Distance to stable stage distribution in plant populations and implications for near‐term population projections

Summary 1. Matrix population models capture how variation in vital rates among life stages translates to population dynamics. Analyses of these models generally assume that populations have reached a stable stage distribution (SSD), where the proportion of individuals in each stage remains constant. However, when life stages respond differentially to environmental cues and perturbations, a population may be moved away from equilibrium. Given the multitude of stochastic processes acting in natural systems, populations may never be exactly at SSD. It is thus critical to understand how far away populations are from SSD and how distance from SSD influences near-term model projections. 2. We analysed published matrix models from 46 plant species spanning a range of life histories that reported both a current stage distribution and projection matrix. We examined the distance between observed and theoretical SSD and the associated consequences for near-term transient population dynamics for each species. 3. In the majority of studies, populations were near their expected SSD, with 80% falling within one unit of a projection distance (α0) of zero. This distribution was skewed towards positive values of α0, indicating that the majority of populations had individuals concentrated into stages with high reproductive values. 4. Half of the populations in our survey had projection distances such that transient projections of population size and growth rate were within 10% of asymptotic projections at 5 years. However, in populations where projection distance was > 2, deviations from SSD caused important (more than twofold) differences. 5. We also found that larger deviations from SSD were positively correlated with generation time and matrix size. 6. Synthesis. When some life stages within a plant population are more strongly affected by disturbances or stresses than others, the results of our literature survey suggest that equilibrium projections will tend to underestimate projections that account for the current stage distribution. Measuring the current stage distribution can help determine whether asymptotic measures of matrix model analyses are reliable, and is a crucial step to take when precise population metrics are necessary for guiding conservation and management.

[1]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Comparative ungulate dynamics: the devil is in the detail. , 2002, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[2]  Carol C. Horvitz,et al.  Spatiotemporal Variation in Demographic Transitions of a Tropical Understory Herb: Projection Matrix Analysis , 1995 .

[3]  P. Holgate,et al.  Matrix Population Models. , 1990 .

[4]  S. Townley,et al.  Predicting transient amplification in perturbed ecological systems , 2007 .

[5]  J. Grand,et al.  Population Momentum: Implications for Wildlife Management , 2006 .

[6]  Jean-Michel Gaillard,et al.  Generation Time: A Reliable Metric to Measure Life‐History Variation among Mammalian Populations , 2005, The American Naturalist.

[7]  Shripad Tuljapurkar,et al.  Time, transients and elasticity. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[8]  M. Mangel,et al.  Transient population dynamics and viable stage or age distributions for effective conservation and recovery , 2009 .

[9]  William F. Morris,et al.  Quantitative conservation biology , 2002 .

[10]  S. Ramula,et al.  Matrix dimensionality in demographic analyses of plants : when to use smaller matrices? , 2005 .

[11]  H. Caswell,et al.  ALTERNATIVES TO RESILIENCE FOR MEASURING THE RESPONSES OF ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS TO PERTURBATIONS , 1997 .

[12]  M. Boyce Population Viability Analysis , 1992 .

[13]  Arpat Ozgul,et al.  Matrix models for a changeable world: the importance of transient dynamics in population management , 2010 .

[14]  Nathan Keyfitz,et al.  Introduction to the mathematics of population , 1968 .

[15]  J. Grand,et al.  Transient population dynamics:relations to life history and initial population state , 2005 .

[16]  Paulette Bierzychudek,et al.  LOOKING BACKWARDS: ASSESSING THE PROJECTIONS OF A TRANSITION MATRIX MODEL , 1999 .

[17]  S. McMahon,et al.  Transient sensitivities of non-indigenous shrub species indicate complicated invasion dynamics , 2008, Biological Invasions.

[18]  S. Townley,et al.  Boom or bust? A comparative analysis of transient population dynamics in plants , 2010 .

[19]  F. Taylor Convergence to the Stable Age Distribution in Populations of Insects , 1979, The American Naturalist.

[20]  J. E. Cohen The cumulative distance from an observed to a stable age structure. , 1979, SIAM journal on applied mathematics.

[21]  Jonathan M. Yearsley Transient population dynamics and short-term sensitivity analysis of matrix population models , 2004 .

[22]  William F. Morris,et al.  DETECTING POPULATION‐LEVEL CONSEQUENCES OF ONGOING ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE WITHOUT LONG‐TERM MONITORING , 1999 .

[23]  H. Caswell Sensitivity analysis of transient population dynamics. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[24]  S. Townley,et al.  Erratum et addendum: transient amplification and attenuation in stage-structured population dynamics , 2008 .

[25]  J. Silvertown,et al.  A COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHY OF PLANTS BASED UPON ELASTICITIES OF VITAL RATES , 2004 .

[26]  J. Maron,et al.  Using experiments, demography and population models to estimate interaction strength based on transient and asymptotic dynamics , 2010 .

[27]  Stephen P. Ellner,et al.  Simple Methods for Calculating Age‐Based Life History Parameters for Stage‐Structured Populations , 1992 .

[28]  E. Menges,et al.  Population viability analyses in plants: challenges and opportunities. , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[29]  J. Silvertown,et al.  Life history variation in plants: an exploration of the fast-slow continuum hypothesis , 1996 .

[30]  R. Rebarber,et al.  Model complexity affects transient population dynamics following a dispersal event: a case study with pea aphids. , 2009, Ecology.

[31]  J. Grand,et al.  Population inertia and its sensitivity to changes in vital rates and population structure. , 2007, Ecology.

[32]  Gregory P. Brown,et al.  Climate‐driven impacts of prey abundance on the population structure of a tropical aquatic predator , 2010 .

[33]  J. Gurevitch,et al.  Population Numbers Count: Tools for Near‐Term Demographic Analysis , 2000, The American Naturalist.