A metapopulation model with local competitions

Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - Series B

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 495-510

  Xu, Dashun ^a   Feng, Zhilan ^b  

^a Southern Illinois University at Carbondale   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Coexistence; Competition; Local population dynamics; Metapopulation models

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349929028     PISSN: 15313492     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3934/dcdsb.2009.12.495     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Y. DeWoody, Z. Feng and R. Swihart, Merging spatial and temporal structure within a metapopulation model, American Naturalist, 66 (2005), 42-55.
2. Z. Feng, Y. Yi and H. Zhu, Metapopulation dynamics with migration and local competition, Fields Inst. Commun., 36 (2003), 119-135.
3. Z. Feng, R. Swihart, Y. Yi and H. Zhu, Coexistence in a metapopulaiton model with explicit local dynamics, Math. Biosci. Engi., 1 (2004), 131-145.
4. I. Hanski, Coexistence of competitors in patchy environment, Ecology, 64 (1983), 493-500.
5. I. Hanski, Single species spatial dynamics may contribute to long term rarity and commonness, Ecology, 66 (1985), 335-343.
6. I. Hanski and D. Zhang, Migration, metapopulation dynamics and fugitive coexistence, J. Theor. Biol., 163 (1993), 491-504.
7. I. Hanski and M. Gyllenberg, Uniting two general patterns in the distribution of species, Science, 275 (1997), 397-400.
8. I. Hanski, "Metapopulation Ecology, " Oxford University Press, 1999.
9. I. Hanski and O. Ovaskainen, The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape, Nature, 404 (2000), 755-758.
10. I. Hanski and O. Ovaskainen, Metapopulation theory for fragmented landscapes, Theor. Popul. Biol., 64 (2003), 119-127.
11. J E. Keymer, P A. Marquet, J X. Velasco-Hernández and S A. Levin, Extinction thresholds and metapopulation persistence in dynamic landscapes, The American Naturalist, 156 (2000), 478-494.
12. C A. Klausmeier, Habitat destruction and extinction in competitive and mutualistic metacommunities, Ecol. Lett., 4 (2001), 57-63.
13. R. Levins, Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental hetereogeneity for biological control, Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, 15 (1969), 237-240.
14. R. Levins, Extinction, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 2 (1970), 75-107.
15. S. Nee and R. May, Dynamics of metapopulations: Habitat destruction and competitive coexistence, J. Ani. Ecol., 61 (1992), 37-40.
16. S. Nee, R. May and M. Hassell, Two-species metapopulation models, in "Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics and Evolution" (eds. I. Hanski and M. Gilpin), Academic Press, (1997), 123-147.
17. S. Prakash and A M. de Roos, Habitat destruction in a simple predator-prey patch model: How predators help prey to persist, Theor. Popul. Biol., 62 (2002), 231-249.
18. S. Prakash and A M. de Roos, Habitat destruction in mutualistic metacommunities, Theor. Popul. Biol., 65 (2004), 153-163.
19. M. Slatkin, Competition and regional coexistence, Ecology, 55 (1974), 128-134.
20. R. Swihart, Z. Feng, N S. Slade, D M. Doran and T M. Gehring, Effects of habitat destruction and resource supplementation in a predator-prey metapopulation model, J. Theor. Biol., 210 (2001), 287-303.
21. D. E. Taneyhill, Metapopulation dynamics of multiple species: The geometry of competition in a fragmented habitat, Ecological Monographs, 70 (4) (2000), 495-516.
22. D. Xu, Z. Feng, L. Allen and R. Swihart, A spatially structured metapopulation model with patch dynamics, J. Theor. Biol., 239 (2006), 469-481.