Comparison of Two Types of Metapopulation Models in Real and Artificial Landscapes

Application of metapopulation models is becoming increasingly widespread in the conservation of species in fragmented landscapes. We provide one of the first detailed comparisons of two of the most com- mon modeling techniques, incidence function models and stage-based matrix models, and test their accuracy in predicting patch occupancy for a real metapopulation. We measured patch occupancies and demographic rates for regional populations of the Florida scrub lizard ( Sceloporus woodi ) and compared the observed oc- cupancies with those predicted by each model. Both modeling strategies predicted patch occupancies with good accuracy (77-80%) and gave similar results when we compared hypothetical management scenarios involving removal of key habitat patches and degradation of habitat quality. To compare the two modeling approaches over a broader set of conditions, we simulated metapopulation dynamics for 150 artificial land- scapes composed of equal-sized patches (2-1024 ha) spaced at equal distances (50-750 m). Differences in predicted patch occupancy were small to moderate ( � 20%) for about 74% of all simulations, but 22% of the landscapes had differences of � 50%. Incidence function models and stage-based matrix models differ in their approaches, assumptions, and requirements for empirical data, and our findings provide evidence that the two models can produce different results. We encourage researchers to use both techniques and further exam- ine potential differences in model output. The feasibility of obtaining data for population modeling varies widely among species and limits the modeling approaches appropriate for each species. Understanding differ- ent modeling approaches will become increasingly important as conservation programs undertake the chal- lenge of managing for multiple species in a landscape context.

[1]  Karen V. Root,et al.  EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF HABITAT QUALITY, CONNECTIVITY, AND CATASTROPHES ON A THREATENED SPECIES , 1998 .

[2]  Ilkka Hanski,et al.  Metapopulation dynamics and conservation: A spatially explicit model applied to butterflies , 1994 .

[3]  D. Simberloff,et al.  Island Biogeography Theory and Conservation Practice , 1976, Science.

[4]  James F. Jackson,et al.  Reproductive Ecology of the Florida Scrub Lizard, Sceloporus woodi , 1974 .

[5]  S. Boorman,et al.  Group selection on the boundary of a stable population. , 1973, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  R. Levins Some Demographic and Genetic Consequences of Environmental Heterogeneity for Biological Control , 1969 .

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

[8]  R. Macarthur,et al.  The Theory of Island Biogeography , 1969 .

[9]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  The Quantitative Incidence Function Model and Persistence of an Endangered Butterfly Metapopulation , 1996 .

[10]  Ilkka Hanski,et al.  The Metapopulation Approach, Its History, Conceptual Domain, and Application to Conservation , 1997 .

[11]  Robert McKelvey,et al.  A Dynamic Analysis of Northern Spotted Owl Viability in a Fragmented Forest Landscape , 1992 .

[12]  J. Neter,et al.  Applied Linear Regression Models , 1983 .

[13]  Steven R. Beissinger,et al.  Modeling Extinction in Periodic Environments: Everglades Water Levels and Snail Kite Population Viability , 1995 .

[14]  Lenore Fahrig,et al.  Determinants of local population size in patchy habitats , 1988 .

[15]  H. Resit Akçakaya,et al.  Spotted owl metapopulation dynamics in Southern California , 1994 .

[16]  M. Turner,et al.  Usefulness of spatially explicit population models in land management , 1995 .

[17]  Michael J. Conroy,et al.  Parameter Estimation, Reliability, and Model Improvement for Spatially Explicit Models of Animal Populations , 1995 .

[18]  James F. Jackson,et al.  Distribution and Population Phenetics of the Florida Scrub Lizard, Sceloporus woodi , 1973 .

[19]  M. Burgman,et al.  Influence of habitat quality, catastrophes, and population size on extinction risk of the Florida scrub-jay , 1999 .

[20]  S. Harrison,et al.  Local extinction in a metapopulation context: an empirical evaluation , 1991 .

[21]  S. Humphrey,et al.  Use of population viability analysis to evaluate management options for the endangered lower keys marsh rabbit , 1999 .

[22]  M. Soulé,et al.  Viable Populations for Conservation: List of contributors , 1987 .

[23]  M. Massot,et al.  Chapter 9. Determinants of Dispersal Behavior: The Common Lizard as a Case Study , 1994 .

[24]  B. Stith,et al.  EFFECTS OF LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE IN FLORIDA SCRUB: A POPULATION PERSPECTIVE , 1999 .

[25]  H. Ford The demography of three populations of dandelion , 1981 .

[26]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  A Review of the Generic Computer Programs ALEX, RAMAS/space and VORTEX for Modelling the Viability of Wildlife Metapopulations , 1995 .

[27]  M. Groom,et al.  The Analysis of Population Persistence: An Outlook on the Practice of Viability Analysis , 1998 .

[28]  T. O'Shea,et al.  Population Viability Analysis of the Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris), 1976–1991 , 1997 .

[29]  James H. Brown,et al.  Turnover Rates in Insular Biogeography: Effect of Immigration on Extinction , 1977 .

[30]  Amy W. Ando,et al.  On the Use of Demographic Models of Population Viability in Endangered Species Management , 1998 .

[31]  Ilkka Hanski,et al.  Metapopulation dynamics : empirical and theoretical investigations , 1991 .

[32]  James F. Jackson THE PHENETICS AND ECOLOGY OF A NARROW HYBRID ZONE , 1973, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

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

[34]  Eric S. Menges,et al.  Inferring Metapopulation Dynamics from Patch‐Level Incidence of Florida Scrub Plants , 1996 .