Modeling effects of matrix heterogeneity on population persistence at the patch-level
-
Published:2022
Issue:12
Volume:19
Page:13675-13709
-
ISSN:1551-0018
-
Container-title:Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:MBE
Author:
Fonseka Nalin1, Goddard Ⅱ Jerome2, Henderson Alketa3, Nichols Dustin3, Shivaji Ratnasingham3
Affiliation:
1. School of Arts and Sciences, Carolina University, Winston-Salem, NC 27101, USA 2. Department of Mathematics, Auburn University Montgomery, Montgomery, AL 36124, USA 3. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27412, USA
Abstract
<abstract><p>Habitat loss and fragmentation is the largest contributing factor to species extinction and declining biodiversity. Landscapes are becoming highly spatially heterogeneous with varying degrees of human modification. Much theoretical study of habitat fragmentation has historically focused on a simple theoretical landscape with patches of habitat surrounded by a spatially homogeneous hostile matrix. However, terrestrial habitat patches are often surrounded by complex mosaics of many different land cover types, which are rarely ecologically neutral or completely inhospitable environments. We employ an extension of a reaction diffusion model to explore effects of heterogeneity in the matrix immediately surrounding a patch in a one-dimensional theoretical landscape. Exact dynamics of a population exhibiting logistic growth, an unbiased random walk in the patch and matrix, habitat preference at the patch/matrix interface, and two functionally different matrix types for the one-dimensional landscape is obtained. These results show existence of a minimum patch size (MPS), below which population persistence is not possible. This MPS can be estimated via empirically derived estimates of patch intrinsic growth rate and diffusion rate, habitat preference, and matrix death and diffusion rates. We conclude that local matrix heterogeneity can greatly change model predictions, and argue that conservation strategies should not only consider patch size, configuration, and quality, but also quality and spatial structure of the surrounding matrix.</p></abstract>
Publisher
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
Subject
Applied Mathematics,Computational Mathematics,General Agricultural and Biological Sciences,Modeling and Simulation,General Medicine
Reference45 articles.
1. E. O. Wilson, Threats to biodiversity, Sci. Am., 261 (1989), 108–117. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24987402 2. L. Fahrig, How much habitat is enough?, Biol. Conserv., 100 (2001), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00208-1 3. I. Hanski, Habitat loss, the dynamics of biodiversity, and a perspective on conservation, AMBIO, 40 (2011), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0147-3 4. D. Tilman, M. Clark, D. R. Williams, K. Kimmel, S. Polasky, C. Packer, Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention, Nature, 546 (2017), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22900 5. K. J. J. Kuipers, J. P. Hilbers, J. Garcia-Ulloa, B. J. Graae, R. May, F. Verones, et al., Habitat fragmentation amplifies threats from habitat loss to mammal diversity across the world's terrestrial ecoregions, One Earth, 4 (2021), 1505–1513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.09.005
|
|