The proximate causes of asymmetric movement across heterogeneous landscapes

ContextAsymmetric 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.ObjectivesWe tested for the mechanisms of asymmetric movement in the cactus-feeding insect, Chelinidea vittiger, using a combination of observational and experimental approaches.MethodsIn 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsOur 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.

[1]  N. Stenseth,et al.  Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology , 1993 .

[2]  Thomas W. Yee,et al.  Vector Generalized Linear and Additive Models: With an Implementation in R , 2015 .

[3]  M. Nowak,et al.  Habitat destruction and the extinction debt , 1994, Nature.

[4]  Richard James,et al.  Hypothesis testing in animal social networks. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[5]  M. Gilpin,et al.  The effect of conspecific attraction on metapopulation dynamics , 1991 .

[6]  I. Hanski.  Metapopulation dynamics , 1998, Nature.

[7]  Kathryn E Sieving,et al.  An Experimental Test of Matrix Permeability and Corridor Use by an Endemic Understory Bird , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[8]  R. Kenward,et al.  Sailing with the wind: dispersal by small flying insects. , 2002 .

[9]  I. Washitani,et al.  Use of multiple habitat types with asymmetric dispersal affects patch occupancy of the damselfly Indolestes peregrinus in a fragmented landscape , 2012 .

[10]  Wiley M. Kitchens,et al.  Network modularity reveals critical scales for connectivity in ecology and evolution , 2013, Nature Communications.

[11]  John A. Wiens,et al.  Finding habitat patches and directional connectivity , 2003 .

[12]  A. Joshi,et al.  Effects of symmetric and asymmetric dispersal on the dynamics of heterogeneous metapopulations: two-patch systems revisited. , 2014, Journal of theoretical biology.

[13]  Robert J. Jr. Fletcher,et al.  Signal detection theory clarifies the concept of perceptual range and its relevance to landscape connectivity , 2012, Landscape Ecology.

[14]  Miguel A. Acevedo,et al.  Spatial asymmetries in connectivity influence colonization−extinction dynamics , 2015, Oecologia.

[15]  J. Roughgarden,et al.  The Impact of Directed versus Random Movement on Population Dynamics and Biodiversity Patterns , 2005, The American Naturalist.

[16]  Miguel Delibes,et al.  Effects of Matrix Heterogeneity on Animal Dispersal: From Individual Behavior to Metapopulation‐Level Parameters , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[17]  Travis.  Dispersal functions and spatial models: expanding our dispersal toolbox , 2000 .

[18]  H. Wilkinson-Herbots,et al.  The effect of unequal migration rates on FST. , 2004, Theoretical population biology.

[19]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  Finding the Missing Link between Landscape Structure and Population Dynamics: A Spatially Explicit Perspective , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[20]  J. Stamps.  Conspecific Attraction and Aggregation in Territorial Species , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[21]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[22]  T. Frank,et al.  Interacting effects of wind direction and resource distribution on insect pest densities , 2009 .

[23]  Thomas W. Yee,et al.  Vector Generalized Linear and Additive Models , 2015 .

[24]  B. Bolker,et al.  Effects of colonization asymmetries on metapopulation persistence. , 2010, Theoretical population biology.

[25]  T. Benton,et al.  Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics , 2005, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[26]  Andrew T. Smith,et al.  Conspecific Attraction and the Determination of Metapopulation Colonization Rates , 1990 .

[27]  Marcus Vinícius Vieira,et al.  Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence , 2010, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[28]  Eric J. Gustafson,et al.  The Effect of Landscape Heterogeneity on the Probability of Patch Colonization , 1996 .

[29]  Robert S. Schick,et al.  Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine network , 2007 .

[30]  R. D. Goeden,et al.  Biology of Chelinidea vittiger with Notes on Its Host-Plant Relationships and Value in Biological Weed Control , 1973 .

[31]  M. Loreau,et al.  Dispersal and metapopulation stability , 2015, PeerJ.

[32]  J. G. Skellam.  The Frequency Distribution of the Difference between Two Poisson Variates Belonging to Different Populations , 1946 .

[33]  Yacov Salomon,et al.  Effects of asymmetric dispersal on the coexistence of competing species. , 2010, Ecology letters.

[34]  P. Armsworth,et al.  The consequences of non-passive advection and directed motion for population dynamics , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[35]  P. Ferreras.  Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx , 2001 .

[36]  M. Acevedo,et al.  Social network models predict movement and connectivity in ecological landscapes , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  Ruth J. Muschel,et al.  Corrigendum: Cancer cells that survive radiation therapy acquire HIF-1 activity and translocate toward tumour blood vessels , 2013, Nature Communications.

[38]  A. McCartney,et al.  First field evidence that parasitoids use upwind anemotaxis for host‐habitat location , 2007 .

[39]  J. G. Skellam.  The frequency distribution of the difference between two Poisson variates belonging to different populations. , 1946, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A.

[40]  J. Donázar,et al.  Factors affecting breeding dispersal in the facultatively colonial lesser kestrel: individual experience vs. conspecific cues , 2001 .

[41]  S. Petit,et al.  Population spatial structure and migration of three butterfly species within the same habitat network: consequences for conservation. , 2000 .

[42]  Christine W. Miller,et al.  The type and timing of social information alters offspring production , 2008, Biology Letters.

[43]  Z. Xiaodong.  Spatial synchrony in population dynamics of desert rodents , 2011 .

[44]  Oskar Kindvall,et al.  Consequences of modelling interpatch migration as a function of patch geometry when predicting metapopulation extinction risk , 2000 .

[45]  Douglas Sheil,et al.  The Value of Tropical Forest to Local Communities: Complications, Caveats, and Cautions , 2002 .

[46]  Michael S. Gaines,et al.  Habitat Fragmentation and Movements of Three Small Mammals (Sigmodon, Microtus, and Peromyscus) , 1995 .

[47]  Robert J. Fletcher,et al.  Does attraction to conspecifics explain the patch-size effect? An experimental test , 2009 .

[48]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Patch Size and Population Density: the Effect of Immigration Behavior , 2002 .

[49]  Robert J Fletcher,et al.  The matrix alters the role of path redundancy on patch colonization rates. , 2014, Ecology.

[50]  Robert D. Holt,et al.  Adaptive Evolution in Source-Sink Environments: Direct and Indirect Effects of Density-Dependence on Niche Evolution , 1996 .

[51]  W. Fagan,et al.  Conspecific and heterospecific attraction in assessments of functional connectivity , 2011, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[52]  John A. Wiens,et al.  Movements of cactus bugs: Patch transfers, matrix resistance, and edge permeability , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[53]  P. Keddy.  EXPERIMENTAL DEMOGRAPHY OF THE SAND-DUNE ANNUAL, CAKILE EDENTULA, GROWING ALONG AN ENVIRONMENTAL GRADIENT IN NOVA SCOTIA , 1981 .

[54]  J. Wiens,et al.  SPATIAL ECOLOGY OF CACTUS BUGS: AREA CONSTRAINTS AND PATCH CONNECTIVITY , 2005 .

[55]  R. Prokopy,et al.  Visual Detection of Plants by Herbivorous Insects , 1983 .

[56]  J. Tella,et al.  Dispersal within a spatially structured population of lesser kestrels: the role of spatial isolation and conspecific attraction , 2003 .

[57]  R. Holt,et al.  Evolutionary Consequences of Asymmetric Dispersal Rates , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[58]  Aurélie Coulon,et al.  Dispersal asymmetries and deleterious mutations influence metapopulation persistence and range dynamics , 2015, Evolutionary Ecology.

[59]  C. Palacín,et al.  Distribution dynamics of a great bustard metapopulation throughout a decade: influence of conspecific attraction and recruitment , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[60]  Christine W. Miller,et al.  Natal social environment influences habitat selection later in life , 2012, Animal Behaviour.

[61]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Using complex network metrics to predict the persistence of metapopulations with asymmetric connectivity patterns , 2008 .

[62]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Does colonization asymmetry matter in metapopulations? , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[63]  Patrick N. Halpin,et al.  Modeling population connectivity by ocean currents, a graph-theoretic approach for marine conservation , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[64]  Darren J. Bender,et al.  MATRIX STRUCTURE OBSCURES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERPATCH MOVEMENT AND PATCH SIZE AND ISOLATION , 2005 .

[65]  H. Pulliam,et al.  Sources, Sinks, and Population Regulation , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[66]  E. Silverman,et al.  Social cues facilitate habitat selection: American redstarts establish breeding territories in response to song , 2006, Biology Letters.

[67]  Henrik Andrén,et al.  Habitat-mediated predation risk and decision making of small birds at forest edges , 2001 .