Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Advances in source–sink theory
- Part III Progress in source–sink methodology
- 9 On estimating demographic and dispersal parameters for niche and source–sink models
- 10 Source–sink status of small and large wetland fragments and growth rate of a population network
- 11 Demographic and dispersal data from anthropogenic grasslands: what should we measure?
- 12 Network analysis: a tool for studying the connectivity of source–sink systems
- 13 Sources, sinks, and model accuracy
- 14 Scale-dependence of habitat sources and sinks
- 15 Effects of experimental population removal for the spatial population ecology of the alpine butterfly, Parnassius smintheus
- Part IV Improvement of source–sink management
- Part V Synthesis
- Index
- References
13 - Sources, sinks, and model accuracy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2011
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Advances in source–sink theory
- Part III Progress in source–sink methodology
- 9 On estimating demographic and dispersal parameters for niche and source–sink models
- 10 Source–sink status of small and large wetland fragments and growth rate of a population network
- 11 Demographic and dispersal data from anthropogenic grasslands: what should we measure?
- 12 Network analysis: a tool for studying the connectivity of source–sink systems
- 13 Sources, sinks, and model accuracy
- 14 Scale-dependence of habitat sources and sinks
- 15 Effects of experimental population removal for the spatial population ecology of the alpine butterfly, Parnassius smintheus
- Part IV Improvement of source–sink management
- Part V Synthesis
- Index
- References
Summary
Source–sink models are a promising empirical tool for the sustainable management of animal populations across landscapes. Recent work has demonstrated a theoretical link between the demographic processes addressed in both source–sink and metapopulation models and the formation of species’ range limits. In the face of large-scale anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., increasing temperature and sea level with global climate change), conceptual range-limit models that are functionally linked to these demographic mechanisms may help predict range shifts and provide insights for the management of vulnerable populations. However, the value of such models is limited by their ability to offer precise and testable predications about how demographic parameters might respond to environmental change and thus influence population dynamics. Here, we illustrate the gulf between the promise of conceptual demographic models and the difficulty of their empirical application by developing a model of range limits for a narrowly distributed tidal-marsh songbird, the coastal plain swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana nigrescens, CPSS). We first modeled a gradient in CPSS fecundity that depends on environmental factors varying with latitude. To predict the species’ range limits we embed this fecundity gradient in Pulliam’s (1988) source–sink model. Our resulting model predicts current CPSS range limits reasonably well. However, its predictions are also subject to substantial uncertainty. Our model framework generally conforms to the conceptual unification of source–sink theory, Hutchinson’s (1957) fundamental niche, and species’ range limits recently expounded by Pulliam (2000).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sources, Sinks and Sustainability , pp. 273 - 290Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
, , and (1985). Differences in predation pressure in relation to habitat fragmentation: an experiment. Oikos 45: 273–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2010). Common garden experiment reveals genetic control of phenotypic divergence between swamp sparrow subspecies that lack divergence in neutral genotypes. Plos One 5: e10229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1982). Estimating survivorship when the subjects are visited periodically. Ecology 63: 1078–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2003). Distribution, abundance, and habitat affinities of the coastal plain swamp sparrow. Wilson Bulletin 115: 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1992). Predation on artificial wader nests on large and small bogs along a south-north gradient. Ornis Scandinavica 23: 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001). Matrix Population Models: Construction, Analysis, and Interpretation, 2nd edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
, and (1997). Sex biases in avian dispersal: a reappraisal. Oikos 79: 429–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1991). Estimation of demographic parameters in bird populations. In Bird Population Studies (, and , eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK: 75–104.Google Scholar
, , and (2005). Seasonal and latitudinal trends in clutch size: thermal constraints during laying and incubation. Ecology 86: 2018–2031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1979). Bias in estimating the Malthusian parameter for Leslie matrices. Theoretical Population Biology 15: 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2006). Predation risk induces changes in nest-site selection and clutch size in the Siberian jay. Proceedings of the Royal Society B – Biological Sciences 273: 701–706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2005). Including transition probabilities in nest-survival estimation: a Mayfield–Markov chain. Ecology 86: 1414–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2008). Is mean squared error a consistent indicator of accuracy for spatially structured demographic models?Ecological Modelling 211: 202–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2008). Incorporating classification uncertainty in competing risks nest failure modeling. Auk 125: 687–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2007). The analysis of covariates in multi-fate Markov chain nest failure models. Studies in Avian Biology 34: 55–64.Google Scholar
, , and (2009). Markov chain estimation of avian seasonal fecundity. Ecological Applications 19: 622–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (1998). Dynamics and viability of a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus). Ecological Monographs 68: 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1990). Adaptations to tidal marshes in breeding populations of the swamp sparrow. Condor 92: 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1998). Morphological adaptation with no mitochondrial DNA differentiation in the coastal plain swamp sparrow. Auk 115: 706–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , , , , , and (2006). Flooding and predation: trade-offs in the nesting ecology of tidal-marsh sparrows. Studies in Avian Biology 32: 96–109.Google Scholar
, and (2007). Stable-isotope (C, N, H) analyses help locate the winter range of the coastal plain swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana nigrescens). Auk 124: 1137–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2010). Patterns of seasonal abundance and social segregation in inland and coastal plain swamp sparrows in a Delaware tidal marsh. Condor 112: 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1980). Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Animal Behavior 28: 1140–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2005). A biographic pattern in sparrow bill morphology: parallel adaption to tidal marshes. Evolution 59: 1588–1595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2005). Renesting determines seasonal fecundity in songbirds: What do we know? What should we assume?Auk 122: 280–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2004). Physiological responses to photoperiod in three cardueline finch species. General and Comparative Endocrinology 137: 99–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2000). Alternative causes for range limits: a metapopulation perspective. Ecology Letters 3: 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2005). Theoretical models of species’ borders: single species approaches. Oikos 108: 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1989). Sampling properties of the asymptotic behaviour of age- or stage-grouped population models. Mathematical Biosciences 95: 161–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1957). Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 22: 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1973). Role of the environment in reproduction as source of “predictive” information. In Breeding Biology of Birds (, ed.). National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC: 121–147.Google Scholar
and (1974). The phenology of the nesting season of the American robin (Turdus migratorius) in the United States. Condor 76: 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1979). Estimating nest success: the Mayfield method and an alternative. Auk 96: 651–661.Google Scholar
, , and (2008). Macrogeographic vocal variation in subpecies of swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana). Condor 110: 102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1995). Avian life-history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food. Ecological Monographs 65: 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2003). Uncertainty in spatially explicit animal dispersal models. Ecological Applications 13: 794–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004). Factors influencing fecundity in migratory songbirds: is nest predation the most important?Journal of Avian Biology 35: 487–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2007). Life history divergence and tidal salt marsh adaptations of the coastal plain swamp sparrow. PhD dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
, , and (2008a). Causes of reduced clutch size in a tidal marsh endemic. Oecologia 15: 421–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2008b). Extrapair paternity in the swamp sparrow, Melospiza georgiana: male access or female preference?Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63: 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1988). Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132: 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1995). Sources and sinks: empirical evidence and population consequences. In Population Dynamics in Ecological Space and Time (, and , eds.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL: 45–71.Google Scholar
(2000). On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecology Letters 3: 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1979). Reversed latitudinal diversity gradient in avian communities of eastern deciduous forests. American Naturalist 114: 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). How can maladaptive habitat choice generate source–sink population dynamics?Oikos 91: 579–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1969). An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 9: 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1980). Geographical variation in clutch size among passerine birds: Ashmole’s hypothesis. Auk 97: 38–49.Google Scholar
and (2003). Anthropogenic activities producing sink habitats for amphibians in the local landscape: a case study of lethal and sublethal effects of coal combustion residues in the aquatic environment. In Amphibian Decline: An Integrated Analysis of Multiple Stressor Effects (, and , eds.). Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola, FL: 271–282.Google Scholar
(1949). Do tropical birds rear as many young as they can nourish?Ibis 91: 430–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1999). Egg viability as a constraint on hatching synchrony at high ambient temperatures. Journal of Animal Ecology 68: 951–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2008). Breeding range extension of the coastal plain swamp sparrow. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120: 393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1999). Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46(Suppl.): 120–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3
- Cited by