Advertisement

The Founder and Allee Effects in the Patch Occupancy Metapopulation Model

  • Rampal S. Etienne
  • Lia Hemerik

Abstract

The problem of ever-increasing habitat fragmentation due to human land use calls for a theoretical framework to study the potential dangers and to find ways of combating these dangers. The metapopulation approach, with the Levins model as its patriarch, provides such a framework. A metapopulation is a collection of populations that live in habitat fragments (called patches). These populations can become extinct, but new populations can be established by dispersing individuals from extant populations. If these colonizations can balance these extinctions, metapopulation persistence is possible. In theoretical literature surprisingly little attention has been paid to the colonization term in the Levins model and its extensions. Specifically, the Allee effect (i.e. reduced probability of colonization due to, e.g., reduced probability of finding a mate, or reduced defence against predators) may play a major role although it has not received appropriate attention. In this paper, we study the colonization term in the Levins model and conclude that it describes the founder effect (i.e. stochastic fluctuations in births and deaths of an establishing population causing colonization to fail). We then incorporate the Allee effect in the colonization term and conclude that previous attempts to do so were erroneous because they ignored some difficulties in the model formulation and interpretation. We devise a phenomenological model for the Allee effect that is consistent in both discrete and continuous time. Although the model with Allee effect shows a fold bifurcation in its deterministic formulation (both in discrete and continuous time), suggesting the possibility of sudden metapopulation extinction when the bifurcation parameter is only changed slightly, the model in its stochastic formulation does not fully support this: the expected occupancy and the expected metapopulation extinction time decrease gradually when the number of patches is moderate.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akçgakaya, H.R. and L.R. Ginzburg (1991). Ecological risk analysis for single and multiple populations. In: Seitz, A. and V. Loeschcke (Eds). Species conservation: a population-biological approach. Birkhiuser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland. pp. 73–85.Google Scholar
  2. Allee, W.C. (1931). Animal aggregations, a study in general sociology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Alonso, D. and A. McKane (2002). Extinction dynamics in mainland-island metapopulations: an N-patch stochastic model. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 64: 913–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amarasekare, P. (1998a). Interactions between local dynamics and dispersal: insights from single species models. Theoretical Population Biology 53: 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amarasekare, P. (1998b). Allee effects in metapopulation dynamics. American Naturalist 152: 298–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amarasekare, P. and H.P. Possingham (2001). Patch dynamics and metapopulation theory: the case of successional species. Journal of Theoretical Biology 209: 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berec, L., D.S. Boukal and M. Berec (2001). Linking the Allee effect, sexual reproduction, and temperature-dependent sex determination via spatial dynamics. American Naturalist 157: 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brassil, C.E. (2001). Mean time to extinction of a metapopulation with an Allee effect. Ecological Modelling 143: 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, J.H. and A. Kodric-Brown (1977). Turnover rate in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58: 445–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Courchamp, F., T. Clutton-Brock and B. Grenfell (1999). Inverse density dependence and the Allee effect. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14: 405–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cronin, J.T. and D.R. Strong (1999). Dispersal-dependent oviposition and the aggregation of parasitism. American Naturalist 154: 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Day, J.R. and H.P. Possingham (1995). A stochastic metapopulation model with variability in patch size and position. Theoretical Population Biology 48: 333–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Den Boer, P.J. (1968). Spreading of risk and stabilization of animal numbers. Acta Biotheoretica 18: 165–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etienne, R.S. (2000). Local populations of different sizes, mechanistic rescue effect and patch preference in the Levins metapopulation model. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 62: 943–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Etienne, R.S. (2002). A scrutiny of the Levins metapopulation model. Comments on Theoretical Biology 7: 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etienne, R.S. and J.A.P. Heesterbeek (2000). On optimal size and number of reserves for metapopulation persistence. Journal of Theoretical Biology: 203: 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Etienne, R.S. and J.A.P. Heesterbeek (2001). Rules of thumb for conservation of metapopulations based on a stochastic winking-patch model. American Naturalist 158: 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Etienne, R.S. and C.J. Nagelkerke (2002). Non-equilibria in small metapopulations: comparing the deterministic Levins model with its stochastic counterpart. Journal of Theoretical Biology 219: 463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Etienne, R.S., M. Lof and L. Hemerik (2002a). The Allee effect in metapopulation dynamics revisited. In: Etienne, R.S. Striking the metapopulation balance. Mathematical models and methods meet metapopulation management. pp. 71–78. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  20. Etienne, R.S, B. Wertheim, L. Hemerik, P. Schneider and J.A. Powell (2002b). The interaction between dispersal, the Allee effect and scramble competition affects population dynamics. Ecological Modelling 148: 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frank, K. and C. Wissel (1998). Spatial aspects of metapopulation survival — from model results to rules of thumb for landscape management. Landscape Ecology 13: 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goel, N.S. and N. Richter-Dyn (1974). Stochastic models in biology. Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  23. Gog, J., R. Woodroffe and J. Swinton (2002). Disease in endangered metapopulations: the importance of alternative hosts. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269: 671–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gotelli, N.J. and W.G. Kelley (1993). A general model of metapopulation dynamics. Oikos 68: 36–44.Google Scholar
  25. Gyllenberg, M. and I. Hanski (1992). Single-species metapopulation dynamics: a structured model. Theoretical Population Biology 42: 35–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gyllenberg, M. and I. Hanski (1997). Habitat deterioration, habitat destruction, and metapopulation persistence in a heterogenous landscape. Theoretical Population Biology 52: 198–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gyllenberg, M. and D.S. Silvestrov (1994). Quasi-stationary distributions of a stochastic meta-population model. Journal of Mathematical Biology 33: 35–70.Google Scholar
  28. Gyllenberg, M., A.V. Osipov and G. Söderbacks (1996). Bifurcation analysis of a metapopulation model with sources and sinks. Journal of Nonlinear Science 6: 329–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gyllenberg, M., I. Hanski and A. Hastings (1997). Structured metapopulation models. In: Hanski, I.A. and M.E. Gilpin (Eds). Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. pp. 93–122.Google Scholar
  30. Gyllenberg, M., J. Hemminki and T. Tammaru. (1999). Allee effects can both conserve and create spatial heterogeneity in population densities. Theoretical Population Biology 56: 231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hanski, I. (1983). Coexistence of competitors in patchy environment. Ecology 64: 493–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanski, I. (1994). A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 151–162.Google Scholar
  33. Hanski, I. (1999). Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K..Google Scholar
  34. Hanski, I. and M. Gyllenberg (1993). Two general metapopulation models and the core-satellite species hypothesis. American Naturalist 142: 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hanski, I. and D.-Y. Zhang (1993). Migration, metapopulation dynamics and fugitive co-existence. Journal of Theoretical Biology 163: 491–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hanski, I. and O. Ovaskainen (2000). The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404: 755–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hanski, I., A. Moilanen and M. Gyllenberg (1996). Minimum viable metapopulation size. American Naturalist 147: 527–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harding, K.C. and J.M. McNamara (2002). A unifying framework for metapopulation dynamics. American Naturalist 160: 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hastings, A. (1991). Structured models of metapopulation dynamics. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42: 57–70.Google Scholar
  40. Hastings, A. (1995). A metapopulation model with population jumps of varying sizes. Mathematical Biosciences 128: 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hess, G.R. (1994). Conservation corridors and contagious disease: a cautionary note. Conservation Biology 8: 256–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hess, G.R. (1996). Disease in metapopulation models: implications for conservation. Ecology 77: 1617–1632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hess, G.R. and R.A. Fischer (2001). Communicating clearly about conservation corridors. Landscape and Urban Planning 55: 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Holt, R.D. (1997). From metapopulation dynamics to community structure: some consequences of spatial heterogeneity. In: Hanski, I.A. and M.E. Gilpin (Eds). Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. pp. 149–164.Google Scholar
  45. Keitt, T.H., M.A. Lewis and R.D. Holt (2001). Allee effects, invasion pinning, and species' borders. American Naturalist 157: 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Keymer, J.E., P.A. Marquet, J.X. Velasco-Hernindez and S.A. Levin (2000). Extinction thresholds and metapopulation persistence in dynamic landscapes. American Naturalist 156: 478–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lande, R. (1998). Demographic stochasticity and Allee effect on a scale with isotropic noise. Oikos 83: 353–358.Google Scholar
  48. Lande, R., S. Engen and B-E. Saether (1998). Extinction times in finite meta-population models with stochastic local dynamics. Oikos 83: 383–389.Google Scholar
  49. Levins, R. (1969). Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 15: 237–240.Google Scholar
  50. Levins, R. (1970). Extinction. In: Gertenhaber, M. (Ed.). Some mathematical problems in biology. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI. pp. 75–107.Google Scholar
  51. Levins, R. and D. Culver (1971). Regional coexistence of species and competition between rare species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA 68: 1246–1248.Google Scholar
  52. McCarthy, M.A. (1997). The Allee effect, finding mates and theoretical models. Ecological Modelling 103: 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nagelkerke, C.J. and S.B.J. Menken (2002). Local vs. global power. Coexistence of specialist and generalist metapopulations. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  54. Nee, S. and R.M. May. (1992). Dynamics of metapopulations: habitat destruction and competitive coexistence. Journal of Animal Ecology 61: 37–40.Google Scholar
  55. Nee, S., R.M. May and M.P. Hassell (1997). Two-species metapopulation models. In: Hanski, I.A. and M.E. Gilpin (Eds). Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. pp. 123–147.Google Scholar
  56. Ovaskainen, 0. (2001). The quasi-stationary distribution of the stochastic logistic model. Journal of Applied Probability 38: 898–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ovaskainen, 0. and I. Hanski (2001). Spatially structured metapopulation models: global and local assessment of metapopulation capacity. Theoretical Population Biology 60: 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ovaskainen, O., K. Sato, J. Bascompte and I. Hanski (2002). Metapopulation models for extinction threshold in spatially correlated landscapes. Journal of Theoretical Biology 215: 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ray, C., M. Gilpin and A.T. Smith. (1991). The effect of conspecific attraction on metapopulation dynamics. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42: 123–134.Google Scholar
  60. Reed, J.M. (1999). The role of behavior in recent avian extinctions and endangerments. Conservation Biology 13: 232–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sabelis, M., O. Diekmann and V.A.A. Jansen (1991). Metapopulation persistence despite local extinction: predator-prey patch models of the Lotka-Volterra type. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42: 267–283.Google Scholar
  62. Slatkin, M. (1974). Competition and regional coexistence. Ecology 55: 128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stephens, P.A. and W.J. Sutherland (1999). Consequences of the Allee effect for behaviour, ecology and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14: 401–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stephens, P.A., W.J. Sutherland and R.P. Freckleton (1999). What is the Allee effect? Oikos 87: 185–190.Google Scholar
  65. Taneyhill, D.E. (2000). Metapopulation dynamics of multiple species: the geometry of competition in a fragmented habitat. Ecological Monographs 70: 495–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vandermeer, J. and R. Carvajal (2001). Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix. American Naturalist 158: 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wissel, C. (1994). Stochastic extinction models discrete in time. Ecological Modelling 75: 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rampal S. Etienne
    • 1
  • Lia Hemerik
    • 2
  1. 1.Community and Conservation Ecology GroupUniversity of GroningenGronigen
  2. 2.Wageningen University and Research CentreWageningen

Personalised recommendations