Landscape connectivity and predator–prey population dynamics

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 26 - Trang 33-45 - 2010
Jacopo A. Baggio1,2, Kehinde Salau2,3, Marco A. Janssen2, Michael L. Schoon2, Örjan Bodin4
1School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
2Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA
3Mathematical, Computational and Modeling Science Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA
4Stockholm Resilience Center, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Tóm tắt

Landscapes are increasingly fragmented, and conservation programs have started to look at network approaches for maintaining populations at a larger scale. We present an agent-based model of predator–prey dynamics where the agents (i.e. the individuals of either the predator or prey population) are able to move between different patches in a landscaped network. We then analyze population level and coexistence probability given node-centrality measures that characterize specific patches. We show that both predator and prey species benefit from living in globally well-connected patches (i.e. with high closeness centrality). However, the maximum number of prey species is reached, on average, at lower closeness centrality levels than for predator species. Hence, prey species benefit from constraints imposed on species movement in fragmented landscapes since they can reproduce with a lesser risk of predation, and their need for using anti-predatory strategies decreases.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Benson DL, Sherratt JA, Maini PK (1993) Diffusion driven instability in an inhomogeneous domain. Bull Math Biol 55(2):365–384 Blasius B, Huppert A, Stone L (1999) Complex dynamics and phase synchronization in spatially extended ecological systems. Nature 399:356–359 Boccaletti S, Latora V, Moreno Y, Chavez M, Hwang D-H (2006) Complex networks: structure and dynamics. Phys Rep 424(4–5):175–308 Bodin Ö, Norberg J (2007) A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecol 22(1):31–44 Bolker BM (2003) Combining endogenous and exogenous spatial variability in analytical population models. Theor Popul Biol 64(3):255–270 Breckling B, Middelhoff U, Reutera H (2006) Individual-based models as tools for ecological theory and application: Understanding the emergence of organisational properties in ecological systems. Ecol Modell 194(1–3):102–113 Cleveland WS (1979) Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. J Am Stat Assoc 74(368):829–836 Cleveland WS, Devlin SJ (1988) Locally weighted regression: an approach to regression analysis by local fitting. J Am Stat Assoc 83(403):569–610 Cominsa HN, Hassell MP (1996) Persistence of multispecies host–parasitoid interactions in spatially distributed models with local dispersal. J Theor Biol 183(1):19–28 Coppolillo P, Gomez H, Maisels F, Wallace R (2004) Selection criteria for suites of landscape species as a basis for site-based conservation. Biol Conserv 115(3):419–430 Creel S, Winnie J Jr, Maxwell B, Hamlin K, Creel M (2005) Elk alter habitat selection as an antipredator response to wolves. Ecology 86(12):3387–3397 Crucitti P, Latora V, Marchiori M, Rapisarda A (2004) Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Physica A 340(1–3):388–394 Cuddington KM, Yodzis P (2000) Diffusion-limited predator–prey dynamics in euclidean environments: an allometric individual-based model. Theor Popul Biol 58(4):259–278 da Fontoura Costa L, Rodrigues FA, Travieso G, Villas Boas PR (2007) Characterization of complex networks: a survey of measurements. Adv Phys 56(1–2):167–242 DeAngelis DL, Mooij WM (2005) Individual-based modeling of ecological and evolutionary processes. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:147–168 Droz M, Pekalski A (2001) Coexistence in a predator-prey system. Phys Rev E 63(5), 051909.051901-051909.051906 Estrada E, Bodin Ö (2008) Using network centrality measures to manage landscape connectivity. Ecol Appl 18(7):1810–1825 Fahrig L (1998) When does fragmentation of breeding habitat affect population survival? Ecol Modell 105(2–3):273–292 Fahrig L, Nuttle WK (2005) Population ecology in spatially heterogeneous environments. In: Lovett GM, Turner MG, Jones CG, Weathers KC (eds) Ecosystem function in heterogeneous landscapes. Springer, New York Fischhoff IR, Sundaresan SR, Cordingley J, Rubenstein DI (2007) Habitat use and movements of plains zebra (Equus burchelli) in response to predation danger from lions. Behav Ecol 18(4):725–729 Grimm V, Railsback SF (2005) Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ Grimm V, Berger U, Bastiansen F, Eliassen S, Ginot V, Giske J, Goss-Custard J, Grand T, Heinz SK, Huse G, Huth A, Jepsen JU, Jørgensen C, Mooij WM, Müller B, Pe’er G, Piou C, Railsback SF, Robbins AM, Robbins MM, Rossmanith E, Rüger N, Strand E, Souissi S, Stillman RA, Vabø R, Visser U, DeAngelis DL (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Modell 198(1–2):115–126 Hastings A (2001) Transient dynamics and persistence of ecological systems. Ecol Lett 4(3):215–220 Hilty JA, Lidicker WZ Jr, Merenlender AM (2006) Corridor ecology: the science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC Holland MD, Hastings A (2008) Strong effect of dispersal network structure on ecological dynamics. Nature 456(7395):792–794 Hovel KA, Regan HM (2008) Using an individual-based model to examine the roles of habitat fragmentation and behavior on predator–prey relationships in seagrass landscapes. Landscape Ecol 23(Suppl 1):75–89 Inchausti P, Ballesteros S (2008) Intuition, functional responses and the formulation of predator–prey models when there is a large disparity in the spatial domains of the interacting species. J Anim Ecol 77(5):891–897 Ioannou CC, Ruxton GD, Krause J (2008) Search rate, attack probability, and the relationship between prey density and prey encounter rate. Behav Ecol 19(4):842–846 Ives AR, Dobson AP (1987) Antipredator behavior and the population dynamics of simple predator-prey systems. Am Nat 130(3):431–447 Jansen VAA (2001) The dynamics of two diffusively coupled predator–prey populations. Theor Popul Biol 59(2):119–131 Kareiva P (1987) Habitat fragmentation and the stability of predator–prey interactions. Nature 326:388–390 Latora V, Marchiori M (2001) Efficient behavior of small-world networks. Phys Rev Lett 87(19), 198701-198701 198701-198704 Lima SL (2002) Putting predators back into behavioral predator–prey interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 17(2):70–75 Linhares A (1999) Synthesizing a predatory search strategy for VLSI layouts. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(2):147–152 Luttberg B, Schmitz OJ (2000) Predator and prey models with flexible individual behavior and imperfect information. Am Nat 155(5):669–683 McCauley E, Wilson WG, de Roos AM (1993) Dynamics of age-structured and spatially structured predator–prey interactions: individual-based models and population-level formulations. Am Nat 142(3):412–442 McLaughlin JF, Roughgarden JD (1991) Pattern and stability in predator-prey communities: how diffusion in spatially variable environments affects the Lotka-Volterra model. Theor Popul Biol 40(2):148–172 Michalski F, Peres CA (2005) Anthropogenic determinants of primate and carnivore local extinctions in a fragmented forest landscape of southern Amazonia. Biol Conserv 124(3):383–396 Minor ES, Urban DL (2007) Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol Appl 17(6):1771–1782 Minor ES, Urban DL (2008) A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 22(2):297–307 Nelson EH, Matthews CE, Rosenheim JA (2004) Predators reduce prey population growth by inducing changes in prey behavior. Ecology 85(7):1853–1858 Nonaka E, Holme P (2007) Agent-based model approach to optimal foraging in heterogeneous landscapes: effects of patch clumpiness. Ecography 30(6):777–788 Ortega-Huerta MA, Medley KE (1999) Landscape analysis of jaguar (Panthera onca) habitat using sighting records in the Sierra de Tamaulipas, Mexico. Environ Conserv 26(4):257–269 Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecol 21(7):959–967 Planesa S, Jones GP, Thorrold SR (2009) Larval dispersal connects fish populations in a network of marine protected areas. PNAS (0808007106v1-pnas.0808007106) Rougharden JD (1977) Patchiness in the spatial distribution of a population caused by stochastic fluctuations in resources. Oikos 29(1):52–59 Rougharden JD (1978) Influence of competition on patchiness in a random environment. Theor Popul Biol 14(2):185–203 Terborgh J, Estes JA, Paquet P, Ralls K, Boyd-Heger D, Miller BJ, Noss RF (1999) The role of top carnivores in regulating terrestrial ecosystems. In: Soule ME, Terborgh J (eds) Continental conservation: scientific foundations of regional reserve networks. Island Press, Washington, DC Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82(5):1205–1218 Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick R (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12(3):260–273 Wilson WG (1998) Resolving discrepancies between deterministic population models and individual-based simulations. Am Nat 151(2):116–134 With KA, Pavuk DM, Worchuck JL, Oates RK, Fisher JL (2002) Threshold effects of landscape structure on biological control in agroecosystems. Ecol Appl 12(1):52–65