Spatial Heterogeneity in Habitat Quality and Cross-Scale Interactions in Metapopulations

A bstractIntegration of habitat heterogeneity into spatially realistic metapopulation approaches reveals the potential for key cross-scale interactions. Broad-scale environmental gradients and land-use practices can create autocorrelation of habitat quality of suitable patches at intermediate spatial scales. Patch occupancy then depends not only on habitat quality at the patch scale but also on feedbacks from surrounding neighborhoods of autocorrelated patches. Metapopulation dynamics emerge from how demographic and dispersal processes interact with relevant habitat heterogeneity. We provide an empirical example from a metapopulation of round-tailed muskrats (Neofiberalleni) in which habitat quality of suitable patches was spatially autocorrelated most strongly within 1,000 m, which was within the expected dispersal range of the species. After controlling for factors typically considered in metapopulation studies—patch size, local patch quality, patch connectivity—we use a cross-variogram analysis to demonstrate that patch occupancy by muskrats was correlated with habitat quality across scales ≤1,171 m. We also discuss general consequences of spatial heterogeneity of habitat quality for metapopulations related to potential cross-scale interactions. We focus on spatially correlated extinctions and metapopulation persistence, hierarchical scaling of source–sink dynamics, and dispersal decisions by individuals in relation to information constraints.

[1]  O. Kindvall.  Habitat Heterogeneity and Survival in a Bush Cricket Metapopulation , 1996 .

[2]  C. Thomas.  Extinction, colonization, and metapopulations: environmental tracking by rare species , 1994 .

[3]  Doug P. Armstrong,et al.  Integrating the Metapopulation and Habitat Paradigms for Understanding Broad‐Scale Declines of Species , 2005 .

[4]  J. Diffendorfer.  Testing models of source-sink dynamics and balanced dispersal , 1998 .

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

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

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

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

[9]  Veijo Kaitala,et al.  Resource matching with limited knowledge , 1999 .

[10]  A. Pullin.  Conservation Biology: Effects of habitat destruction , 2002 .

[11]  Oscar E. Gaggiotti,et al.  Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations , 2004 .

[12]  J. Gómez,et al.  CONSEQUENCES OF SPATIAL AUTOCORRELATION FOR THE ANALYSIS OF METAPOPULATION DYNAMICS , 2005 .

[13]  R. Schooley,et al.  Survey Techniques for Determining Occupancy of Isolated Wetlands by Round-tailed Muskrats , 2005 .

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

[15]  D. Hik,et al.  Influence of habitat quality, patch size and connectivity on colonization and extinction dynamics of collared pikas Ochotona collaris , 2004 .

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

[17]  T. O. Crist.  The spatial distribution of termites in shortgrass steppe: a geostatistical approach , 1998, Oecologia.

[18]  Miguel Delibes,et al.  Effects of Matrix Heterogeneity on Animal Dispersal: From Individual Behavior to Metapopulation‐Level Parameters , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[19]  T. Bailey.  Spatial Analysis: A Guide for Ecologists , 2006 .

[20]  M. Drechsler,et al.  Are spatially correlated or uncorrelated disturbance regimes better for the survival of species , 2003 .

[21]  E. Fleishman,et al.  Assessing the Roles of Patch Quality, Area, and Isolation in Predicting Metapopulation Dynamics , 2002 .

[22]  R. Dennis,et al.  Patch occupancy in Coenonympha tullia (Muller, 1764) (Lepidoptera: Satyrinae): habitat quality matters as much as patch size and isolation , 1997, Journal of Insect Conservation.

[23]  Michael E. Gilpin,et al.  Spatially Correlated Dynamics in a Pika Metapopulaton , 1997 .

[24]  H. Preisler,et al.  DEVELOPING PROBABILISTIC MODELS TO PREDICT AMPHIBIAN SITE OCCUPANCY IN A PATCHY LANDSCAPE , 2003 .

[25]  W. Kristan.  The role of habitat selection behavior in population dynamics: source -sink systems and ecological traps , 2003 .

[26]  N. Huntly,et al.  Habitat-specific demography: evidence for source-sink population structure in a mammal, the pika , 2003, Oecologia.

[27]  D. Boughton.  Empirical evidence for complex source-sink dynamics with alternative states in a butterfly metapopulation , 1999 .

[28]  D. E. Birkenholz.  A Study of the Life History and Ecology of the Round‐Tailed Muskrat (Neofiber alleni True) in North‐Central Florida , 1962 .

[29]  O. Gaggiotti,et al.  1 – Metapopulation Biology: Past, Present, and Future , 2004 .

[30]  O. Gaggiotti,et al.  Metapopulation biology: past, present, and future , 2004 .

[31]  Derek M. Johnson.  METAPOPULATION MODELS: AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND EVALUATION METHODS , 2005 .

[32]  P. Pritchard,et al.  Rare and endangered biota of Florida , 1978 .

[33]  K. Diane.  Schooley, and L. , 1994 .

[34]  Ilkka Hanski,et al.  Metapopulation Dynamics in Changing Environments: Butterfly Responses to Habitat and Climate Change , 2004 .

[35]  K. R. Long,et al.  Botanical Composition of Diets of Cattle Grazing South Florida Rangeland , 1984 .

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

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

[38]  Solé,et al.  Effects of habitat destruction in a prey-predator metapopulation model , 1998, Journal of theoretical biology.

[39]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Metapopulation models for extinction threshold in spatially correlated landscapes. , 2002, Journal of theoretical biology.

[40]  P. David.  Response of Exotics to Restored Hydroperiod at Dupuis Reserve, Florida , 1999 .

[41]  T. Kawecki.  Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Source-Sink Population Dynamics , 2004 .

[42]  H. Shaffer,et al.  SPATIALLY AUTOCORRELATED DEMOGRAPHY AND INTERPOND DISPERSAL IN THE SALAMANDER AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE , 2001 .

[43]  John A. Wiens,et al.  Metapopulation dynamics and landscape ecology , 1997 .

[44]  Lenore Fahrig,et al.  EFFECT OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION ON THE EXTINCTION THRESHOLD: A SYNTHESIS* , 2002 .

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

[46]  R. Schooley,et al.  SPACE USE BY ROUND-TAILED MUSKRATS IN ISOLATED WETLANDS , 2006 .

[47]  T. Ricketts.  The Matrix Matters: Effective Isolation in Fragmented Landscapes , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[48]  Bradley M. Stith,et al.  Comparison of Two Types of Metapopulation Models in Real and Artificial Landscapes , 2001 .

[49]  David J. Mulla,et al.  Geostatistical Tools for Modeling and Interpreting Ecological Spatial Dependence , 1992 .

[50]  Brandon T Bestelmeyer,et al.  Cross-scale interactions, nonlinearities, and forecasting catastrophic events. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[51]  J. Wiens,et al.  SPATIAL ECOLOGY OF CACTUS BUGS: AREA CONSTRAINTS AND PATCH CONNECTIVITY , 2005 .

[52]  M. Massot,et al.  Condition‐dependent dispersal and ontogeny of the dispersal behaviour: an experimental approach , 2002 .

[53]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  Spatially-correlated extinction in a metapopulation model of Leadbeater's Possum , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[54]  M. Fortin,et al.  Spatial Analysis: A Guide for Ecologists 1st edition , 2005 .

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