by bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) in a Polish farm landscape. Landscape Ecol. 8: 19–24.Google Scholar
  22. Kozakiewicz, M. and Szacki, J. 1995. Movements of small mammals in a landscape: patch restriction or nomadism? In Landscape approaches in mammalian ecology and conservation. pp. 78–94. Edited by W. Z Lidicker Jr. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  23. Levins, R.A. 1970. Extinction. In Some Mathematical Problems in Biology. pp. 75–107. Edited by M. Gerstenhaber. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar
  24. Lidicker, W.Z., Jr 1998. Responses of mammals to habitat edges: an overview. Landscape Ecol., in press.Google Scholar
  25. Lidicker, W.Z., Jr. and Patton, J.L. 1987. Patterns of dispersal and genetic structure in populations of small rodents. In Mammalian dispersal patterns: the effects of social structure on population genetics. pp. 144–161. Edited by B.D. Chepko-Sade and Z. Tang Halpin. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  26. Lidicker, W.Z., Jr and Koenig, W.D. 1996. Responses of terrestrial vertebrates to habitat edges and corridors. In Metapopulations and wildlife conservation. pp. 85–109. Edited by D.R. McCullough. Island Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  27. Liro, A. and Szacki, J. 1987. Movements of field mice Apodemus agrarius (Pallas) in a suburban mosaic of habitats. Oecologia 74: 438–440.Google Scholar
  28. Merriam, G. 1988. Landscape dynamics in farmland. Trends Ecol. Evol. 3: 16–20.Google Scholar
  29. Middleton, J. and Merriam G., 1981. Woodland mice in a farmland mosaic. J. Applied Ecol. 18: 703–710.Google Scholar
  30. Pickett, S.T.A. and Thompson, J.N. 1978. Patch dynamics and the design of nature reserves. Biol. Cons. 13: 27–37.Google Scholar
  31. Price, M.V., Kelly, P.A. and Goldigay, R.L. 1994. Distances moved by Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi Merriam) and implications for conservation. J. Mammal. 75: 929–939.Google Scholar
  32. Robinson, W.L. and Falls 1965. A study of homing in meadow mice. Am. Midland Nat. 73: 188–224.Google Scholar
  33. Sheppe, W. 1967. The effect of live-trapping on the movements of Peromyscus. Am. Midland Nat. 78: 471–481.Google Scholar
  34. Somsook, S. and Steiner, H.M. 1991. Zur grosse des Aktionraumes von Microtus arvalis (Pallas, 1779). Zeitsch. Saugetierkunde 56: 200–206.Google Scholar
  35. Szacki, J. and Liro, A. 1991. Movements of small mammals in the heterogeneous landscape. Landscape Ecol. 5: 219–224.Google Scholar
  36. Szacki, J., BabiŃska-Werka, J., Liro, A. 1993. The influence of landscape spatial structure on small mammal movements. Acta Theriologica 38: 113–124.Google Scholar
  37. Taylor, P.D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K. and Merriam, G. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68: 571–573.Google Scholar
  38. Tew, T. 1988. The ecology of the European wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus) on British farmland. Proceedings of the II International Behavioural Ecology Conference, Vancouver: 103.Google Scholar
  39. Wegner, J. and Merriam, G. 1990. Use of spatial elements in a farmland mosaic by a woodland rodent. Biol. Cons. 54: 263–276.Google Scholar
  40. Wells, J.V. and Richmond, M.E. 1995. Populations, metapopulations and species populations: why are they and who should care? Wildlife Soc. Bull. 23: 458–462.Google Scholar
  41. Wiens, J.A. 1976. Population responses to patchy environments. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 7: 81–120.Google Scholar
  42. Wiens, J.A. 1997. Metapopulation dynamics and landscape ecology. In Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. pp. 43–62. Edited by I.A. Hanski and M.E. Gilpin. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jakub Szacki
    • 1
  1. 1.WarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations