Advertisement

Recent Advances and Current Challenges in Applying Source-Sink Theory to Species Conservation

  • Julie A. HeinrichsEmail author
  • Lauren E. Walker
  • Joshua J. Lawler
  • Nathan H. Schumaker
  • Kira C. Monroe
  • Amy D. Bleisch
Interface of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology (J Watling, SECTION EDITOR)
  • 6 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Interface of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The source-sink paradigm has been a powerful tool for focusing theoretical and empirical explorations of population dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes. The prevalence of suspected source-sink dynamics in empirical studies would lead to the conclusion that sources and sinks are common. However, important questions remain about how source-sink dynamics have been assessed in past studies and the degree to which current approaches apply to atypical populations and dynamic landscapes.

Recent Findings

We reviewed 432 papers that directly addressed source-sink dynamics between 1985 and 2018. We found that the majority of studies focused on birds, mammals, and forested systems. In recent years, however, the number of aquatic invertebrate and marine studies increased, as did the tendency to focus on conservation or management goals and to report population trends. Although 79% of papers claimed to identify source-sink dynamics, only 13% of studies based their assessment on all four measures of reproduction, mortality, immigration, and emigration. Nearly 23% of all studies used neither demographic nor movement metrics to make conclusions about the presence of source-sink dynamics.

Summary

Source-sink theory and practice has matured and is increasingly relevant for species conservation and management. However, we lack a clear understanding of the conditions under which limited data can defensibly support source-sink assessments and be scaled up to the extent at which resource decisions are made. In the absence of this, future studies will need to take a more rigorous approach to defining sources and sinks to better gauge the prevalence of source-sink dynamics.

Keywords

Source-sink dynamics Source Sink Review Conservation Metapopulation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Aaron Sidder assisted with evaluating papers.

Author Contributions

JH, JL, and LW conceived of the study and developed the methods. LW, JH, KM, and AB reviewed and evaluated papers. JH, LW, JH, and NS wrote the manuscript.

Funding Information

Funding was provided by SERDP grant RC-2120.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

40823_2019_39_MOESM1_ESM.docx (499 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 499 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Pulliam RH. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat. 1988;132:652–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holt RD. Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution. Theor Popul Biol. 1985;28:181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Runge JP, Runge MC, Nichols JD. The role of local populations within a landscape context: defining and classifying sources and sinks. Am Nat. 2006;167:925–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holt RD, Barfield M. Theoretical perspectives on the statics and dynamics of species’ Borders in patchy environments. Am Nat. 2011;178:S6–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dias PC. Sources and sinks in population biology. Trends Ecol Evol. 1996;11:326–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Woodroffe R, Ginsberg JR. Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science. 1998;280:2126–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robertson BA, Rehage JS, Sih A. Ecological novelty and the emergence of evolutionary traps. Trends Ecol Evol. 2013;28:552–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gilroy JJ, Edwards DP. Source-sink dynamics: a neglected problem for landscape-scale biodiversity conservation in the tropics. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep. 2017;2:51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heinrichs JA, Lawler JJ, Schumaker NH. Intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of source-sink dynamics. Ecol Evol. 2016;6:892–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heinrichs JA, Lawler JJ, Schumaker NH, Wilsey CB, Bender DJ. Divergence in sink contributions to population persistence. Conserv Biol. 2015;29:1674–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Driscoll DA, Whitehead CA, Lazzari J. Spatial dynamics of the knob-tailed gecko Nephrurus stellatus in a fragmented agricultural landscape. Landsc Ecol. 2012;27:829–41.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Horne B. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. J Wildl Manag. 1983;47:893–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diffendorfer JE. Testing models of source-sink dynamics and balanced dispersal. Oikos. Wiley on behalf of Nordic society. Oikos. 1998;81:417–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Furrer RD, Pasinelli G. Empirical evidence for source—sink populations: a review on occurrence, assessments and implications. Biol Rev. 2016;91:782–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nathan R. The challenges of studying dispersal. Trends Ecol Evol. 2001;16:481–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hixon MA, Pacala SW, Sandin SA. Population regulation: historical context and contemporary challenges of open vs. closed systems. Ecology. 2002;83:1490–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peery MZ, Beissinger SR, House RF, Bérubé M, Hall LA, Sellas A, et al. Characterizing source-sink dynamics with genetic parentage assignments. Ecology. 2008;89:2746–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weston KA, Taylor SS, Robertson BC. Identifying populations for management: fine-scale population structure in the New Zealand alpine rock wren (Xenicus gilviventris). Conserv Genet. 2016;17:691–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mira Ó, Sánchez-Prieto CB, Dawson DA, Burke T, Tinaut A, Martínez JG. Parnassius apollo nevadensis: identification of recent population structure and source–sink dynamics. Conserv Genet. 2017;18:837–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Crowder LB, Lyman SJ, Figueira WF, Priddy J. Source-sink population dynamics and the problems of siting marine reserves. Bull Mar Sci. 2000;66:799–820.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Loreau M, Daufresne T, Gonzalez A, Gravel D, Guichard F, Leroux SJ, et al. Unifying sources and sinks in ecology and earth sciences. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2013;88:365–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Margules CR, Pressey RL. Systematic conservation planning. Nature. 2000;405:243–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schumaker NH, Brookes A, Dunk JR, Woodbridge B, Heinrichs JA, Lawler JJ, et al. Mapping sources, sinks, and connectivity using a simulation model of northern spotted owls. Landsc Ecol. 2014;29:579–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Delibes M, Gaona P, Ferreras P. Effects of an attractive sink leading into maladaptive habitat selection. Am Nat. 2001;158:277–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hansen A. Contribution of source-sink theory to protected area science. In: Liu J, Hull V, Morzillo AT, Wiens JA, editors. Sources, sinks and sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 339–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Foppen RPB, Chardon PJ, Liefveld W. Understanding the role of sink patches in source-sink metapopulations: reed warbler in an agricultural landscape. Conserv Biol. 2000;14:1881–92.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Murphy MT. Source-sink dynamics of a declining eastern kingbird population and the value of sink habitats. Conserv Biol. 2001;15:737–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heinrichs JA, Bender DJ, Gummer DL, Schumaker NH. Assessing critical habitat: evaluating the relative contribution of habitats to population persistence. Biol Conserv. 2010;143:2229–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heinrichs JA, Lawler JJ, Schumaker NH, Wilsey CB, Newcomb K, Aldridge CL. A multispecies test of source-sink indicators to prioritize habitat for declining populations. Conserv Biol. 2018;32:648–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morris DW. On the evolutionary stability of dispersal to sink habitats. Am Nat. 1991;137:907–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Watkinson AR, Sutherland WJ. Sources, sinks and psuedo-sinks. J Anim Ecol. 1995;64:126–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hanski I. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature. 1998;396:41–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Coutts SR, Salguero-Gómez R, Csergő AM, Buckley YM. Extrapolating demography with climate, proximity and phylogeny: approach with caution. Gurevitch J, editor. Ecol Lett. 2016;19:1429–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Boughton DA. The dispersal system of a butterfly: a test of source-sink theory suggests the intermediate-scale hypothesis. Am Nat. 2000;156:131–44.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Johnson DM. Source-sink dynamics in a temporally heterogeneous environment. Ecology. 2004;85:2037–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Walker LE, Marzluff JM, Cimprich DA. Source-sink population dynamics driven by a brood parasite: a case study of an endangered songbird, the black-capped vireo. Biol Conserv. 2016;203:108–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Monson DH, Doak DF, Ballachey BE, Bodkin JL. Could residual oil from the “Exxon Valdez” spill create a long-term population “sink” for sea otters in Alaska? Ecol Appl. 2011;21:2917–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Heinrichs JA, Lawler JJ, Walker LE, Schumaker NH, Cimprich D, Bleisch A. Assessing source-sink stability in the context of management and land-use change. Landsc Ecol. 2019; 34:259–74.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Weegman MD, Bearhop S, Fox AD, Hilton GM, Walsh AJ, Mcdonald JL, et al. Integrated population modelling reveals a perceived source to be a cryptic sink. J Anim Ecol. 2016;85:467–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ponchon A, Garnier R, Grémillet D, Boulinier T. Predicting population responses to environmental change: the importance of considering informed dispersal strategies in spatially structured population models. Heikkinen R, editor. Divers Distrib. 2015;21:88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wiens JD, Schumaker NH, Inman RD, Esque TC, Longshore KM, Nussear KE. Spatial demographic models to inform conservation planning of golden eagles in renewable energy landscapes. J Raptor Res. 2017;51:234–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Erickson RA, Diffendorfer JE, Norris DR, Bieri JA, Earl JE, Federico P, et al. Defining and classifying migratory habitats as sources and sinks: the migratory pathway approach. Fuller R, editor. J Appl Ecol. 2018;55:108–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Heinrichs JA, Aldridge CL, Gummer DL, Monroe AP, Schumaker NH. Prioritizing actions for the recovery of endangered species: emergent insights from greater sage-grouse simulation modeling. Biol Conserv. 2018;218:134–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environmental and Forest SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Natural Resource Ecology LaboratoryColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.Yellowstone Center for ResourcesYellowstone National ParkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations