The Viability of Metapopulations: Individual Dispersal Behaviour Matters

Metapopulation models are frequently used for analysing species–landscape interactions and their effect on structure and dynamic of populations in fragmented landscapes. They especially support a better understanding of the viability of metapopulations. In such models, the processes determining metapopulation viability are often modelled in a simple way. Animals’ dispersal between habitat fragments is mostly taken into account by using a simple dispersal function that assumes the underlying process of dispersal to be random movement. Species-specific dispersal behaviour such as a systematic search for habitat patches is likely to influence the viability of a metapopulation. Using a model for metapopulation viability analysis, we investigate whether such specific dispersal behaviour affects the predictions of ranking orders among alternative landscape configurations rated regarding their ability to carry viable metapopulations. To incorporate dispersal behaviour in the model, we use a submodel for the colonisation rates which allows different movement patterns to be considered (uncorrelated random walk, correlated random walk with various degrees of correlation, and loops). For each movement pattern, the landscape order is determined by comparing the resulting mean metapopulation lifetime Tm of different landscape configurations. Results show that landscape orders can change considerably between different movement patterns. We analyse whether and under what circumstances dispersal behaviour influences the ranking orders of landscapes. We find that the ‘competition between patches for migrants’ – i.e. the fact that dispersers immigrating into one patch are not longer available as colonisers for other patches – is an important factor driving the change in landscape ranks. The implications of our results for metapopulation modelling, planning and conservation are discussed.

[1]  Anthony W. King,et al.  Dispersal success on spatially structured landscapes: when do spatial pattern and dispersal behavior really matter? , 2002 .

[2]  Thomas Hovestadt,et al.  Patch density, movement pattern, and realised dispersal distances in a patch-matrix landscape—a simulation study , 2004 .

[3]  Colette Rivault,et al.  Path integration in cockroach larvae,Blattella germanica (L.) (insect: Dictyoptera): Direction and distance estimation , 1999 .

[4]  Marc Mangel,et al.  Individuals on the landscape : behavior can mitigate landscape differences among habitats , 1997 .

[5]  Lenore Fahrig,et al.  Relative importance of spatial and temporal scales in a patchy environment , 1992 .

[6]  Karin Frank,et al.  Spatial aspects of metapopulation survival – from model results to rules of thumb for landscape management , 1998, Landscape Ecology.

[7]  Rosemary S. Hails,et al.  An introduction to ecological modelling: putting practice into theory , 1997 .

[8]  Michael L. Cain,et al.  Random Search by Herbivorous Insects: A Simulation Model , 1985 .

[9]  Stephen P. Ellner,et al.  SCALING UP ANIMAL MOVEMENTS IN HETEROGENEOUS LANDSCAPES: THE IMPORTANCE OF BEHAVIOR , 2002 .

[10]  L. Ruggiero,et al.  Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains , 1996 .

[11]  Otso Ovaskainen,et al.  The Effective Size of a Metapopulation Living in a Heterogeneous Patch Network , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[12]  Martin Drechsler A model-based decision aid for species protection under uncertainty , 2000 .

[13]  Frederick R. Adler,et al.  Persistence in patchy irregular landscapes , 1994 .

[14]  I. Hanski A Practical Model of Metapopulation Dynamics , 1994 .

[15]  Christian Wissel,et al.  Extinction of populations by random influences , 1991 .

[16]  Dr. Karin Frank,et al.  META-X®-Software for Metapopulation Viability Analysis , 2003, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[17]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  Ranking Conservation and Timber Management Options for Leadbeater's Possum in Southeastern Australia Using Population Viability Analysis , 1996 .

[18]  Karin Frank,et al.  Ecologically Differentiated Rules of Thumb for Habitat Network Design – Lessons from a Formula , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[19]  Gerhard Hoffmann,et al.  The influence of landmarks on the systematic search behaviour of the desert isopod Hemilepistus reaumuri , 1985, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[20]  J. Keilson Markov Chain Models--Rarity And Exponentiality , 1979 .

[21]  C. Braak,et al.  Toward Ecologically Scaled Landscape Indices , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[22]  Gerhard Hoffmann,et al.  The search behavior of the desert isopod Hemilepistus reaumuri as compared with a systematic search , 1983, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[23]  J A Heesterbeek,et al.  On optimal size and number of reserves for metapopulation persistence. , 2000, Journal of theoretical biology.

[24]  S. L. Lima,et al.  SEARCH STRATEGIES FOR LANDSCAPE‐LEVEL INTERPATCH MOVEMENTS , 1999 .

[25]  P. Pollett Limiting Conditional Distributions for Stochastic Metapopulation Models , 2004 .

[26]  Johan A. J. Metz,et al.  Metapopulation models for impact assessment of fragmentation , 1993 .

[27]  W. J. Bell Sources of information controlling motor patterns in arthropod local search orientation , 1985 .

[28]  Christian Wissel,et al.  The intrinsic mean time to extinction: a unifying approach to analysing persistence and viability of populations , 2004 .

[29]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[30]  T. J. Roper,et al.  Non-random dispersal in the butterfly Maniola jurtina: implications for metapopulation models , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[31]  L. Conradt,et al.  Dispersal behaviour of individuals in metapopulations of two British butterflies , 2001 .

[32]  Karin Frank,et al.  A Formula for the Mean Lifetime of Metapopulations in Heterogeneous Landscapes , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[33]  R. Noss The Naturalists Are Dying off , 1996 .

[34]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Landscape-level perceptual abilities in white-footed mice : perceptual range and the detection of forested habitat , 1997 .

[35]  E. Seneta,et al.  On Quasi-Stationary distributions in absorbing discrete-time finite Markov chains , 1965, Journal of Applied Probability.

[36]  Nick M. Haddad,et al.  CORRIDOR AND DISTANCE EFFECTS ON INTERPATCH MOVEMENTS: A LANDSCAPE EXPERIMENT WITH BUTTERFLIES , 1999 .

[37]  Karin Frank,et al.  META-X: Generic Software for Metapopulation Viability Analysis , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[38]  J. Gamarra,et al.  Metapopulation Ecology , 2007 .

[39]  S. Andelman,et al.  Mathematical Methods for Identifying Representative Reserve Networks , 2000 .

[40]  Christian Wissel,et al.  Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: Deriving a practical formula for patch accessibility , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[41]  Patrick A. Zollner,et al.  Foray Search: An Effective Systematic Dispersal Strategy in Fragmented Landscapes , 2003, The American Naturalist.

[42]  R. Wehner,et al.  The hidden spiral: systematic search and path integration in desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis , 1994, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[43]  Otso Ovaskainen,et al.  The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape , 2000, Nature.