Landscape Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 405–416 | Cite as

Impact of species-specific dispersal and regional stochasticity on estimates of population viability in stream metapopulations

Research Article


Species dispersal is a central component of metapopulation models. Spatially realistic metapopulation models, such as stochastic patch-occupancy models (SPOMs), quantify species dispersal using estimates of colonization potential based on inter-patch distance (distance decay model). In this study we compare the parameterization of SPOMs with dispersal and patch dynamics quantified directly from empirical data. For this purpose we monitored two metapopulations of an endangered minnow, redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus), using mark-recapture techniques across 43 patches, re-sampled across a 1 year period. More than 2,000 fish were marked with visible implant elastomer tags coded for patch location and dispersal and patch dynamics were monitored. We found that species-specific dispersal and distance decay models provided qualitatively similar rankings of viable patches; however, there were differences of several orders of magnitude in the estimated intrinsic mean times to extinction, from 24 and 148 years to 362 and >100,000 years, depending on the population. We also found that the rate of regional stochasicity had a dramatic impact for the estimate of species viability, and in one case altered the trajectory of our metapopulation from viable to non-viable. The divergent estimates in time to extinction times were likely due to a combination species-specific behavior, the dendritic nature of stream metapopulations, and the rate of regional stochasticity. We demonstrate the importance of developing comparative analyses using species- and patch-specific data when determining quantitative estimates for mean time to extinction, which in the case of redside dace, were highly sensitive to different estimates of dispersal.


Metapopulations Dispersal Population viability analysis Stochastic patch-occupancy models Parameter estimates 



Funding was provided by NSERC Canada and OGS Scholarships to M. S. P., an NSERC Discovery Grant to D. A. J., and funding provided by Fisheries and Oceans (IRF 1410). All field work was conducted under an approved Animal Care Protocol (# 20006805) from the University of Toronto Animal Care Committee. Field work was conducted by a dedicated group of volunteers from- the University of Toronto–A. Drake, C. Harpur, B. Edwards, M. St. John, M. Neff, P. Venturelli, M. Granados, J. Ruppert, S. Sharma, N. Puckett, C. Hart, and S. Walker—and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority–D. Lawrie, C. Tu, T. Parker, T. Rance, B. Paul, E. Elton, B. Stephens, and L. DelGiudice; and volunteers from Citizen Scientists. This work was improved by discussion with Marie-Josee Fortin and two reviewers of earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

10980_2011_9683_MOESM1_ESM.doc (228 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 228 kb)


  1. Akçakaya HR (2000) Viability analyses with habitat-based metapopulation models. Popul Ecol 42(1):45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akçakaya HR, Sjögren-Gulve P (2000) Population viability analysis in conservation planning: an overview. Ecol Bulletins 48:9–21Google Scholar
  3. Baguette M, VanDyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecol 22(8):1117–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolker B, Holyoak M, Krivan V, Rowe L, Schmitz O (2003) Connecting theoretical and empirical studies of trait-mediated interactions. Ecology 84:1101–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carle FL, Strub MR (1978) A new method for estimating population size from removal data. Biometrics 34:621–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. COSEWIC (2007) COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the redside dace Clinostomus elongatus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, pp 54Google Scholar
  7. Dreschler M, Frank K, Hanski I, O’Hara RB, Wissel C (2003) Ranking metapopulation extinction risk: from patterns in data to conservation management decisions. Ecol Appl 13:990–998Google Scholar
  8. Fagan WF (2002) Connectivity, fragmentation, and extinction risk in dendritic metapopulatoins. Ecology 83(12):3243–3249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foley P (1994) Predicting extinction times from environmental stochasticity and carrying capacity. Conserv Biol 8(1):124–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frank K, Wissel C (1998) Spatial aspects of metapopulation survival: from model results to rules of thumb for landscape management. Landscape Ecol 13:363–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frank K, Wissel C (2002) A formula for the mean lifetime of metapopulations in heterogeneous landscapes. Am Nat 159:530–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gotelli NJ (1991) Metapopulation models: the rescue effect, the propagule rain, and the core-satelite hypothesis. Am Nat 138:768–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gotelli NJ, Taylor CM (1999) Testing metapopulation models with stream-fish assemblages. Evol Ecol Res 1:835–845Google Scholar
  14. Grimm V, Storch I (2000) Minimum viable population size of capercaillie Terao urogallus: results from a stochastic model. Wildl Biol 5:219–225Google Scholar
  15. Grimm V, Wissel C (2004) The intrinsic mean time to extinction: a unifying approach to analysing persistence and viability of populations. Oikos 105(3):501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grimm V, Lorek H, Finke J, Koester F, Malachinski M, Sonnenschein M, Moilanen A, Storch I, Singer A, Wissel C, Frank, K (2004) META-X: generic software for metapopulation viability analysis. Biodivers Conserv 13:165–188Google Scholar
  17. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63(1):151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanski I (1998) Connecting the parameters of local extinction and metapopulation dynamics. Oikos 83(2):390–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanski I, Gilpin ME (1997) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanski I, Moilanen A, Pakkala T, Kuussaari M (1996) The quantitative incidence function model and persistence of an endangered butterfly metapopulation. Conserv Biol 10(2):578–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansson L (1991) Dispersal and connectivity in metapopulations. Biol J Linn Soc 42:89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heinz SK, Conradt L, Wissel C, Frank K (2005) Dispersal in fragmented landscapes: deriving a practical formula for patch accessibility. Landscape Ecol 20:83–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heinz SK, Wissel C, Frank K (2006) The viability of metapopulations: individual dispersal behaviour matters. Landscape Ecol 21:77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hill J, Grossman GD (1987) Home range estimates for three North American stream fishes. Copeia 1987(2):376–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kindvall O (2000) Comparative precision of three spatially realistic simulation models of metapopulation dynamics. Ecol Bulletins 48:101–110Google Scholar
  27. Koster WJ (1939) Some phases in the life history and relationships of the cyprinid Clinostomus elongatus (Kirtland). Copeia 1939:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lande R (1993) Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes. Am Nat 142:911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lande R, Engen S, Saether BE (1988) Extinction times in finite metapopulation models with stochastic local dynamics. Oikos 83(2):383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marsh D (2008) Metapopulation viability analysis for amphibians. Anim Conserv 11(6):463–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCoy EG, Mushinsky HR (2007) Estimates of minimum patch size depend on the method of estimation and the condition of habitat. Ecology 88(6):1401–1407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McKee PM, Parker BJ (1982) The distribution biology and status of the fishes campostoma-anomalum clinostomus-elongatus notropis-photogenis cyprinidae and fundulus-notatus cyprinodontidae in Canada. Can J Zool 60(6):1347–1358Google Scholar
  33. Minns CK (1995) Allometry of home range size in lake and river fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52:1499–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moilanen A (1999) Patch occupancy models of metapopulation dynamics: efficient parameter estimation using implicit statistical inference. Ecology 80(3):1031–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moilanen A (2004) SPOMSIM: software for stochastic patch occupancy models of metapopulation dynamics. Ecol Model 179:533–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moilanen A, Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79:2503–2515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morris WF, Doak DF (2002) Quantitative conservation biology: theory and practice of population viability analysis. Sinauer Associates Inc., SutherlandGoogle Scholar
  38. Morrissey MB, de Kerckhove DT (2009) The maintenance of genetic variation due to asymmetric gene flow in dendritic metapopulations. Am Nat 174:875–889PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Novinger DC, Coon TG (2000) Behavior and physiology of the redside dace, Clinostomus elongatus, a threatened species in Michigan. Environ Biol Fish 57:315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ogle DH (2009) Functions to support fish stock assessment textbook (v.0.0-8). Accessed 12 Jan 2009
  41. Oksanen J (2004) Incidence function model in R. Accessed 12 Feb 2009
  42. OMNR (2007) Stream assessment protocol for southern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Picton, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  43. Ovaskainen O (2004) Habitat-specific movement parameters estimated using mark-recapture data and a diffusion model. Ecology 85:242–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ovaskainen O, Hanski I (2004) From individual behavior to metapopulation dynamics: unifying the patchy population and classic metapopulation models. Am Nat 164(3):364–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pierce GJ, Ollason JG (1987) Eight reasons why optimal foraging theory is a comlete waste of time. Oikos 49:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Poos MS, Lawrie D, Tu C, Jackson DA Estimating local and regional population sizes for an endangered minnow, redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus), in Canada. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems (in press)Google Scholar
  47. R Development Core Team (2008) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. (ISBN: 3-900051-07-0)Google Scholar
  48. Reed DH, O’Grady JJ, Ballou JD, Frankham R (2003) The frequency and severity of catastrophic die-offs in vertebrates. Anim Conserv 6:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reid SM, Jones NE, Yunker G (2008) Evaluation of single-pass electrofishing and rapid habitat assessment for monitoring redside dace. North Am J Fish Manag 28(1):50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Resetarits WJ, Binckley CA, Chalcraftet DR (2005) Habitat selection, species interactions, and processes of community assembly in complex landscapes: a metacommunity perspective. In: Holyoak M, Leibold MA, Holt RD (eds) Metacommunities—spatial dynamics and ecological communities. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 374–398Google Scholar
  51. Revilla E, Wiegand T (2008) Movement ecology special feature: individual movement behavior, matrix heterogeneity, and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:19120–19125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Robert A (2009) The effects of spatially correlated perturbations and habitat configuration on metapopulation persistence. Oikos 118(10):1590–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Roitberg BD, Mangel M (1997) Individuals on the landscape: behavior can mitigate landscape differences among habitats. Oikos 80:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schtickzelle N, Mennechez G, Baguette M (2006) Dispersal depression with habitat fragmentation in the bog fritillary butterfly. Ecology 87:1057–1065PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tischendorf L (2001) Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landscape Ecol 16:235–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Verboom J, Lankester K, Metz JAJ (1991) Linking local and regional dynamics in stochastic metapopulation models. Biol J Linn Soc 42:39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Verboom J, Metz JAJ, Meelis E (1993) Metapopulation models for impact assessment of fragmentation. In: Vos CC, Opdam P (eds) Landscape ecology of a stressed environment. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 172–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vos CC, Verboom J, Opdam PFM, ter Braak CJF (2001) Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. Am Nat 157:24–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walsh MG, Winkelman DL (2004) Anchor and visible implant elastomer tag retention by hatchery rainbow trout stocked into an Ozark stream. N Am J Aquaculture 24:1435–1439Google Scholar
  60. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  61. Zippin C (1958) The removal method of population estimation. J Wildl Manag 22:82–90Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Fisheries and Oceans CanadaBurlingtonCanada

Personalised recommendations