Spatial asymmetries in connectivity influence colonization−extinction dynamics

Movement has broad implications for many areas of biology, including evolution, community and population ecology. Movement is crucial in metapopulation ecology because it facilitates colonization and reduces the likelihood of local extinction via rescue effects. Most metapopulation modeling approaches describe connectivity using pair-wise Euclidean distances resulting in the simplifying assumption of a symmetric connectivity pattern. Yet, assuming symmetric connectivity when populations show net asymmetric movement patterns may result in biased estimates of colonization and extinction, and may alter interpretations of the dynamics and conclusions regarding the viability of metapopulations. Here, we use a 10-year time series on a wind-dispersed orchid Lepanthes rupestris that anchors its roots in patches of moss growing on trees or boulders along streams, to test for the role of connectivity asymmetries in explaining the colonization−extinction dynamics of this orchid in a network of 975 patches. We expected that wind direction could highly alter dispersal direction in this orchid. To account for this potential asymmetry, we modified the connectivity measure traditionally used in metapopulation models to allow for asymmetric effective distances between patches and subsequently estimated colonization and extinction probabilities using a dynamic occupancy modeling approach. Asymmetric movement was prevalent in the L. rupestris metapopulation and incorporating potential dispersal asymmetries resulted in higher colonization estimates in larger patches and more accurate models. Accounting for dispersal asymmetries may reveal connectivity effects where they were previously assumed to be negligible and may provide more reliable conclusions regarding the role of connectivity in patch dynamics.

[1]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Implications of empirical data quality to metapopulation model parameter estimation and application , 2002 .

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

[3]  R. Tremblay.  Distribution and Dispersion Patterns of Individuals in Nine Species of Lepanfhes (Orchidaceae) 1 , 1997 .

[4]  H. Possingham,et al.  Anthropogenic landscape change promotes asymmetric dispersal and limits regional patch occupancy in a spatially structured bird population. , 2012, The Journal of animal ecology.

[5]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  PATCH OCCUPANCY MODELS OF METAPOPULATION DYNAMICS: EFFICIENT PARAMETER ESTIMATION USING IMPLICIT STATISTICAL INFERENCE , 1999 .

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

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

[8]  K. Pollock.  A Capture-Recapture Design Robust to Unequal Probability of Capture , 1982 .

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

[10]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  SIMPLE CONNECTIVITY MEASURES IN SPATIAL ECOLOGY , 2002 .

[11]  John P O'Neill,et al.  Limitations on orchid recruitment: not a simple picture , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[12]  Justin S. Brashares,et al.  Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least‐cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? , 2011 .

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

[14]  D. Whigham,et al.  Seed ecology of dust seeds in situ: a new study technique and its application in terrestrial orchids , 1993 .

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

[16]  D. Whigham,et al.  Seed longevity in terrestrial orchids : Potential for persistent in situ seed banks , 2006 .

[17]  Pierre Fontanillas,et al.  Landscape structure affects dispersal in the greater white-toothed shrew : Inference between genetic and simulated ecological distances , 2007 .

[18]  H. Jacquemyn,et al.  What constrains the distribution of orchid populations , 2014 .

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

[20]  Jonathan Dushoff,et al.  Testing Simple Indices of Habitat Proximity , 2005, The American Naturalist.

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

[22]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[23]  M. Pérez,et al.  Demographic response by a small epiphytic orchid. , 2011, American journal of botany.

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

[25]  J. Settele,et al.  Do all inter-patch movements represent dispersal? A mixed kernel study of butterfly mobility in fragmented landscapes. , 2011, The Journal of animal ecology.

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

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

[28]  L. Gustafsson,et al.  Presence and abundance of four epiphytic bryophytes in relation to density of aspen (Populus tremula) and other stand characteristics , 1998 .

[29]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Incorporating asymmetric connectivity into spatial decision making for conservation , 2010 .

[30]  J. Nichols,et al.  ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY, COLONIZATION, AND LOCAL EXTINCTION WHEN A SPECIES IS DETECTED IMPERFECTLY , 2003 .

[31]  P. Kindlmann,et al.  Disobedient epiphytes: colonization and extinction rates in a metapopulation of Lepanthes rupestris (Orchidaceae) contradict theoretical predictions based on patch connectivity , 2014 .

[32]  Robert M. Dorazio,et al.  Occupancy estimation and the closure assumption , 2009 .

[33]  E. Matthysen,et al.  Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the Speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L.) , 2003, Landscape Ecology.

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

[35]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  METAPOPULATION DYNAMICS: EFFECTS OF HABITAT QUALITY AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE , 1998 .

[36]  Richard B. Chandler,et al.  unmarked: An R Package for Fitting Hierarchical Models of Wildlife Occurrence and Abundance , 2011 .

[37]  J. Ackerman.  orchid flora of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands , 1996 .

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

[39]  R. Tremblay,et al.  THE GENETIC STRUCTURE OF ORCHID POPULATIONS AND ITS EVO L U T I O N A RY IMPORTA N C E , 2003 .

[40]  R. Tremblay,et al.  Associations between Lepanthes rupestris Orchids and Bryophyte Presence in the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico , 2014 .

[41]  K. Dixon,et al.  Soil Seed-Bank Dynamics of Terrestrial Orchids , 2000 .

[42]  E. Fleishman,et al.  An empirical evaluation of the area and isolation paradigm of metapopulation dynamics , 2007 .

[43]  I. Hanski,et al.  Modelling epiphyte metapopulation dynamics in a dynamic forest landscape , 2005 .

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

[45]  R. Tremblay,et al.  Gene flow and effective population size in Lepanthes (Orchidaceae): a case for genetic drift , 2001 .

[46]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  Hierarchical Modeling and Inference in Ecology: The Analysis of Data from Populations, Metapopulations and Communities , 2008 .

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

[48]  A. Covich,et al.  DO SEASONALITY AND DISTURBANCE INFLUENCE REPRODUCTION IN FRESHWATER ATYID SHRIMP IN HEADWATER STREAMS, PUERTO RICO ? , 1998 .

[49]  D. Kapan,et al.  Do epiphytic orchids behave as metapopulations? Evidence from colonization, extinction rates and asynchronous population dynamics , 2006 .

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

[51]  M E Gilpin,et al.  Calculation of immigration and extinction curves from the species-area-distance relation. , 1976, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[52]  P. Jonsson,et al.  On the impact of dispersal asymmetry on metapopulation persistence. , 2010, Journal of theoretical biology.

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

[54]  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 .

[55]  R. Tremblay,et al.  Circular distribution of an epiphytic herb on trees in a subtropical rain forest , 2009 .

[56]  James E. Hines,et al.  A Large-Scale Deforestation Experiment: Effects of Patch Area and Isolation on Amazon Birds , 2007, Science.

[57]  Mark V. Lomolino.  The target area hypothesis: the influence of island area on immigration rates of non-volant mammals , 1990 .