Does colonization asymmetry matter in metapopulations?

Despite the considerable evidence showing that dispersal between habitat patches is often asymmetric, most of the metapopulation models assume symmetric dispersal. In this paper, we develop a Monte Carlo simulation model to quantify the effect of asymmetric dispersal on metapopulation persistence. Our results suggest that metapopulation extinctions are more likely when dispersal is asymmetric. Metapopulation viability in systems with symmetric dispersal mirrors results from a mean field approximation, where the system persists if the expected per patch colonization probability exceeds the expected per patch local extinction rate. For asymmetric cases, the mean field approximation underestimates the number of patches necessary for maintaining population persistence. If we use a model assuming symmetric dispersal when dispersal is actually asymmetric, the estimation of metapopulation persistence is wrong in more than 50% of the cases. Metapopulation viability depends on patch connectivity in symmetric systems, whereas in the asymmetric case the number of patches is more important. These results have important implications for managing spatially structured populations, when asymmetric dispersal may occur. Future metapopulation models should account for asymmetric dispersal, while empirical work is needed to quantify the patterns and the consequences of asymmetric dispersal in natural metapopulations.

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

[2]  Priyanga Amarasekare,et al.  The role of density-dependent dispersal in source-sink dynamics. , 2004, Journal of theoretical biology.

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

[4]  Robert D. Holt,et al.  Adaptive Evolution in Source-Sink Environments: Direct and Indirect Effects of Density-Dependence on Niche Evolution , 1996 .

[5]  F. Lefèvre,et al.  Dispersal and gene flow of Populus nigra (Salicaceae) along a dynamic river system , 2003 .

[6]  J. Lebreton,et al.  An explicit approach to evolutionarily stable dispersal strategies: no cost of dispersal. , 2000, Mathematical biosciences.

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

[8]  S. Stearns,et al.  The evolution of life histories in spatially heterogeneous environments: Optimal reaction norms revisited , 1993, Evolutionary Ecology.

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

[10]  O. Hoegh‐Guldberg,et al.  Ecological responses to recent climate change , 2002, Nature.

[11]  A. Dobson,et al.  Behavioural constraints and conservation biology: Conspecific attraction and recruitment. , 1993, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[12]  D. Morris On the Evolutionary Stability of Dispersal to Sink Habitats , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[13]  P. Hollingsworth,et al.  Evidence for spatial structure and directional gene flow in a population of an aquatic plant, Potamogeton coloratus , 1998, Heredity.

[14]  M. Taper,et al.  Interspecific Competition, Environmental Gradients, Gene Flow, and the Coevolution of Species' Borders , 2000, The American Naturalist.

[15]  J. F. Gilliam,et al.  Explaining Leptokurtic Movement Distributions: Intrapopulation Variation in Boldness and Exploration , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[16]  G. Ruxton,et al.  Stabilization through spatial pattern formation in metapopulations with long–range dispersal , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[17]  H. Kudoh,et al.  A genetic analysis of hydrologically dispersed seeds of Hibiscus moscheutos (Malvaceae). , 2001, American journal of botany.

[18]  Nick M. Haddad,et al.  CORRIDOR AND DISTANCE EFFECTS ON INTERPATCH MOVEMENTS: A LANDSCAPE EXPERIMENT WITH BUTTERFLIES , 1999 .

[19]  S. Wright,et al.  Isolation by Distance. , 1943, Genetics.

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

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

[22]  M. Whitlock,et al.  Indirect measures of gene flow and migration: FST≠1/(4Nm+1) , 1999, Heredity.

[23]  H. Kudoh,et al.  Microgeographic genetic structure and gene flow in Hibiscus moscheutos (Malvaceae) populations. , 1997, American journal of botany.

[24]  J. Friedman,et al.  The influence of seed dispersal mechanisms on the dispersion of Anastatica hierochuntica (Cruciferae) in the Negev desert, Israel. , 1980 .

[25]  P. C. Dias,et al.  Sources and sinks in population biology. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[26]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  Sources, sinks and pseudo-sinks , 1995 .

[27]  A. Watkinson ON THE ABUNDANCE OF PLANTS ALONG AN ENVIRONMENTAL GRADIENT , 1985 .

[28]  Peter Beerli,et al.  Maximum likelihood estimation of a migration matrix and effective population sizes in n subpopulations by using a coalescent approach , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  P. Keddy EXPERIMENTAL DEMOGRAPHY OF THE SAND-DUNE ANNUAL, CAKILE EDENTULA, GROWING ALONG AN ENVIRONMENTAL GRADIENT IN NOVA SCOTIA , 1981 .

[30]  O. Honnay,et al.  Plant community assembly along dendritic networks of small forest streams , 2001 .

[31]  L. Hansson,et al.  Dispersal and connectivity in metapopulations , 1991 .

[32]  J. D. Hernández-Martich,et al.  Downstream gene flow and genetic structure of Gambusia holbrooki (eastern mosquitofish) populations , 1997, Heredity.

[33]  Mark Reed,et al.  Object-oriented migration modelling for biological impact assessment , 1996 .

[34]  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.

[35]  D. H. Vuren,et al.  Detectability, philopatry, and the distribution of dispersal distances in vertebrates. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[36]  H. Possingham,et al.  Fixation probability of an allele in a subdivided population with asymmetric migration , 1998 .

[37]  R. Holt Demographic constraints in evolution: Towards unifying the evolutionary theories of senescence and niche conservatism , 2005, Evolutionary Ecology.

[38]  L. Bernatchez,et al.  Consequences of unequal population size, asymmetric gene flow and sex‐biased dispersal on population structure in brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) , 2004, Molecular ecology.

[39]  T. Kawecki Demography of source—sink populations and the evolution of ecological niches , 2005, Evolutionary Ecology.

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

[41]  M. Donahue,et al.  Patterns of Dispersal and Dynamics among Habitat Patches Varying in Quality , 2003, The American Naturalist.

[42]  Martin Drechsler,et al.  Trade-offs between local and regional scale management of metapopulations , 1998 .

[43]  H. Pulliam,et al.  Sources, Sinks, and Habitat Selection: A Landscape Perspective on Population Dynamics , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[44]  S. Fretwell,et al.  On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds , 1969 .