Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of species-specific dispersal and regional stochasticity on estimates of population viability in stream metapopulations

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Species dispersal is a central component of metapopulation models. Spatially realistic metapopulation models, such as stochastic patch-occupancy models (SPOMs), quantify species dispersal using estimates of colonization potential based on inter-patch distance (distance decay model). In this study we compare the parameterization of SPOMs with dispersal and patch dynamics quantified directly from empirical data. For this purpose we monitored two metapopulations of an endangered minnow, redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus), using mark-recapture techniques across 43 patches, re-sampled across a 1 year period. More than 2,000 fish were marked with visible implant elastomer tags coded for patch location and dispersal and patch dynamics were monitored. We found that species-specific dispersal and distance decay models provided qualitatively similar rankings of viable patches; however, there were differences of several orders of magnitude in the estimated intrinsic mean times to extinction, from 24 and 148 years to 362 and >100,000 years, depending on the population. We also found that the rate of regional stochasicity had a dramatic impact for the estimate of species viability, and in one case altered the trajectory of our metapopulation from viable to non-viable. The divergent estimates in time to extinction times were likely due to a combination species-specific behavior, the dendritic nature of stream metapopulations, and the rate of regional stochasticity. We demonstrate the importance of developing comparative analyses using species- and patch-specific data when determining quantitative estimates for mean time to extinction, which in the case of redside dace, were highly sensitive to different estimates of dispersal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akçakaya HR (2000) Viability analyses with habitat-based metapopulation models. Popul Ecol 42(1):45–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akçakaya HR, Sjögren-Gulve P (2000) Population viability analysis in conservation planning: an overview. Ecol Bulletins 48:9–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Baguette M, VanDyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecol 22(8):1117–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolker B, Holyoak M, Krivan V, Rowe L, Schmitz O (2003) Connecting theoretical and empirical studies of trait-mediated interactions. Ecology 84:1101–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carle FL, Strub MR (1978) A new method for estimating population size from removal data. Biometrics 34:621–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COSEWIC (2007) COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the redside dace Clinostomus elongatus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, pp 54

  • Dreschler M, Frank K, Hanski I, O’Hara RB, Wissel C (2003) Ranking metapopulation extinction risk: from patterns in data to conservation management decisions. Ecol Appl 13:990–998

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagan WF (2002) Connectivity, fragmentation, and extinction risk in dendritic metapopulatoins. Ecology 83(12):3243–3249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley P (1994) Predicting extinction times from environmental stochasticity and carrying capacity. Conserv Biol 8(1):124–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank K, Wissel C (1998) Spatial aspects of metapopulation survival: from model results to rules of thumb for landscape management. Landscape Ecol 13:363–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank K, Wissel C (2002) A formula for the mean lifetime of metapopulations in heterogeneous landscapes. Am Nat 159:530–552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli NJ (1991) Metapopulation models: the rescue effect, the propagule rain, and the core-satelite hypothesis. Am Nat 138:768–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli NJ, Taylor CM (1999) Testing metapopulation models with stream-fish assemblages. Evol Ecol Res 1:835–845

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm V, Storch I (2000) Minimum viable population size of capercaillie Terao urogallus: results from a stochastic model. Wildl Biol 5:219–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm V, Wissel C (2004) The intrinsic mean time to extinction: a unifying approach to analysing persistence and viability of populations. Oikos 105(3):501–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm V, Lorek H, Finke J, Koester F, Malachinski M, Sonnenschein M, Moilanen A, Storch I, Singer A, Wissel C, Frank, K (2004) META-X: generic software for metapopulation viability analysis. Biodivers Conserv 13:165–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63(1):151–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1998) Connecting the parameters of local extinction and metapopulation dynamics. Oikos 83(2):390–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I, Gilpin ME (1997) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I, Moilanen A, Pakkala T, Kuussaari M (1996) The quantitative incidence function model and persistence of an endangered butterfly metapopulation. Conserv Biol 10(2):578–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson L (1991) Dispersal and connectivity in metapopulations. Biol J Linn Soc 42:89–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinz SK, Conradt L, Wissel C, Frank K (2005) Dispersal in fragmented landscapes: deriving a practical formula for patch accessibility. Landscape Ecol 20:83–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinz SK, Wissel C, Frank K (2006) The viability of metapopulations: individual dispersal behaviour matters. Landscape Ecol 21:77–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill J, Grossman GD (1987) Home range estimates for three North American stream fishes. Copeia 1987(2):376–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kindvall O (2000) Comparative precision of three spatially realistic simulation models of metapopulation dynamics. Ecol Bulletins 48:101–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Koster WJ (1939) Some phases in the life history and relationships of the cyprinid Clinostomus elongatus (Kirtland). Copeia 1939:201–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lande R (1993) Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes. Am Nat 142:911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lande R, Engen S, Saether BE (1988) Extinction times in finite metapopulation models with stochastic local dynamics. Oikos 83(2):383–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh D (2008) Metapopulation viability analysis for amphibians. Anim Conserv 11(6):463–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCoy EG, Mushinsky HR (2007) Estimates of minimum patch size depend on the method of estimation and the condition of habitat. Ecology 88(6):1401–1407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McKee PM, Parker BJ (1982) The distribution biology and status of the fishes campostoma-anomalum clinostomus-elongatus notropis-photogenis cyprinidae and fundulus-notatus cyprinodontidae in Canada. Can J Zool 60(6):1347–1358

    Google Scholar 

  • Minns CK (1995) Allometry of home range size in lake and river fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52:1499–1508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A (1999) Patch occupancy models of metapopulation dynamics: efficient parameter estimation using implicit statistical inference. Ecology 80(3):1031–1043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A (2004) SPOMSIM: software for stochastic patch occupancy models of metapopulation dynamics. Ecol Model 179:533–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79:2503–2515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris WF, Doak DF (2002) Quantitative conservation biology: theory and practice of population viability analysis. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sutherland

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrissey MB, de Kerckhove DT (2009) The maintenance of genetic variation due to asymmetric gene flow in dendritic metapopulations. Am Nat 174:875–889

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Novinger DC, Coon TG (2000) Behavior and physiology of the redside dace, Clinostomus elongatus, a threatened species in Michigan. Environ Biol Fish 57:315–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogle DH (2009) Functions to support fish stock assessment textbook (v.0.0-8). http://www.ncfaculty.net/dogle/. Accessed 12 Jan 2009

  • Oksanen J (2004) Incidence function model in R. http://cc.oulu.fi/~jarioksa/opetus/openmeta/metafit.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2009

  • OMNR (2007) Stream assessment protocol for southern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Picton, Ontario

  • Ovaskainen O (2004) Habitat-specific movement parameters estimated using mark-recapture data and a diffusion model. Ecology 85:242–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ovaskainen O, Hanski I (2004) From individual behavior to metapopulation dynamics: unifying the patchy population and classic metapopulation models. Am Nat 164(3):364–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce GJ, Ollason JG (1987) Eight reasons why optimal foraging theory is a comlete waste of time. Oikos 49:111–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poos MS, Lawrie D, Tu C, Jackson DA Estimating local and regional population sizes for an endangered minnow, redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus), in Canada. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems (in press)

  • R Development Core Team (2008) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. (ISBN: 3-900051-07-0)

  • Reed DH, O’Grady JJ, Ballou JD, Frankham R (2003) The frequency and severity of catastrophic die-offs in vertebrates. Anim Conserv 6:109–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid SM, Jones NE, Yunker G (2008) Evaluation of single-pass electrofishing and rapid habitat assessment for monitoring redside dace. North Am J Fish Manag 28(1):50–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resetarits WJ, Binckley CA, Chalcraftet DR (2005) Habitat selection, species interactions, and processes of community assembly in complex landscapes: a metacommunity perspective. In: Holyoak M, Leibold MA, Holt RD (eds) Metacommunities—spatial dynamics and ecological communities. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 374–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Revilla E, Wiegand T (2008) Movement ecology special feature: individual movement behavior, matrix heterogeneity, and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:19120–19125

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robert A (2009) The effects of spatially correlated perturbations and habitat configuration on metapopulation persistence. Oikos 118(10):1590–1600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roitberg BD, Mangel M (1997) Individuals on the landscape: behavior can mitigate landscape differences among habitats. Oikos 80:234–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schtickzelle N, Mennechez G, Baguette M (2006) Dispersal depression with habitat fragmentation in the bog fritillary butterfly. Ecology 87:1057–1065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L (2001) Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landscape Ecol 16:235–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verboom J, Lankester K, Metz JAJ (1991) Linking local and regional dynamics in stochastic metapopulation models. Biol J Linn Soc 42:39–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verboom J, Metz JAJ, Meelis E (1993) Metapopulation models for impact assessment of fragmentation. In: Vos CC, Opdam P (eds) Landscape ecology of a stressed environment. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 172–192

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vos CC, Verboom J, Opdam PFM, ter Braak CJF (2001) Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. Am Nat 157:24–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh MG, Winkelman DL (2004) Anchor and visible implant elastomer tag retention by hatchery rainbow trout stocked into an Ozark stream. N Am J Aquaculture 24:1435–1439

    Google Scholar 

  • Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Zippin C (1958) The removal method of population estimation. J Wildl Manag 22:82–90

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided by NSERC Canada and OGS Scholarships to M. S. P., an NSERC Discovery Grant to D. A. J., and funding provided by Fisheries and Oceans (IRF 1410). All field work was conducted under an approved Animal Care Protocol (# 20006805) from the University of Toronto Animal Care Committee. Field work was conducted by a dedicated group of volunteers from- the University of Toronto–A. Drake, C. Harpur, B. Edwards, M. St. John, M. Neff, P. Venturelli, M. Granados, J. Ruppert, S. Sharma, N. Puckett, C. Hart, and S. Walker—and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority–D. Lawrie, C. Tu, T. Parker, T. Rance, B. Paul, E. Elton, B. Stephens, and L. DelGiudice; and volunteers from Citizen Scientists. This work was improved by discussion with Marie-Josee Fortin and two reviewers of earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Mark S. Poos

    Present address: Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 867 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, ON, L7R 4A6, Canada

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 25 Harbord Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 3G5, Canada

    Mark S. Poos & Donald A. Jackson

Authors
  1. Mark S. Poos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Donald A. Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark S. Poos.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 228 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Poos, M.S., Jackson, D.A. Impact of species-specific dispersal and regional stochasticity on estimates of population viability in stream metapopulations. Landscape Ecol 27, 405–416 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9683-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9683-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation