Interactions between plant life span, seed dispersal capacity and fecundity determine metapopulation viability in a dynamic landscape

Landscape Ecology

Volumn 21, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 1195-1205

  Bossuyt, Beatrijs ^a   Honnay, Olivier ^b  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Clonality; Extinction risk; Population growth rate; RAMAS Metapop; Seed dispersal; Stage structured model

Indexed keywords

FECUNDITY; GROWTH RATE; HABITAT QUALITY; HABITAT TYPE; INTERSPECIFIC INTERACTION; METAPOPULATION; SEED DISPERSAL; SUCCESSION;

BELGIUM; BENELUX; EURASIA; EUROPE; FRANCE; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 33749323225     PISSN: 09212973     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10980-006-0016-9     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Akçakaya H.R. and Root W. 2002. RAMAS Metapop: Viability Analysis for Stagestructured Metapopulations (version 4.0). Applied Biomathematics Setauket, New York.
2. Akçakaya H.R., Radeloff V.C., Mladenoff D.J. and He H.S. 2004. Integrating landscape and metapopulation modeling approaches: viability of the sharptailed grouse in a dynamic landscape. Conserv. Biol. 18: 526-537.
3. Amarasekare P. and Possingham H. 2001. Patch dynamics and metapopulation theory: the case of successional species. J. Theor. Biol. 209: 333-344.
4. Baguette M., 2004. The Classical metapopulation theory and the real, natural world: a critical appraisal. Basic Appl Ecol 5: 213-224.
5. Bossuyt B., Honnay O. and Hermy M. 2003. An island biogeographical view of succession in a chronosequence of wet dune slacks. J. Veg. Sci.14: 781-788.
6. Boughton D. and Malvadar U. 2002. Extinction risk in successional landscapes subject to catastrophic disturbances. Conserv. Ecol. 6(2): 2.(online) URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/art2
7. Brachet S., Olivieri I., Godelle G., Klein E., Frascaria-Lacoste N. and Goyon P.H. 1999. Dispersal and metapopulation viability in a heterogeneous landscape. J. Theor. Biol. 198: 479-495.
8. Brown J.H. and Kodrick Brown A. 1977. Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effects of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58: 445-449.
9. Drake J.M. and Lodge D.M. 2004. Effects of environmental variation on extinction and establishment. Ecol. Lett. 7: 26-30.
10. Durrett R. and Levin S.A. 1994. The importance of being discrete (and spatial). Theor. Pop. Biol. 46: 363-394.
11. Ehrlén J. and van Groenendael J.M. 1998. The tradeoff between dispersability and longevity - an important aspect of plant species diversity. Appl. Veg. Sci. 1: 29-36.
12. Ehrlén J. and Lehtilä K. 2002. How perennial are perennial plants? Oikos 98: 308-322.
13. Ehrlén J. and Eriksson O. 2003. Large scale spatial dynamics of plants: a response to Freckleton and Watkinson. J. Ecol. 91: 316-320.
14. Ellner S.P. and Fussmann G. 2003. Effects of successional dynamics on metapopulation persistence. Ecology 84: 882-889.
15. Eriksson O. 1994. Stochastic population dynamics of clonal plants: numerical experiments with ramet and genet models. Ecol. Res. 9: 257-268.
16. Eriksson O. 1996. Regional dynamics of plants: a review of evidence for remnant sourcesink and metapopulations. Oikos 77: 248-258.
17. Eriksson O. 2000. Functional roles of remnant populations in communities and ecosystems. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 9: 443-449.
18. Eriksson O. and Ehrlén J. 2001. Landscape fragmentation and the viability of plant populations. In: Silvertown J. and Antonovics J. (eds), Integrating Ecology and Evolution in a Spatial Context. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 157-174.
19. Freckleton R.P. and Watkinson A.R. 2002. Large scale spatial dynamics of plants: metapopulations regional ensembles and patchy populations. J. Ecol. 90: 419-434.
20. Freckleton R.P. and Watkinson A.R. 2003. Are all plant populations metapopulations?. J. Ecol. 91: 321-324.
21. Hanski I. 1994. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J. Anim. Ecol. 63: 151-162.
22. Hastings A. 2003. Metapopulation persistence with age dependent disturbance or succession. Science 301: 1525-1526.
23. Honnay O. and Bossuyt B. 2005. Prolonged clonal growth: escape route or route to extinction? Oikos 108: 427-432.
24. Husband B.C. and Barrett S.C.H. 1996. A metapopulation perspective in plant population biology. J Ecol 84: 461-469.
25. Johnson M.P. 2000. The influence of patch demographics on metapopulations with particular reference to successional landscapes. Oikos 88: 67-74.
26. Johst K., Brandl R. and Eber S. 2002. Metapopulation persistence in dynamic landscapes: the role of dispersal distance. Oikos 98: 263-270.
27. Keymer J.E., Marquet P.A., Velasco-Hernandez J.X. and Levin S.A. 2000. Extinction thresholds and metapopulation persistence in dynamic landscapes. Am. Nat. 156: 478-494.
28. Kneitel J.M. and Chase J.M. 2004. Tradeoffs in community ecology: linking spatial scales and species coexistence. Ecol. Lett. 7: 69-80.
29. Levins R. 1969. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 15: 237-240.
30. Lindborg A. and Eriksson O. 2004. Historical landscape connectivity affects present plant species diversity. Ecology 85: 1840-1845.
31. Matlack G. and Monde J. 2004. Consequences of low mobility in spatially and temporally heterogeneous ecosystems. J. Ecol. 92: 1025-1035.
32. Olivieri I., Michalakis Y. and Gouyon P.H. 1995. Metapopulation genetics and the evolution of dispersal. Am. Nat. 146: 202-228.
33. Ouborg N.J. and Eriksson O. 2004. Toward a metapolation concept for plants. In: Hanski I. and Gaggiotti O. (eds), Ecology Genetics and Evolution of Metapopulations. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, pp. 447-469.
34. Perry J.N. and Gonzalez Andujar J.L. 1993. Dispersal in a metapopulation neighbourhood model of an annual plant with a seedbank. J. Ecol. 81: 453-463.
35. Ronce O. and Olivieri I. 1997. Evolution of reproductive effort in a metapopulation with local extinctions and ecological succession. Am. Nat. 150: 220-249.
36. Verheyen K., Vellend M., Van Calster H., Peterken G. and Hermy M. 2004. Metapopulation dynamics in changing landscapes: a new spatiallyrealistic model applied to forest plants in central Lincolnshire United Kingdom. Ecology 85: 3302-3312.