4.7 Article

From population sources to sieves: The matrix alters host-parasitoid source-sink structure

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 88, 期 12, 页码 2966-2976

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1890/07-0070.1

关键词

anagrus columbi; egg parasitoid; emigration; extinction; host-parasitoid interactions; matrix; metapopulation; planthopper; Prokelisia crocea; pseudosink; sieve; source-sink structure

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Field experiments that examine the impact of immigration, emigration, or landscape structure (e. g., the composition of the matrix) on the source-sink dynamics of fragmented populations are scarce. Here, planthoppers (Prokelisia crocea) and egg parasitoids (Anagrus columbi) were released among host-plant patches that varied in structural ( caged, isolated, or in a network of other patches) and functional (mud. at matrix that impedes dispersal vs. brome-grass matrix that facilitates dispersal) connectivity. Planthoppers and parasitoids on caged patches exhibited density-dependent growth rates, achieved high equilibrium densities, and rarely went extinct. Therefore, experimental cordgrass patches were classified as population sources. Because access to immigrants did not result in elevated population densities, source populations were not also pseudosinks, i.e., patches whose densities occur above carrying capacity due to high immigration. Planthoppers and parasitoids in open patches in mud. at had dynamics similar to those in caged patches, but went extinct in 4-5 generations in open patches in brome. Brome-embedded patches leaked emigrants at a rate that exceeded the gains from reproduction and immigration; populations of this sort are known as population sieves. For species whose suitable patches are becoming smaller and more isolated as a result of increased habitat fragmentation, emigration losses are likely to become paramount, a condition favoring the formation of population sieves. An increase in the proportion of patches that are sieves is predicted to destabilize regional population dynamics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据