Stability via asynchrony in Drosophila metapopulations with low migration rates

Science

Volumn 312, Issue 5772, 2006, Pages 434-436

  Dey, Sutirth ^a   Joshi, Amitabh ^a  

^a JAWAHARLAL NEHRU CENTRE FOR ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA REDUCTION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; POPULATION STATISTICS; RESEARCH LABORATORIES;

DROSOPHILA; METAPOPULATIONS; MIGRATION; SUBPOPULATION DYNAMICS;

BIODIVERSITY;

INSECT; METAPOPULATION; MIGRATION; POPULATION SIZE;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; DROSOPHILA; METAPOPULATION; NONHUMAN; POPULATION DYNAMICS; POPULATION GROWTH; POPULATION MIGRATION; POPULATION SIZE; POPULATION STRUCTURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; THEORY;

ANIMAL MIGRATION; ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; POPULATION DENSITY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; POPULATION GROWTH;

EID: 33645966787     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1125317     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. I. Hanski, Metapopulation Ecology (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1999).
2. M. Gyllenberg, G. Söderbacka, S. Ericsson, Math. Biosci. 118, 25 (1993).
3. B. E. Kendall, G. A. Fox, Theor. PopuL Biol. 54, 11 (1998).
4. A. Hastings, Ecology 74, 1362 (1993).
5. J. C. Allen, W. M. Schaffer, D. Rosko, Nature 364, 229 (1993).
6. G. D. Ruxton, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 256, 189 (1994).
7. E. Ranta, V. Kaitala, P. Lundberg, Oikos 83, 376 (1998).
8. J. Ripa, Oikos 89, 175 (2000).
9. G. Nachman, J. Anim. Ecol, 56, 267 (1987).
10. G. Nachman, Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 42, 285 (1991).
11. D. J. D. Earn, S. A. Levin, P. Rohani, Science 290, 1360 (2000).
12. S. Dey, S. Dabholkar, A. Joshi, J. Theor. Biol. 238, 78 (2006).
13. L. D. Mueller, A. Joshi, Stability in Model Populations (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2000).
14. J. Lecomte, K. Boudjemadi, F. Sarrazin, K. Cally, J. Clobert, J. Anim. Ecol. 73, 179 (2004).
15. R. Levins, Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 15, 237 (1969).
16. G. D. Ruxton, J. Anim. Ecol. 65, 161 (1996).
17. I. Hanski, D. Y. Zhang, J. Theor. Biol. 163, 491 (1993).
18. G. Nachman, Oikos 91, S1 (2000).
19. A. R. Ives, S. T. Woody, E. V. Nordheim, C. Nelson, J. H. Andrews, Am. Nat. 163, 375 (2004).
20. In the experiment, the nine subpopulations (single-vial Drosophila cultures) were arranged on the periphery of a circle, with each vial exchanging migrants only with its two nearest neighbors (i.e., a one-dimensional array with periodic boundary conditions). In nature, such metapopulations might exist, for example, on the shorelines of lakes or along the edges of ecosystems. The simulations mimicked the experimental system and focused on the behavior of nine coupled Ricker maps, with periodic boundary conditions. See supporting material on Science Online.
21. V. Grimm, C. Wissel, Oecologia 109, 323 (1997).
22. t) where N̄ is the mean population size over T generations. FI thus reflects the mean one-step change in population size, scaled by average population size, over the study duration.
23. O. N. Bjørnstad, R. A. Ims, X. Lambin, Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 427 (1999).
24. P. A. P. Moran, Aust. J. Zool. 1, 291 (1953).
25. In the experiment a subpopulation was deemed extinct when it did not contain at least one male and one female fly. When a CM subpopulation became extinct, it was restarted using four males and four females from a backup vial. The backup vials were maintained in parallel to the three treatments, under high larval crowding and yeast supplement to the adults. There were no restarts in LMMs or HMMs; extinct subpopulation vials remained empty until recolonized by migrants from a neighboring subpopulation.
26. Å. Brännström, D. J. T. Sumpter, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 272, 2065 (2005).
27. R. M. May, G. F. Oster, Am. Not. 110, 573 (1976).
28. For example, in simulations with r = 2.8, comparable to the estimated r in our CM subpopulations, the mean extinction rate was 0.75 out of 9 subpopulations per generation, versus 3.35 out of 9 for experimental CMs.
29. R. A. Cheke, J. Holt, Ecol. Entomol. 18, 109 (1993).
30. V. Sheeba, A. Joshi, Curr. Sci. 75, 1406 (1998).
31. R. A. Ims, H. P. Andreassen, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 272, 913 (2005).
32. We thank V. K. Sharma for useful discussions; three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript; M. Shakarad, M. Rajamani, and N. Raghavendra for crucial help in fly handling; and J. Mohan, S. Ghosh, K. M. Satish, N. Rajanna, and M. Manjesh for help in diverse ways during the experiment. Supported by a senior research fellowship from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India (S.D.) and by grants from Department of Science and Technology, Government of India.