Habitat Destruction and the Extinction Debt Revisited

A very important published analysis of the problem of habitat destruction (Tilman et al. 1994 (Nature 371:65-66)) concluded that such destruction may lead to an extinction debt, which is the irreversible, preferential loss of competitive species following a prolonged transient or delay after the habitat destruction. We analyzed this model using analytic and simulation techniques. Relating this analytic model to real-world situations shows that it applies to scattered permanent devegetation of small patches and to across- the-board decreases in fecundity such as could be caused by pollution. For repeated spatially random disturbance, we develop a new model that shows an even more severe extinction- debt effect. For larger fragments of remnant vegetation, such as forest woodlots, we argue that the assumptions of the model are violated but that an extinction debt nevertheless occurs due to gradual stochastic elimination of species that are very rare and isolated in these fragments. For habitat destruction on regional scales (reduction in ecosystem area without disturbance in remnant areas), one must, in contrast, apply species-area relations based on the distribution of different habitat types (e.g., elevational and rainfall gradients; physiographic and edaphic variability). Such an analysis predicts rapid, not delayed, loss of all types of species, not just competitive types. We conclude that the extinction-debt effect is real and arises in three different models, but relating the models to real-world conservation problems must be done with care.

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

[2]  James F. Quinn,et al.  Correlated environments and the persistence of metapopulations , 1989 .

[3]  D. Tilman Competition and Biodiversity in Spatially Structured Habitats , 1994 .

[4]  M. Gilpin,et al.  Metapopulation dynamics: a brief his-tory and conceptual domain , 1991 .

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

[6]  P. Curran,et al.  The effect of sampling on the species-area curve , 1994 .

[7]  Nicholas J. Gotelli,et al.  Metapopulation Models: The Rescue Effect, the Propagule Rain, and the Core-Satellite Hypothesis , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[8]  J. Lawton,et al.  The biogeography of scarce vascular plants in Britain with respect to habitat preference dispersal ability and reproductive biology , 1994 .

[9]  John H. Lawton,et al.  Population dynamic principles , 1994 .

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

[11]  C. Dytham Habitat destruction and competitive coexistence: a cellular model. Commentary , 1994 .

[12]  Chris D. Thomas,et al.  Partial recovery of a skipper butterfly (Hesperia comma) from population refuges : lessons for conservation in a fragmented landscape , 1993 .

[13]  Monica G. Turner,et al.  Predicting the spread of disturbance across heterogeneous landscapes , 1989 .

[14]  C. Loehle,et al.  Species-Area Parameter Estimation: Testing the Null Model of Lack of Relationship , 1988 .

[15]  Scott L. Collins,et al.  Importance of Spatial and Temporal Dynamics in Species Regional Abundance and Distribution , 1991 .

[16]  C. Dytham Competitive coexistence and empty patches in spatially explicit metapopulation models , 1995 .

[17]  Craig Loehle,et al.  Model-based assessments of climate change effects on forests , 1995 .

[18]  Robert M. May,et al.  Dynamics of metapopulations : habitat destruction and competitive coexistence , 1992 .