Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Habitat structure and population persistence in an experimental community

Nature volume 412, pages 538–543 (2001)Cite this article

Abstract

Understanding spatial population dynamics is fundamental for many questions in ecology and conservation1,2,3,4. Many theoretical mechanisms have been proposed whereby spatial structure can promote population persistence, in particular for exploiter–victim systems (host–parasite/pathogen, predator–prey) whose interactions are inherently oscillatory and therefore prone to extinction of local populations5,6,7,8,9,10,11. Experiments have confirmed that spatial structure can extend persistence11,12,13,14,15,16, but it has rarely been possible to identify the specific mechanisms involved. Here we use a model-based approach to identify the effects of spatial population processes in experimental systems of bean plants (Phaseolus lunatus), herbivorous mites (Tetranychus urticae) and predatory mites (Phytoseiulus persimilis). On isolated plants, and in a spatially undivided experimental system of 90 plants, prey and predator populations collapsed; however, introducing habitat structure allowed long-term persistence. Using mechanistic models, we determine that spatial population structure did not contribute to persistence, and spatially explicit models are not needed. Rather, habitat structure reduced the success of predators at locating prey outbreaks, allowing between-plant asynchrony of local population cycles due to random colonization events.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Experimental layouts and results.
Figure 2: Examples of mite population dynamics on a single plant, from run B of the metapopulation experiment.
Figure 3: Total prey and predator mite densities in consecutive replicate runs of the simulation models.
Figure 4: Summary measures of temporal patterns in model output and experimental results.

References

  1. Tilman, D. & Kareiva, P. (eds) Spatial Ecology: the Role of Space in Population Dynamics and Interspecific Interactions (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dieckmann, U., Law, R. & Metz, J. A. J. (eds) The Geometry of Ecological Interactions: Simplifying Spatial Complexity (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2000).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Hanski, I. A. & Gilpin, M. E. (eds) Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution (Academic, San Diego, 1997).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Levin, S. A., Grenfell, B., Hastings, A. & Perelson, A. S. Mathematical and computational challenges in population biology and ecosystems science. Science 275, 334–343 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. May, R. M. Host–parasitoid systems in patchy environments: a phenomenological model. J. Anim. Ecol. 47, 833–843 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sabelis, M. W. & Diekmann, O. Overall population stability despite local extinction: the stabilizing effect of prey dispersal from predator-invaded patches. Theor. Popul. Biol. 34, 169–176 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hassell, M. P. & May, R. M. Spatial heterogeneity and the dynamics of parasitoid–host systems. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 25, 55–61 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hassell, M. P., Comins, H. N. & May, R. M. Spatial structure and chaos in insect population dynamics. Nature 353, 255–258 (1991).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. de Roos, A. M., McCauley, E. & Wilson, W. Mobility versus density limited predator–prey dynamics on different spatial scales. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 246, 117–122 (1991).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sabelis, M. W., Diekmann, O. & Jansen, V. A. A. Metapopulation persistence despite local extinction—predator–prey patch models of the Lotka-Volterra type. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 42, 267–283 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Murdoch, W. W. Population regulation in theory and practice. Ecology 75, 271–287 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Huffaker, C. B., Shea, K. P. & Herman, S. G. Experimental studies on predation: complex dispersion and levels of food in an acarine predator–prey interaction. Hilgardia 34, 305–330 (1963).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. van de Klashorst, G., Readshaw, G. L., Sabelis, M. W. & Lingeman, R. A demonstration of asynchronous local cycles in an acarine predator–prey system. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 14, 185–199 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Holyoak, M. & Lawler, S. P. Persistence of an extinction prone predator–prey interaction through metapopulation dynamics. Ecology 77, 1867–1879 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Janssen, A., van Gool, E., Lingeman, R., Jacas, J. & van de Klashorst, G. Metapopulation dynamics of a persisting predator–prey system in the laboratory: time-series analysis. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 21, 415–430 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Holyoak, M. Habitat patch arrangement and metapopulation persistence of predators and prey. Am. Nat. 156, 378–389 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pels, B. & Sabelis, M. W. Local dynamics, overexploitation and predator dispersal in an acarine predator–prey system. Oikos 86, 573–583 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McCauley, E. et al. Inferring colonization processes from population dynamics in spatially structured predator–prey systems. Ecology 81, 3350–3361 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  19. McCauley, E., de Roos, A. M. & Wilson, W. Dynamics of age- and spatially-structured predator–prey interactions: individual based models and population level formulations. Am. Nat. 142, 412–442 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. de Roos, A. M., McCauley, E. & Wilson, W. Pattern formation and the spatial scale of interactions between predators and their prey. Theor. Popul. Biol. 53, 108–130 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nisbet, R. M. & Gurney, W. S. C. Modelling Fluctuating Populations Ch. 10 (Wiley, New York, 1982).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Helle, W. & Sabelis, M. W. (eds) Spider Mites, their Biology, Natural Enemies, and Control (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sabelis, M. W. & van der Meer, J. in Dynamics of Physiologically Structured Populations (eds Metz, J. A. J. & Diekmann, O.) 322–344 (Springer, New York, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hastings, A. Spatial heterogeneity and stability of predator–prey systems. Theor. Popul. Biol. 12, 37–48 (1977).

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Wright, S. Isolation by distance. Genetics 28, 114–138 (1943).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Gurney, W. S. C., Nisbet, R. M. & Lawton, J. H. The systematic formulation of tractable single-species population models incorporating age structure. J. Anim. Ecol. 52, 479–495 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Caswell, H. Matrix Population Models: Construction, Analysis, and Interpretation (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sabelis, M. W. How to analyze prey preference when prey density varies? A new method to discriminate between effects of gut fullness and prey type composition. Oecologia 82, 289–298 (1990).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Sabelis, M. W. & Nagelkerke, C. J. Sex allocation strategies of pseudoarrhenotokous phytoseiid mites. Neth. J. Zool. 37, 117–136 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank E. van Gool for assistance with the experiments. This work was undertaken as part of the Working Group on Complex Population Dynamics at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, a centre funded by the US National Science Foundation, University of California–Santa Barbara, and the State of California. A.J. and M.W.S. carried out experiments; E.M., B.E.K., C.J.B. and S.N.W. conceived and fitted colonization models; S.P.E., S.N.W., P.R.H., A.J., P.T., R.M.N. and W.W.N. conceived and fitted structured population models; S.P.E., P.R.H., S.N.W. and C.J.B. implemented the models; S.P.E., E.M. and B.E.K. carried out comparisons of models with data; and S.P.E., E.M., A.J., M.W.S. and P.R.H. prepared the original manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, 14853-2701, New York, USA

    Stephen P. Ellner

  2. Ecology Division, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, T2N 1N4, Canada

    Edward McCauley

  3. Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management,

    Bruce E. Kendall

  4. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, 93106, California, USA

    Parveiz R. Hosseini, Roger M. Nisbet & William W. Murdoch

  5. Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, 94720, California, USA

    Cheryl J. Briggs

  6. School of Mathematical and Computation Sciences, University of St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9SS, Scotland, UK

    Simon N. Wood

  7. Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, PO Box 94084, Amsterdam, 1090 GB, The Netherlands

    Arne Janssen & Maurice W. Sabelis

  8. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, 06269, Connecticut, USA

    Peter Turchin

Authors
  1. Stephen P. Ellner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edward McCauley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruce E. Kendall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cheryl J. Briggs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Parveiz R. Hosseini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Simon N. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Arne Janssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Maurice W. Sabelis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Peter Turchin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Roger M. Nisbet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. William W. Murdoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen P. Ellner.

Supplementary information

Figure 1

(GIF 10.6 KB)

Metapopulation swapping experiments

The Metapopulation Swapping experiments followed the same protocols as the two Metapopulation experiments described in the text, again having two replicate systems operating simultaneously in the same environmental chamber and given identical inoculations of mites. In the "swapping" replicate of this experiment, on each census date plants were paired at random and the locations of paired plants were interchanged; in the "control" replicate plants remained in place. All other experimental procedures were the same as in the Metapopulation experiments described in the text. The figure below shows the fluctuations in the total density of prey (circles) and predatory (triangles) mites in the control (open symbols) and swapping (solid symbols) replicates. The experimental results are consistent with our conclusion that spatial pattern did not play an important role in the dynamics of the Metapopulation systems, in that a significant manipulation of the populations' spatial structure had very little effect on short-term dynamics. However the duration of the swapping experiment was only 91d, which is shorter than the extinction time of the SuperIsland experiment and consequently too brief to determine if long-term persistence would occur.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ellner, S., McCauley, E., Kendall, B. et al. Habitat structure and population persistence in an experimental community. Nature 412, 538–543 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/35087580

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35087580

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing