Advertisement

Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 111–127 | Cite as

Landscape configuration drives persistent spatial patterns of occupant distributions

  • Elizabeth A. Hamman
  • Scott A. McKinley
  • Adrian C. Stier
  • Craig W. Osenberg
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Variation in the density of organisms among habitat patches is often attributed to variation in inherent patch properties. For example, higher quality patches might have higher densities because they attract more colonists or confer better post-colonization survival. However, variation in occupant density can also be driven by landscape configuration if neighboring patches draw potential colonists away from the focal habitat (a phenomenon we call propagule redirection). Here, we develop and analyze a stochastic model to quantify the role of landscape configuration and propagule redirection on occupant density patterns. We model a system with a dispersive larval stage and a sedentary adult stage. The model includes sensing and decision-making in the colonization stage and density-dependent mortality (a proxy for patch quality) in the post-colonization stage. We demonstrate that spatial variation in colonization is retained when the supply of colonists is not too high, post-colonization density-dependent survival is not too strong, and colonization events are not too frequent. Using a reef fish system, we show that the spatial variation produced by propagule redirection is comparable to spatial variation expected when patch quality varies. Thus, variation in density arising from the spatial patterning of otherwise identical habitat can play an important role in shaping long-term spatial patterns of organisms occupying patchy habitats. Propagule redirection is a potentially powerful mechanism by which landscape configuration can drive variation in occupant densities, and may therefore offer new insights into how populations may shift as landscapes change in response to natural and anthropogenic forces.

Keywords

Propagule redirection Settlement shadows Density dependence Patch selection 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Osenberg lab and Shilpa Khatri for helpful discussions and the National Science Foundation (OCE-1130359, OCE-0242312) and the QSE3 IGERT program (DGE-0801544) and Army Research Office (Grant Number 64430-MA) for support. We would also like to thank Ben Bolker, Alan Hastings, and anonymous reviewers for feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

12080_2017_352_MOESM1_ESM.r (4 kb)
(R 4.49 KB)
12080_2017_352_MOESM2_ESM.r (5 kb)
(R 4.72 KB)
12080_2017_352_MOESM3_ESM.r (3 kb)
(R 3.09 KB)

References

  1. Baddeley A, Turner R (2005) Spatstat: an R package for analyzing spatial point patterns. J Stat Softw 12 (6):1–42. https://www.jstatsoft.org, ISSN: 1548-7660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burt J, Bartholomew A, Usseglio P, Bauman A, Sale P (2009) Are artificial reefs surrogates of natural habitats for corals and fish in Dubai, United Arab Emirates Coral Reefs 28(3):663–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carr M H, Hixon M A (1997) Artificial reefs: the importance of comparisons with natural reefs. Fisheries 22(4):28–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dixson D L, Abrego D, Hay M E (2014) Chemically mediated behavior of recruiting corals and fishes: a tipping point that may limit reef recovery. Science 345(6199):892–897CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Eaton M J, Hughes P T, Hines J E, Nichols J D (2014) Testing metapopulation concepts: effects of patch characteristics and neighborhood occupancy on the dynamics of an endangered lagomorph. Oikos 123(6):662–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gaines S, Brown S, Roughgarden J (1985) Spatial variation in larval concentrations as a cause of spatial variation in settlement for the barnacle, Balanus glandula. Oecologia 67(2):267–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gaines S D, Roughgarden J (1987) Fish in offshore kelp forests affect recruitment to intertidal barnacle populations. Science 235(4787): 479–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gillespie D T (1977) Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions. J Phys Chem 81(25):2340–2361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glynn P W (1980) Defense by symbiotic crustacea of host corals elicited by chemical cues from predator. Oecologia 47(3):287–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gonzalez A, Lawton J, Gilbert F, Blackburn T, Evans-Freke I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics, abundance, and distribution in a microecosystem. Science 281(5385):2045–2047CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Grindeland J M, Sletvold N, Ims R A (2005) Effects of floral display size and plant density on pollinator visitation rate in a natural population of digitalis purpurea. Funct Ecol 19(3):383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gustafson E J, Gardner R H (1996) The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77(1):94–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hein A M, McKinley S A (2013) Sensory information and encounter rates of interacting species. PLoS Comput Biol 9(8):e1003,178.  10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill J, Thomas C, Lewis O (1996) Effects of habitat patch size and isolation on dispersal by Hesperia comma butterflies: implications for metapopulation structure. J Anim Ecol 65:725–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hixon M A, Jones G P (2005) Competition, predation, and density-dependent mortality in demersal marine fishes. Ecology 86(11): 2847–2859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holbrook S, Schmitt R (1997) Settlement patterns and process in a coral reef damselfish: in situ nocturnal observations using infrared video. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, vol 2, pp 1143–1148Google Scholar
  18. Holbrook S, Forrester G, Schmitt R (2000) Spatial patterns in abundance of a damselfish reflect availability of suitable habitat. Oecologia 122(1):109–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Holbrook S, Brooks A, Schmitt R, Stewart H (2008) Effects of sheltering fish on growth of their host corals. Mar Biol 155(5):521–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holbrook S, Schmitt R, Brooks A (2011) Indirect effects of species interactions on habitat provisioning. Oecologia 166(3):739–749CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Holbrook S J, Schmitt R J (2002) Competition for shelter space causes density-dependent predation mortality in damselfishes. Ecology 83(10):2855–2868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones G (1997) Relationships between recruitment and postrecruitment processes in lagoonal populations of two coral reef fishes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 213(2):231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones G, Almany G, Russ G, Sale P, Steneck R, Van Oppen M, Willis B (2009) Larval retention and connectivity among populations of corals and reef fishes: history, advances and challenges. Coral Reefs 28(2):307–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koelle K, Vandermeer J (2005) Dispersal-induced desynchronization: from metapopulations to metacommunities. Ecol Lett 8(2):167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laan R, Verboom B (1990) Effects of pool size and isolation on amphibian communities. Biol Conserv 54 (3):251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lecchini D, Adjeroud M, Pratchett M S, Cadoret L, Galzin R (2003) Spatial structure of coral reef fish communities in the Ryukyu Islands, southern Japan. Oceanol Acta 26(5):537–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lecchini D, Shima J, Banaigs B, Galzin R (2005) Larval sensory abilities and mechanisms of habitat selection of a coral reef fish during settlement. Oecologia 143(2):326–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography, vol 1. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitchell R J, Flanagan R J, Brown B J, Waser N M, Karron J D (2009) New frontiers in competition for pollination. Ann Bot 103(9): 1403–1413CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Mönkkönen M, Helle P, Soppela K (1990) Numerical and behavioural responses of migrant passerines to experimental manipulation of resident tits (Parus spp.): heterospecific attraction in northern breeding bird communites Oecologia 85(2):218–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Morales C L, Traveset A (2008) Interspecific pollen transfer: magnitude, prevalence and consequences for plant fitness. Crit Rev Plant Sci 27(4):221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morton D N, Shima J S (2013) Habitat configuration and availability influences the settlement of temperate reef fishes Tripterygiidae. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 449:215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ohashi K, Yahara T (1999) How long to stay on, and how often to visit a flowering plant?: a model for foraging strategy when floral displays vary in size. Oikos 86:386–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Osenberg C, Mary C, Wilson J, Lindberg W (2002a) A quantitative framework to evaluate the attraction–production controversy. ICES J Mar Sci J du Conseil 59(suppl):S214—S221Google Scholar
  35. Osenberg C W, St Mary C M, Schmitt R J, Holbrook S J, Chesson P, Byrne B (2002b) Rethinking ecological inference: density dependence in reef fishes. Ecol Lett 5(6):715–721Google Scholar
  36. Pickering H, Whitmarsh D (1997) Artificial reefs and fisheries exploitation: a review of the ’attraction versus production’debate, the influence of design and its significance for policy. Fish Res 31(1):39–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pratchett M, Vytopil E, Parks P (2000) Coral crabs influence the feeding patterns of crown-of-thorns starfish. Coral Reefs 19(1):36–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Resetarits W J, Binckley C A (2009) Spatial contagion of predation risk affects colonization dynamics in experimental aquatic landscapes. Ecology 84(4):869–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Resetarits W J, Binckley C A (2013) Patch quality and context, but not patch number, drive multi-scale colonization dynamics in experimental aquatic landscapes. Oecologia 173(3):933–946CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Resetarits W J, Silberbush A (2016) Local contagion and regional compression: habitat selection drives spatially explicit, multiscale dynamics of colonisation in experimental metacommunities. Ecol Lett 19(2):191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ricketts T H (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158(1):87–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Robertson D R (1992) Patterns of lunar settlement and early recruitment in caribbean reef fishes at panama. Mar Biol 114(4):527–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ryall K L, Fahrig L (2006) Response of predators to loss and fragmentation of prey habitat: a review of theory. Ecology 87(5):1086–1093CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Shima J S, Osenberg C W (2003) Cryptic density dependence: effects of covariation between density and site quality in reef fish. Ecology 84(1):46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sih A, Baltus M S (1987) Patch size, pollinator behavior, and pollinator limitation in catnip. Ecology 68:1679–1690CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Stamps J (1988) Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. American Naturalist 131:329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stier A, Osenberg C (2010) Propagule redirection: habitat availability reduces colonization and increases recruitment in reef fishes. Ecology 91(10):2826–2832CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Stier A, McKeon C, Osenberg C, Shima J (2010) Guard crabs alleviate deleterious effects of vermetid snails on a branching coral. Coral Reefs 29(4):1019–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tolimieri N (1995) Effects of microhabitat characteristics on the settlement and recruitment of a coral reef fish at two spatial scales. Oecologia 102(1):52–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Wesner J S, Billman E J, Belk M C (2012) Multiple predators indirectly alter community assembly across ecological boundaries. Ecology 93(7):1674–1682CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. White J W, Samhouri J F, Stier A C, Wormald C L, Hamilton S L, Sandin S A (2010) Synthesizing mechanisms of density dependence in reef fishes: behavior, habitat configuration, and observational scale. Ecology 91(7):1949–1961CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilcox C (2001) Habitat size and isolation affect colonization of seasonal wetlands by predatory aquatic insects. Isr J Zool 47(4):459–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilson J, Osenberg C W (2002) Experimental and observational patterns of density-dependent settlement and survival in the marine fish gobiosoma. Oecologia 130(2):205–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Wratten S D, Gillespie M, Decourtye A, Mader E, Desneux N (2012) Pollinator habitat enhancement: benefits to other ecosystem services. Agric Ecosyst Environ 159:112–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Odum School of EcologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsTulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA
  3. 3.Department of Ecology Evolution and Marine BiologyUniversity of California Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations