Minimum viable metapopulation size

American Naturalist

Volumn 147, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 527-541

  Hanski, Ilkka ^a   Moilanen, Atte ^a   Gyllenberg, Mats ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HABITAT SUITABILITY; METAPOPULATION; MINIMUM VIABLE METAPOPULATION;

EID: 0029777716     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/285864     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Brown, J. H., and A. Kodric-Brown. 1977. Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445-449.
2. Caughley, G. 1994. Directions in conservation biology. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:215-244.
3. Diamond, J. M. 1984. "Normal" extinctions of isolated populations. Pages 191-246 in M. H. Nitecki, ed. Extinctions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
4. Gurney, W. S. C., and R. M. Nisbet. 1978. Single-species population fluctuations in patchy environments. American Naturalist 112:1075-1090.
5. Gyllenberg, M., and I. Hanski. 1992. Single-species metapopulation dynamics: a structured model. Theoretical Population Biology 42:35-61.
6. Hanski, I. 1985. Single-species spatial dynamics may contribute to long-term rarity and commonness. Ecology 66:335-343.
7. _, 1991. Single-species metapopulation dynamics: concepts, models and observations. Pages 17-38 in M. E. Gilpin and I. Hanski, eds. Metapopulation dynamics. Academic Press, London.
8. _, 1994a. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:151-162.
9. _, 1994b. Spatial scale, patchiness and movement on land. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences 343:19-25.
10. Hanski, I., and M. E. Gilpin. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Pages 3-16 in M. E. Gilpin and I. Hanski, eds. Metapopulation dynamics. Academic Press, London.
11. Hanski, I., and P. Hammond. 1995. Biodiversity in boreal forests. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10:5-6.
12. Hanski, I., and D.-Y. Zhang. 1993. Migration, metapopulation dynamics and fugitive co-existence. Journal of Theoretical Biology 163:491-504.
13. Hanski, I., M. Kuussaari, and M. Nieminen. 1994. Metapopulation structure and migration in the butterfly Melitaea cinxia. Ecology 75:747-762.
14. Hanski, I., T. Pakkala, M. Kuussaari, and G. Lei. 1995a. Metapopulation persistence of an endangered butterfly in a fragmented landscape. Oikos 72:21-28.
15. Hanski, L, J. Pöyry, T. Pakkala, and M. Kuussaari. 1995b. Multiple equilibria in metapopulation dynamics. Nature (London) 377:618-621.
16. Hanski, I., A. Moilanen, T. Pakkala, and M. Kuussaari. 1996. Metapopulation persistence of an endangered butterfly: a test of the quantitative incidence function model. Conservation Biology, in press.
17. Harrison, S. 1991. Local extinction in a metapopulation context: an empirical evaluation. Pages 73-88 in M. Gilpin and I. Hanski, eds. Metapopulation dynamics. Academic Press, London.
18. Hastings, A. 1991. Structured models of metapopulation dynamics. Pages 57-71 in M. E. Gilpin and I. Hanski, eds. Metapopulation dynamics. Academic Press, London.
19. Janzen, D. H., and P. S. Martin. 1982. Neotropical anachronisms: the fruits the Gomphotheres ate. Science (Washington, D.C.) 215:19-27.
20. Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science (Washington, D.C.) 241:1455-1460.
21. Lawton, J. H., S. Nee, A. J. Letcher, and P. H. Harvey. 1994. Animal distributions: patterns and processes. Pages 41-58 in P. J. Edwards, R. M. May, and N. R. Webb, eds. Large-scale ecology and conservation biology. Blackwell, Oxford.
22. Levins, R. 1969. Some demographic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 15:237-240.
23. _, 1970. Extinction. Pages 77-107 in M. Gesternhaber, ed. Some mathematical problems in biology. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I.
24. May, R. M. 1973. Complexity and stability in model ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
25. _, 1991. The role of ecological theory in planning reintroduction of endangered species. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 62:145-163.
26. Moilanen, A., and I. Hanski. 1995. Habitat destruction and coexistence of competitors in a spatially realistic metapopulation model. Journal of Animal Ecology 61:141-144.
27. Nee, S. 1994. How populations persist. Nature 367:123-124.
28. Nee, S., and R. M. May. 1992. Dynamics of metapopulations: habitat destruction and competitive coexistence. Journal of Animal Ecology 61:37-40.
29. Nisbet, R. M., and W. S. C. Gurney. 1982. Modelling fluctuating populations. Wiley, New York.
30. Schoener, T. W., and D. A. Spiller. 1987. High population persistence in a system with high turnover. Nature (London) 330:474-477.
31. Soulé, M. E. 1980. Thresholds for survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. Pages 111-124 in M. E. Soulé and B. A. Wilcox, eds. Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.
32. _, 1987. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
33. Thomas, C. D., and I. Hanski. 1996. Butterfly metapopulations. In I. Hanski and M. Gilpin, eds. Metapopulation dynamics: ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic Press, London (in press).
34. Tilman, D., R. M. May, C. L. Lehman, and M. A. Nowak. 1994. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature (London) 371:65-66.
35. Warren, M. S. 1992. The conservation of British butterflies. Pages 246-274 in R. L. H. Dennis, ed. The ecology of butterflies in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
36. Williamson, M. 1981. Island populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford.