Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-gr6zb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-27T00:45:05.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Connectivity and metapopulation dynamics in highly fragmented landscapes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2010

By
Atte Moilanen  and
Ilkka Hanski
Edited by
Kevin R. Crooks  and
M. Sanjayan
Kevin R. Crooks
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
M. Sanjayan
Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, Virginia
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Connectivity is a key variable in spatial ecology (MacArthur and Wilson 1967; Levin 1974; Hanski 1998; Tishendorf and Fahrig 2000; Moilanen and Hanski 2001; King and With 2002), and the element that turns a conventional population study (or a model) into a spatial one. Broadly speaking, connectivity measures the effect of landscape structure on movements of individuals, but in spite of the pivotal role of this measure in ecology, there is no generally accepted and employed formal definition of connectivity (Crooks and Sanjayan Chapter 1). In particular, the way connectivity is used in metapopulation ecology is different from its use in landscape ecology (Tishendorf and Fahrig 2000; Moilanen and Hanski 2001; With 2004; Taylor et al. Chapter 2). In metapopulation ecology, connectivity is seen as a property of a habitat patch (or a grid cell), and the measure of connectivity is defined via predicted rate of immigration into a patch or via predicted success of migrants leaving a patch.

In landscape ecology, connectivity is viewed as a property of an entire landscape – a measure of how much, or how little, landscape structure hinders movements (Taylor et al. 1993; With 2004; Taylor et al. Chapter 2). This difference in the spatial scale is reflected in the use of connectivity in modeling. Nonetheless, both metapopulation and landscape ecology are concerned with the same phenomena, the effects of landscape structure on migration, colonization success, and the persistence of species at the landscape level.

Type
Chapter
Information
Connectivity Conservation , pp. 44 - 71
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bender, D. J., Tischendorf, L., and Fahrig, L.. 2003. Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landscape Ecology 18:17–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. H., and Kodric-Brown, A.. 1977. Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, K. P., and Anderson, D. R.. 2002. Model Selection and Multi-Model Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Etienne, R.,C. J. F. ter Braak, and C. C. Vos. 2004. Application of stochastic patch occupancy models to real metapopulations. Pp 105–133 in Hanski, I., and Gaggiotti, O. (eds.) Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution in Metapopulations, London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. H., Milne, B. T., Turner, M. G., and O'Neill, R. V.. 1987. Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 1:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I. 1994. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I. 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hanski, I. 2001. Spatially realistic theory of metapopulation ecology. Naturwissenschaften 88:372–381CrossRef
Hanski, I., and M. E. Gilpin. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Pp. 3–16 in Gilpin, M., and Hanski, I. (eds.) Metapopulation Dynamics. London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hanski, I., and Ovaskainen, O.. 2000. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404:756–758CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanski, I., and Ovaskainen, O.. 2003. Metapopulation theory for fragmented landscapes. Theoretical Population Biology 64:119–127CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanski, I., Moilanen, A., Pakkala, T., and Kuussaari, M.. 1996. Metapopulation persistence of an endangered butterfly: a test of the quantitative incidence function model. Conservation Biology 10:578–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I., Alho, J., and Moilanen, A.. 2000. Estimating the parameters of migration and survival for individuals in metapopulations. Ecology 81:239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keitt, T. H., Urban, D. L., and Milne, B. T.. 1997. Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Ecology1:4. Available online at http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art4/Google Scholar
King, A. W., and With, K. A.. 2002. Dispersal success on spatially structured landscapes: when do spatial pattern and dispersal behavior really matter?Ecological Modelling 147:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kot, M., Lewis, M. A., and Driessche, P.. 1996. Dispersal data and the spread of invading organisms. Ecology 77:2027–2042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuussaari, M., Nieminen, M., and Hanski, I.. 1996. An experimental study of migration in the Glanville fritillary butterfly Melitaea cinxia. Journal of Animal Ecology 65:791–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, S. A. 1974. Dispersion and population interactions. American Naturalist 108:207–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Y. T. K., and Batzli, G. O.. 2001. The influence of habitat quality on dispersal demography, and population dynamics of voles. Ecological Monographs 71:245–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, R. H., and Wilson, E. O.. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Matter, S. F., and Roland, J.. 2002. An experimental examination of the effects of habitat quality on the dispersal and local abundance of the butterfly Parnassius smintheus. Ecological Entomology 27:308–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matter, S., Roland, J., Moilanen, A., and Hanski, I.. 2004. The migration and survival of Parnassius smintheus: detecting the effects of habitat for individual butterflies. Ecological Applications 14:1526–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moilanen, A. 1999. Patch occupancy models of metapopulation dynamics: efficient parameter estimation using implicit statistical inference. Ecology 80:1031–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moilanen, A. 2000. The equilibrium assumption in estimating the parameters of metapopulation models. Journal of Animal Ecology 69:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moilanen, A. 2002. Implications of empirical data quality to metapopulation model parameterization and application. Oikos 96:516–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moilanen, A. 2004. SPOMSIM: Software for analyzing stochastic patch occupancy models of metapopulation dynamics. Ecological Modelling 179:533–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moilanen, A., and Hanski, I.. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat patch area and isolation, habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79:2503–2515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moilanen, A., and Hanski, I.. 2001. On the use of connectivity in spatial models. Oikos 95:147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moilanen, A., and Nieminen, M.. 2002. Simple connectivity measures for metapopulation studies. Ecology 83:1131–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieminen, M., M. Siljander, and I. Hanski, 2004. Structure and dynamics of Melitaea cinxia metapopulations. Pp. 63–91 in Ehrlich, P. R., and Hanski, I. (eds.) On the Wings of Checkerspots: A Model System for Population Biology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Petit, S., Moilanen, A., Hanski, I., and Baguette, M.. 2001. Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: movements between habitat patches. Oikos 92:491–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Hara, R. B., Arjas, E., Toivonen, H., and Hanski, I.. 2002. Bayesian analysis of metapopulation data. Ecology 83:2408–2415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ovaskainen, O. 2004. Estimating habitat-specific movement parameters for heterogenous landscapes using spatial mark–recapture data and a diffusion model. Ecology 85:242–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ovaskainen, O., and Hanski, I.. 2001. Spatially structured metapopulation models: global and local assessment of metapopulation capacity. Theoretical Population Biology 60:281–302CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ovaskainen, O., and Hanski, I.. 2003. Extinction threshold in metapopulation models. Annales Zoologici Fennici 40:81–97Google Scholar
Ovaskainen, O., and I. Hanski, 2004. Metapopulation dynamics in highly fragmented landscapes. Pp. 73–104 in Hanski, I., and Gaggiotti, O. (eds.) Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution in Metapopulations. London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sjögren-Gulve, P., and Hanski, I.. 2000. Metapopulation viability analysis using occupancy models. Ecological Bulletins 48:53–71Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, O. L., Thomas, C. D., Yates, T. J., and Greatorex-Davies, J. N.. 1997. Correlated extinctions, colonizations and population fluctuations in a highly connected ringlet butterfly metapopulation. Oecologia 109:235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K., and Merriam, G.. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ter Braak, C. J. F., I. Hanski, and J. Verboom. 1998. The incidence function approach to the modelling of metapopulation dynamics. Pp. 167–188 in Bascompte, J., and Solé, R. V. (eds.) Modelling Spatiotemporal Dynamics in Ecology. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Braak, , , C. J. F., and Etienne, R. S.. 2003. Improved Bayesian analysis of metapopulation data with an application to a tree frog metapopulation. Ecology 84:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. D., Bodsworth, E. J., Wilson, R. J., et al. 2001. Ecological and evolutionary processes at expanding range margins. Nature 411:577–581CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, C. D., Wilson, R. J., and Lewis, O. T.. 2002. Short-term studies under-estimate 30-generation changes in a butterfly metapopulation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 268:1791–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tischendorf, L., and Fahrig, L.. 2000. On the usage of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vos, C. C., Verboom, J., Opdam, P. F. M., Braak, C. J. F., and Bergers, P. J. M.. 2001. Towards ecologically scaled landscape indices. American Naturalist 157:24–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlberg, N., Moilanen, A., and Hanski, I.. 1996. Predicting the occurrence of species in fragmented landscapes. Science 273:1536–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlberg, N., Klemetti, T., and Hanski, I.. 2002. Dynamic populations in a dynamic landscape: the metapopulation structure of the marsh fritillary butterfly. Ecography 25:224–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. A. 1997. Metapopulation dynamics and landscape ecology. Pp. 43–62 in Hanski, I., and Gilpin, M. E. (eds.) Metapopulation Biology, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wiens, J. A., Stenseth, N. C., Vanhorne, B., and Ims, R. A.. 1993. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66:369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K. A. 1997. The application of neutral landscape models in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 11:1069–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K. A. 2004. Metapopulation dynamics: perspectives from landscape ecology. Pp. 23–44 in Hanski, I., and Gaggiotti, O. (eds.) Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution in Metapopulations. London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×