Non-equilibria in small metapopulations: comparing the deterministic Levins model with its stochastic counterpart.

In this paper, we examine, for small metapopulations, the stochastic analog of the classical Levins metapopulation model. We study its basic model output, the expected time to metapopulation extinction, for systems which are brought out of equilibrium by imposing sudden changes in patch number and the colonization and extinction parameters. We find that the expected metapopulation extinction time shows different behavior from the relaxation time of the original, deterministic, Levins model. This relaxation time is therefore limited in value for predicting the behavior of the stochastic model. However, predictions about the extinction time for deterministically unviable cases remain qualitatively the same. Our results further suggest that, if we want to counteract the effects of habitat loss or increased dispersal resistance, the optimal conservation strategy is not to restore the original situation, that is, to create habitat or decrease resistance against dispersal. As long as the costs for different management options are not too dissimilar, it is better to improve the quality of the remaining habitat in order to decrease the local extinction rate.

[1]  Otso Ovaskainen,et al.  The quasistationary distribution of the stochastic logistic model , 2001, Journal of Applied Probability.

[2]  J A Heesterbeek,et al.  Rules of Thumb for Conservation of Metapopulations Based on a Stochastic Winking‐Patch Model , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[3]  J. Vandermeer,et al.  Metapopulation Dynamics and the Quality of the Matrix , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[4]  Shay Gueron,et al.  Deterministic approximations for stochastic processes in population biology , 2001, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[5]  R. Ostfeld,et al.  The Ecological Basis of Conservation: Heterogeneity, Ecosystems, and Biodiversity , 1999 .

[6]  R. Lande,et al.  Finite metapopulation models with density–dependent migration and stochastic local dynamics , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

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

[8]  F. Gosselin,et al.  Reconciling theoretical approaches to stochastic patch-occupancy metapopulation models , 1998 .

[9]  P. Amarasekare,et al.  Allee Effects in Metapopulation Dynamics , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[10]  William F. Laurance,et al.  Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management and Conservation of Fragmented Communities ED. W.F LAURANCE AND R.O. BIERREGAARD, JR 616 pp., ISBN 0 226 46898 4 US$105.00/£83.95 (cloth); 0 226 46899 2 US$38.00/£30.50 (paper), Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 1997 , 1998, Environmental Conservation.

[11]  Christian Wissel,et al.  Modelling persistence in dynamic landscapes : lessons from a metapopulation of the grasshopper Bryodema tuberculata , 1997 .

[12]  Andy W. Sheppard,et al.  Frontiers of population ecology , 1997 .

[13]  Mats Gyllenberg,et al.  Minimum Viable Metapopulation Size , 1996, The American Naturalist.

[14]  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 .

[15]  Mats Gyllenberg,et al.  Quasi-stationary distributions of a stochastic metapopulation model , 1994 .

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

[17]  R. May,et al.  Uncertainties in extinction rates , 1994, Nature.

[18]  Ilkka Hanski,et al.  Coexistence of Competitors in Patchy Environment , 1983 .

[19]  W. Gurney,et al.  Single-Species Population Fluctuations in Patchy Environments , 1978, The American Naturalist.

[20]  S. I. Rubinow,et al.  Some mathematical problems in biology , 1975 .

[21]  N. Goel,et al.  Stochastic models in biology , 1975 .

[22]  R. Levins,et al.  Regional Coexistence of Species and Competition between Rare Species. , 1971, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

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

[25]  Kevin J. Gutzwiller,et al.  Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation , 2002, Springer New York.

[26]  F. C. van den Bosch,et al.  Time Lags in Metapopulation Responses to Landscape Change , 2002 .

[27]  H. Caswell.  Matrix population models : construction, analysis, and interpretation , 2001 .

[28]  G. Orians,et al.  Conservation biology : research priorities for the next decade , 2001 .

[29]  S. Andelman,et al.  Making smart conservation decisions , 2001 .

[30]  R. May,et al.  Two-Species Metapopulation Models , 1997 .

[31]  H. P. Possingham,et al.  State-Dependent Decision Analysis for Conservation Biology , 1997 .

[32]  D. Tilman,et al.  Spatial ecology : the role of space in population dynamics and interspecific interactions , 1997 .

[33]  Robert D. Holt,et al.  7 – From Metapopulation Dynamics to Community Structure: Some Consequences of Spatial Heterogeneity , 1997 .

[34]  M. Gilpin,et al.  Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution , 1997 .

[35]  H. Possingham,et al.  Decision Theory and Biodiversity Management: How to manage a metapopulation , 1996 .

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

[37]  Montgomery Slatkin,et al.  Competition and Regional Coexistence , 1974 .