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-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T09:20:46.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Source–sink status of small and large wetland fragments and growth rate of a population network

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2011

By
Gilberto Pasinelli ,
Jonathan P. Runge  and
Karin Schiegg
Edited by
Jianguo Liu ,
Vanessa Hull ,
Anita T. Morzillo  and
John A. Wiens
Gilberto Pasinelli
Affiliation:
Swiss Ornithological Institute
Jonathan P. Runge
Affiliation:
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Karin Schiegg
Affiliation:
Psychiatric University Clinic, Switzerland
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

Many organisms persist in populations that are spatially structured by human-induced loss and fragmentation of their native habitats. Despite this, the demographic contributions of local populations to a population network and to the growth rate of such a network are still largely unexplored. Using data on individually marked young and adult female reed buntings (Emberiza schoeniclus) from 21 local populations studied over six years in northeastern Switzerland, we examined the source–sink status of small and large local populations with recently developed metrics. We hypothesized that including emigration to the population network (the Cr metric) would classify more local populations as sources than when only focusing on the ability of local populations to maintain themselves (the Rr metric). We further tested the hypothesis that the relative contribution of small and large local populations to the population network does not differ. The inclusion of emigration to the population network resulted in significantly higher values than when only considering the contribution of local populations to themselves, the difference between the metrics averaging 30%. Despite this, most local populations in our study turned out to be sinks (Cr value <1), suggesting that substantial immigration is required for maintaining local populations as well as the entire population network (growth rate of network always <1). Both large and small populations contributed equally to the population network. We conclude that (a) the source–sink status of local populations is more comprehensively described by metrics including emigration (such as Cr) than by metrics focusing on processes within local populations (such as Rr); (b) the network of local populations studied here is not viable without immigration; and (c) small local populations can be as valuable as large local populations in their contribution to a population network.

Type
Chapter
Information
Sources, Sinks and Sustainability , pp. 216 - 238
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

Arctander, P. (1988). Comparative studies of avian DNA by restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis: convenient procedures based on blood samples from live birds. Journal of Ornithology 129: 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouwman, K. M., Lessells, C. M. and Komdeur, J. (2005). Male reed buntings do not adjust parental effort in relation to extrapair paternity. Behavioral Ecology 16: 499–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouwman, K. M., van Dijk, R. E., Wijmenga, J. J. and Komdeur, J. (2007). Older male reed buntings are more successful at gaining extrapair fertilizations. Animal Behaviour 73: 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brawn, J. D., Karr, J. R. and D. Nichols, J. (1995). Demography of birds in a neotropical forest: effects of allometry, taxonomy, and ecology. Ecology 76: 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. H. and Kodric-Brown, A. (1977). Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58: 445–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, H.-G., Peintinger, M., Heine, G. and Zeidler, U. (2005). Veränderungen der Brutvogelbestände am Bodensee: Ergebnisse der halbquantitativen Gitterfeldkartierungen 1980, 1990 und 2000. Die Vogelwelt 126: 141–160.Google Scholar
Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Caswell, H. (2001). Matrix Population Models: Construction, Analysis, and Interpretation. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Dale, S., Lunde, A. and Steifetten, O. (2005). Longer breeding dispersal than natal dispersal in the ortolan bunting. Behavioral Ecology 16: 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, A., Ross, D., O’Malley, S. L. C. and Burke, T. (1994). Paternal investment inversely related to degree of extra-pair paternity in the reed bunting. Nature 371: 698–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glutz von Blotzheim, U. N. and Bauer, K. M. (1997). Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Aula, Wiesbaden, Germany.Google Scholar
Griffith, S. C., Owens, I. P. F. and Thuman, K. A. (2002). Extra-pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Molecular Ecology 11: 2195–2212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, R., C. Double, M., Orr, K. and Dawson, R. J. G. (1998). A DNA test to sex most birds. Molecular Ecology 7: 1071–1075.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanski, I. (1999). Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Hanski, I. (2005). The Shrinking World: Ecological Consequences of Habitat Loss. International Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. (1991). Local extinction in a metapopulation context: an empirical evaluation. In Metapopulation Dynamics: Empirical and Theoretical Investigations (Gilpin, M. E. and Hanski, I., eds.). Academic Press, London: 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hestbeck, J. B., Nichols, J. D. and Malecki, R. A. (1991). Estimates of movement and site fidelity using mark–resight data of wintering Canada geese. Ecology 72: 523–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hixon, M. A., Pacala, S. W. and Sandin, S. A. (2002). Population regulation: historical context and contemporary challenges of open vs. closed systems. Ecology 83: 1490–1508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawecki, T. J. (2004). Ecological and evolutionary consequences of source–sink population dynamics. In Ecology, Genetics and Evolution of Metapopulations (Hanski, I. and Gaggiotti, O. E., eds.). Academic Press, San Diego, CA: 387–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keiser, M. (2007). Habitat occupation strategies and breeding behaviour in reed buntings (Emberiza schoeniclus). PhD thesis, Departement für Biologie, Abteilung Ökologie und Evolution, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Switzerland.
Kleven, O. and Lifjeld, J. T. (2005). No evidence for increased offspring heterozygosity from extrapair mating in the reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus). Behavioral Ecology 16: 561–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krementz, D. G., Nichols, J. D. and Hines, J. E. (1989). Postfledging survival of European starlings. Ecology 70: 646–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebreton, J.-D., Burnham, K. P., Clobert, J. and Anderson, D. R. (1992). Modelling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: a unified approach with case studies. Ecological Monographs 62: 67–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthysen, E. (1999). Nuthatches (Sitta europaea: Aves) in forest fragments: demography of a patchy population. Oecologia 119: 501–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer, C. (2009). Living in a naturally fragmented world: from extra-pair paternity in local populations to spatial population structure of the Reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus) across Europe. PhD thesis, Institute of Zoology, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
Mayer, C., Schiegg, K. and Pasinelli, G. (2009). Patchy population structure in a short-distance migrant: evidence from genetic and demographic data. Molecular Ecology 18: 2353–2364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, W. F. and Doak, D. F. (2002). Quantitative Conservation Biology: Theory and Practice of Population Viability Analysis. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Naef-Daenzer, B., Widmer, F. and Nuber, M. (2001). Differential post-fledging survival of great and coal tits in relation to their condition and fledging date. Journal of Animal Ecology 70: 730–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ovaskainen, O. and Hanski, I. (2003). How much does an individual habitat fragment contribute to metapopulation dynamics and persistence?Theoretical Population Biology 64: 481–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paradis, E., Baillie, S. R., Sutherland, W. J. and Gregory, R. D. (1998). Patterns of natal and breeding dispersal in birds. Journal of Animal Ecology 67: 518–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasinelli, G. and Schiegg, K. (2006). Fragmentation within and between wetland reserves: the importance of spatial scales for nest predation in reed buntings. Ecography 29: 721–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasinelli, G., Mayer, C., Gouskov, A. and Schiegg, K. (2008). Small and large wetland fragments are equally suited breeding sites for a ground-nesting passerine. Oecologia 156: 703–714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peach, W. J., Hanmer, D. B. and Oatley, T. B. (2001). Do southern African songbirds live longer than their European counterparts?Oikos 93: 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peach, W. J., Siriwardena, G. M. and Gregory, R. D. (1999). Long-term changes in over-winter survival rates explain the decline of reed buntings Emberiza schoeniclus in Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 36: 798–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, L. A. (2007). Approximating variance of demographic parameters using the Delta method: a reference for avian biologists. Condor 109: 949–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, L. A., Lang, J. D., Conroy, M. J. and Krementz, D. G. (2000). Effects of forest management on density, survival, and population growth of wood thrushes. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pradel, R., Wintrebert, C. M. A. and Gimenez, O. (2003). A proposal for a goodness-of-fit test to the Arnason–Schwarz multisite capture–recapture model. Biometrics 59: 43–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pulliam, H. R. (1988). Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132: 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runge, J. P., Runge, M. C. and Nichols, J. D. (2006). The role of local populations within a landscape context: defining and classifying sources and sinks. American Naturalist 167: 925–938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmid, H., Luder, R., Naef-Daenzer, B., Graf, R. and Zbinden, N. (1998). Schweizer Brutvogelatlas: Verbreitung der Brutvögel in der Schweiz und im Fürstentum Liechtenstein 1993–1996. Schweizerische Vogelwarte, Sempach, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Senar, J. C., Conroy, M. J. and Borras, A. (2003). Asymmetric exchange between populations differing in habitat quality: a metapopulation study on the citril finch. Journal of Applied Statistics 29: 425–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillett, T. S. and Holmes, R. T. (2002). Variation in survivorship of a migratory songbird throughout its annual cycle. Journal of Animal Ecology 71: 296–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvestri, G. (2006). Do food supply and reproductive success vary with site size?Institute of Zoology, University of Zurich, Zurich.Google Scholar
Siriwardena, G. M., Baillie, S. R. and Wilson, J. D. (1998). Variation in the survival rates of some British passerines with respect to their population trends on farmland. Bird Study 45: 276–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stacey, P. B. and Taper, M. (1992). Environmental variation and the persistence of small populations. Ecological Applications 2: 18–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Surmacki, A. (2004). Habitat use by reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus in an intensively used farmland in western Poland. Ornis Fennica 81: 137–143.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. L., Baillie, S. R. and Peach, W. J. (1999). A method for studying post-fledging survival rates using data from ringing recoveries. Bird Study 46: S104–S111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Noordwijk, A. J. (1984). Problems in the analysis of dispersal and a critique on its “heritability” in the great tit. Journal of Animal Ecology 53: 533–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, J. R. (1998). The ecological basis of avian sensitivity to habitat fragmentation. In Avian Conservation: Research and Management (Marzluff, J. M. and Sallabanks, R., eds.). Island Press, Washington, DC: 181–192.Google Scholar
Weatherhead, P. J. and Forbes, M. R. L. (1994). Natal philopatry in passerine birds: genetic or ecological influences?Behavioral Ecology 5: 426–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, G. C. and Burnham, K. P. (1999). Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46: S120–S139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yackel Adams, A. A., Skagen, S. K. and Savidge, J. A. (2006). Modeling post-fledging survival of lark buntings in response to ecological and biological factors. Ecology 87: 178–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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
×