Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:09:28.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Sources, sinks, and model accuracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2011

By
Matthew A. Etterson ,
Brian J. Olsen ,
Russell Greenberg  and
W. Gregory Shriver
Edited by
Jianguo Liu ,
Vanessa Hull ,
Anita T. Morzillo  and
John A. Wiens
Matthew A. Etterson
Affiliation:
US Environmental Protection Agency
Brian J. Olsen
Affiliation:
University of Maine , Orono, USA
Russell Greenberg
Affiliation:
Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center
W. Gregory Shriver
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
Jianguo Liu
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Vanessa Hull
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Anita T. Morzillo
Affiliation:
Oregon State University
John A. Wiens
Affiliation:
PRBO Conservation Science
Get access

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 - 290
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrén, H., Angelstam, P., Lindstrom, E. and Widen, P. (1985). Differences in predation pressure in relation to habitat fragmentation: an experiment. Oikos 45: 273–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballentine, B. and Greenberg, R. (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
Bart, J. and Robson, D. S. (1982). Estimating survivorship when the subjects are visited periodically. Ecology 63: 1078–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beadell, J., Greenberg, R., Droege, S. and Royle, J. A. (2003). Distribution, abundance, and habitat affinities of the coastal plain swamp sparrow. Wilson Bulletin 115: 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, A., Nilsson, S. G. and Bostrom, U. (1992). Predation on artificial wader nests on large and small bogs along a south-north gradient. Ornis Scandinavica 23: 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, H. (2001). Matrix Population Models: Construction, Analysis, and Interpretation, 2nd edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Clarke, A. L., Saether, B. E. and Roskaft, E. (1997). Sex biases in avian dispersal: a reappraisal. Oikos 79: 429–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clobert, J. and Lebreton, J.-D. (1991). Estimation of demographic parameters in bird populations. In Bird Population Studies (Perrins, C. M., Lebreton, J.-D. and Hirons, G. J. M., eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK: 75–104.Google Scholar
Cooper, C. B., Hochachka, W. M., Butcher, G. and Dhondt, A. A. (2005). Seasonal and latitudinal trends in clutch size: thermal constraints during laying and incubation. Ecology 86: 2018–2031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daley, D. J. (1979). Bias in estimating the Malthusian parameter for Leslie matrices. Theoretical Population Biology 15: 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, S., Griesser, M., Nystrand, M. and Ekman, J. (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
Etterson, M. and Bennett, R. (2005). Including transition probabilities in nest-survival estimation: a Mayfield–Markov chain. Ecology 86: 1414–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etterson, M. A and Nagy, L. R. (2008). Is mean squared error a consistent indicator of accuracy for spatially structured demographic models?Ecological Modelling 211: 202–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etterson, M. A. and Stanley, T. (2008). Incorporating classification uncertainty in competing risks nest failure modeling. Auk 125: 687–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etterson, M. A., Olsen, B. J. and Greenberg, R. (2007). The analysis of covariates in multi-fate Markov chain nest failure models. Studies in Avian Biology 34: 55–64.Google Scholar
Etterson, M. A., Bennett, R. S., Kershner, E. L. and Walk, J. W. (2009). Markov chain estimation of avian seasonal fecundity. Ecological Applications 19: 622–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaona, P., Ferraras, P. and Delibes, M. (1998). Dynamics and viability of a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus). Ecological Monographs 68: 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, R. and Droege, S. (1990). Adaptations to tidal marshes in breeding populations of the swamp sparrow. Condor 92: 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, R., Cordero, P. J., Droege, S. and Fleischer, R. C. (1998). Morphological adaptation with no mitochondrial DNA differentiation in the coastal plain swamp sparrow. Auk 115: 706–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, R., Elphick, C., Nordby, J. C., Gjerdrum, C., Spautz, H., Shriver, G., Schmeling, B., Marra, P., Nur, N., Olsen, B. J. and Winter, M. (2006). Flooding and predation: trade-offs in the nesting ecology of tidal-marsh sparrows. Studies in Avian Biology 32: 96–109.Google Scholar
Greenberg, R., Marra, P. P. and Wooller, M. J. (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
Greenberg, R., Olsen, B. J. and Etterson, M. A. (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
Greenwood, P. J. (1980). Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Animal Behavior 28: 1140–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grenier, J. L. and Greenberg, R. (2005). A biographic pattern in sparrow bill morphology: parallel adaption to tidal marshes. Evolution 59: 1588–1595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grzybowski, J. A. and Pease, C. M. (2005). Renesting determines seasonal fecundity in songbirds: What do we know? What should we assume?Auk 122: 280–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, T. P., Pereyra, M. E., Sharbaugh, S. M. and Bentley, G. E. (2004). Physiological responses to photoperiod in three cardueline finch species. General and Comparative Endocrinology 137: 99–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holt, R. D. and Keitt, T. H. (2000). Alternative causes for range limits: a metapopulation perspective. Ecology Letters 3: 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, R. D., Keitt, T. H., Lewis, M. A., Maurer, B. A. and Taper, M. L. (2005). Theoretical models of species’ borders: single species approaches. Oikos 108: 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houllier, F., Lebreton, J. D. and Pontier, D. (1989). Sampling properties of the asymptotic behaviour of age- or stage-grouped population models. Mathematical Biosciences 95: 161–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutchinson, G. E. (1957). Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 22: 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Immelmann, K. (1973). Role of the environment in reproduction as source of “predictive” information. In Breeding Biology of Birds (Farner, D. S., ed.). National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC: 121–147.Google Scholar
James, F. C. and Shugart, H. H. (1974). The phenology of the nesting season of the American robin (Turdus migratorius) in the United States. Condor 76: 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. H. (1979). Estimating nest success: the Mayfield method and an alternative. Auk 96: 651–661.Google Scholar
Kemeny, J. L. and Snell, J. G. (1983). Finite Markov Chains. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Liu, I. A., Lohr, B., Olsen, B. J. and Greenberg, R. (2008). Macrogeographic vocal variation in subpecies of swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana). Condor 110: 102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, T. E. (1995). Avian life-history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food. Ecological Monographs 65: 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayfield, H. F. (1975). Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bulletin 87: 456–466.Google Scholar
McDonald, M. V. and Greenberg, R. (1991). Nest departure calls in female songbirds. Condor 93: 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooij, W. M. and DeAngelis, D. L. (2003). Uncertainty in spatially explicit animal dispersal models. Ecological Applications 13: 794–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, L. R. and Holmes, R. T. (2004). Factors influencing fecundity in migratory songbirds: is nest predation the most important?Journal of Avian Biology 35: 487–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B. J. (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.
Olsen, B. J., Felch, J. M., Greenberg, R. and Walters, J. R. (2008a). Causes of reduced clutch size in a tidal marsh endemic. Oecologia 15: 421–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B. J., Greenberg, R., Fleischer, R. C. and Walters, J. R. (2008b). Extrapair paternity in the swamp sparrow, Melospiza georgiana: male access or female preference?Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63: 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulliam, H. R. (1988). Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132: 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulliam, H. R. (1995). Sources and sinks: empirical evidence and population consequences. In Population Dynamics in Ecological Space and Time (Rhodes, O. E., Chesser, R. K. and Smith, M. H., eds.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL: 45–71.Google Scholar
Pulliam, H. R. (2000). On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecology Letters 3: 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabenold, K. N. (1979). Reversed latitudinal diversity gradient in avian communities of eastern deciduous forests. American Naturalist 114: 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remes, V. (2000). How can maladaptive habitat choice generate source–sink population dynamics?Oikos 91: 579–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricklefs, R. E. (1969). An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 9: 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricklefs, R. E. (1980). Geographical variation in clutch size among passerine birds: Ashmole’s hypothesis. Auk 97: 38–49.Google Scholar
Rowe, C. L. and Hopkins, W. A. (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 (Linder, G., Krest, S. K. and Sparling, D. W., eds.). Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola, FL: 271–282.Google Scholar
Skutch, A. F. (1949). Do tropical birds rear as many young as they can nourish?Ibis 91: 430–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoleson, S. H. and Beissinger, S. R. (1999). Egg viability as a constraint on hatching synchrony at high ambient temperatures. Journal of Animal Ecology 68: 951–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, B. D., Wilson, M. D., Smith, F. M., Paxton, B. J. and Williams, J. B. (2008). Breeding range extension of the coastal plain swamp sparrow. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120: 393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, G. C. and Burnham, K. P. (1999). Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46(Suppl.): 120–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×