Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations?
Amphibians are frequently characterized as having limited dispersal abilities, strong site fidelity and spatially disjunct breeding habitat. As such, pond-breeding species are often alleged to form metapopulations. Amphibian species worldwide appear to be suffering population level declines caused,...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ecography (Copenhagen) 2005-02, Vol.28 (1), p.110-128 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 128 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 110 |
container_title | Ecography (Copenhagen) |
container_volume | 28 |
creator | Alex Smith, M. M. Green, David |
description | Amphibians are frequently characterized as having limited dispersal abilities, strong site fidelity and spatially disjunct breeding habitat. As such, pond-breeding species are often alleged to form metapopulations. Amphibian species worldwide appear to be suffering population level declines caused, at least in part, by the degradation and fragmentation of habitat and the intervening areas between habitat patches. If the simplification of amphibians occupying metapopulations is accurate, then a regionally based conservation strategy, informed by metapopulation theory, is a powerful tool to estimate the isolation and extinction risk of ponds or populations. However, to date no attempt to assess the class-wide generalization of amphibian populations as metapopulations has been made. We reviewed the literature on amphibians as metapopulations (53 journal articles or theses) and amphibian dispersal (166 journal articles or theses for 53 anuran species and 37 salamander species) to evaluate whether the conditions for metapopulation structure had been tested, whether pond isolation was based only on the assumption of limited dispersal, and whether amphibian dispersal was uniformly limited. We found that in the majority of cases (74%) the assumptions of the metapopulation paradigm were not tested. Breeding patch isolation via limited dispersal and/or strong site fidelity was the most frequently implicated or tested metapopulation condition, however we found strong evidence that amphibian dispersal is not as uniformly limited as is often thought. The frequency distribution of maximum movements for anurans and salamanders was well described by an inverse power law. This relationship predicts that distances beneath 11-13 and 8-9 km, respectively, are in a range that they may receive one emigrating individual. Populations isolated by distances approaching this range are perhaps more likely to exhibit metapopulation structure than less isolated populations. Those studies that covered larger areas also tended to report longer maximum movement distances - a pattern with implications for the design of mark-recapture studies. Caution should be exercised in the application of the metapopulation approach to amphibian population conservation. Some amphibian populations are structured as metapopulations - but not all. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.04042.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17629531</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3683453</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3683453</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5002-6af99ac0c94b5010da229309f30a8711998aba9dd5a9b20ff7d9536bd0d3adb33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkM1u1DAURi1EJYbCG7DwBnZJr-PYiVmA0NBOkUbtpgjExrpJnNaD84OdaWdWvDrJpJoiVnhjS_d851ofIZRBzMZztolBgYwyoSBOAEQMKaRJvHtGFkwCRCDy7DlZHKEX5GUIGwCWKJkvyO_PNvTGB3QU24oOd4Y2ZsC-67cOB9u1tEePlb1tqG0pNv2dLSy21JSd6273h1DZtcH4-wP-nqI3FJ37i32ShX_k4eMrclKjC-b1431Kvl6c3ywvo_X16svy0zoqBUASSayVwhJKlRYCGFSYJIqDqjlgnjGmVI4FqqoSqIoE6jqrlOCyqKDiWBWcn5J3s7f33a-tCYNubCiNc9iabhs0y2QyJtgI5jNY-i4Eb2rde9ug32sGempcb_RUpp7K1FPj-tC43o3Rt487MJToao9tacNTXqYZUzD95cPMPVhn9v_t1-fL69X0HAVvZsEmDJ0_CrjMeSomfzSPbRjM7jhG_1PLjGdCf7ta6fWP9ffLm5Rrwf8A9UCwIA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>17629531</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations?</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Alex Smith, M. ; M. Green, David</creator><creatorcontrib>Alex Smith, M. ; M. Green, David</creatorcontrib><description>Amphibians are frequently characterized as having limited dispersal abilities, strong site fidelity and spatially disjunct breeding habitat. As such, pond-breeding species are often alleged to form metapopulations. Amphibian species worldwide appear to be suffering population level declines caused, at least in part, by the degradation and fragmentation of habitat and the intervening areas between habitat patches. If the simplification of amphibians occupying metapopulations is accurate, then a regionally based conservation strategy, informed by metapopulation theory, is a powerful tool to estimate the isolation and extinction risk of ponds or populations. However, to date no attempt to assess the class-wide generalization of amphibian populations as metapopulations has been made. We reviewed the literature on amphibians as metapopulations (53 journal articles or theses) and amphibian dispersal (166 journal articles or theses for 53 anuran species and 37 salamander species) to evaluate whether the conditions for metapopulation structure had been tested, whether pond isolation was based only on the assumption of limited dispersal, and whether amphibian dispersal was uniformly limited. We found that in the majority of cases (74%) the assumptions of the metapopulation paradigm were not tested. Breeding patch isolation via limited dispersal and/or strong site fidelity was the most frequently implicated or tested metapopulation condition, however we found strong evidence that amphibian dispersal is not as uniformly limited as is often thought. The frequency distribution of maximum movements for anurans and salamanders was well described by an inverse power law. This relationship predicts that distances beneath 11-13 and 8-9 km, respectively, are in a range that they may receive one emigrating individual. Populations isolated by distances approaching this range are perhaps more likely to exhibit metapopulation structure than less isolated populations. Those studies that covered larger areas also tended to report longer maximum movement distances - a pattern with implications for the design of mark-recapture studies. Caution should be exercised in the application of the metapopulation approach to amphibian population conservation. Some amphibian populations are structured as metapopulations - but not all.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0906-7590</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0587</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.04042.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Copenhagen: Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><subject>Amphibians ; Animal and plant ecology ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Applied ecology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife ; Environmental conservation ; Fresh water ecosystems ; Freshwater ; Frogs ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Habitat conservation ; Metapopulation ecology ; Minireview ; Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking ; Ponds ; Population ecology ; Population structure ; Salamanders ; Synecology ; Toads</subject><ispartof>Ecography (Copenhagen), 2005-02, Vol.28 (1), p.110-128</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2005 Ecography</rights><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5002-6af99ac0c94b5010da229309f30a8711998aba9dd5a9b20ff7d9536bd0d3adb33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5002-6af99ac0c94b5010da229309f30a8711998aba9dd5a9b20ff7d9536bd0d3adb33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3683453$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3683453$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,1417,27923,27924,45573,45574,58016,58249</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=16471903$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Alex Smith, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>M. Green, David</creatorcontrib><title>Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations?</title><title>Ecography (Copenhagen)</title><addtitle>Ecography</addtitle><description>Amphibians are frequently characterized as having limited dispersal abilities, strong site fidelity and spatially disjunct breeding habitat. As such, pond-breeding species are often alleged to form metapopulations. Amphibian species worldwide appear to be suffering population level declines caused, at least in part, by the degradation and fragmentation of habitat and the intervening areas between habitat patches. If the simplification of amphibians occupying metapopulations is accurate, then a regionally based conservation strategy, informed by metapopulation theory, is a powerful tool to estimate the isolation and extinction risk of ponds or populations. However, to date no attempt to assess the class-wide generalization of amphibian populations as metapopulations has been made. We reviewed the literature on amphibians as metapopulations (53 journal articles or theses) and amphibian dispersal (166 journal articles or theses for 53 anuran species and 37 salamander species) to evaluate whether the conditions for metapopulation structure had been tested, whether pond isolation was based only on the assumption of limited dispersal, and whether amphibian dispersal was uniformly limited. We found that in the majority of cases (74%) the assumptions of the metapopulation paradigm were not tested. Breeding patch isolation via limited dispersal and/or strong site fidelity was the most frequently implicated or tested metapopulation condition, however we found strong evidence that amphibian dispersal is not as uniformly limited as is often thought. The frequency distribution of maximum movements for anurans and salamanders was well described by an inverse power law. This relationship predicts that distances beneath 11-13 and 8-9 km, respectively, are in a range that they may receive one emigrating individual. Populations isolated by distances approaching this range are perhaps more likely to exhibit metapopulation structure than less isolated populations. Those studies that covered larger areas also tended to report longer maximum movement distances - a pattern with implications for the design of mark-recapture studies. Caution should be exercised in the application of the metapopulation approach to amphibian population conservation. Some amphibian populations are structured as metapopulations - but not all.</description><subject>Amphibians</subject><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Applied ecology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</subject><subject>Environmental conservation</subject><subject>Fresh water ecosystems</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>Frogs</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Habitat conservation</subject><subject>Metapopulation ecology</subject><subject>Minireview</subject><subject>Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking</subject><subject>Ponds</subject><subject>Population ecology</subject><subject>Population structure</subject><subject>Salamanders</subject><subject>Synecology</subject><subject>Toads</subject><issn>0906-7590</issn><issn>1600-0587</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkM1u1DAURi1EJYbCG7DwBnZJr-PYiVmA0NBOkUbtpgjExrpJnNaD84OdaWdWvDrJpJoiVnhjS_d851ofIZRBzMZztolBgYwyoSBOAEQMKaRJvHtGFkwCRCDy7DlZHKEX5GUIGwCWKJkvyO_PNvTGB3QU24oOd4Y2ZsC-67cOB9u1tEePlb1tqG0pNv2dLSy21JSd6273h1DZtcH4-wP-nqI3FJ37i32ShX_k4eMrclKjC-b1431Kvl6c3ywvo_X16svy0zoqBUASSayVwhJKlRYCGFSYJIqDqjlgnjGmVI4FqqoSqIoE6jqrlOCyqKDiWBWcn5J3s7f33a-tCYNubCiNc9iabhs0y2QyJtgI5jNY-i4Eb2rde9ug32sGempcb_RUpp7K1FPj-tC43o3Rt487MJToao9tacNTXqYZUzD95cPMPVhn9v_t1-fL69X0HAVvZsEmDJ0_CrjMeSomfzSPbRjM7jhG_1PLjGdCf7ta6fWP9ffLm5Rrwf8A9UCwIA</recordid><startdate>200502</startdate><enddate>200502</enddate><creator>Alex Smith, M.</creator><creator>M. Green, David</creator><general>Munksgaard International Publishers</general><general>Blackwell Publishers</general><general>Blackwell</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200502</creationdate><title>Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations?</title><author>Alex Smith, M. ; M. Green, David</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5002-6af99ac0c94b5010da229309f30a8711998aba9dd5a9b20ff7d9536bd0d3adb33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Amphibians</topic><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Applied ecology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</topic><topic>Environmental conservation</topic><topic>Fresh water ecosystems</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>Frogs</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Habitat conservation</topic><topic>Metapopulation ecology</topic><topic>Minireview</topic><topic>Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking</topic><topic>Ponds</topic><topic>Population ecology</topic><topic>Population structure</topic><topic>Salamanders</topic><topic>Synecology</topic><topic>Toads</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Alex Smith, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>M. Green, David</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Ecography (Copenhagen)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Alex Smith, M.</au><au>M. Green, David</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations?</atitle><jtitle>Ecography (Copenhagen)</jtitle><addtitle>Ecography</addtitle><date>2005-02</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>110</spage><epage>128</epage><pages>110-128</pages><issn>0906-7590</issn><eissn>1600-0587</eissn><abstract>Amphibians are frequently characterized as having limited dispersal abilities, strong site fidelity and spatially disjunct breeding habitat. As such, pond-breeding species are often alleged to form metapopulations. Amphibian species worldwide appear to be suffering population level declines caused, at least in part, by the degradation and fragmentation of habitat and the intervening areas between habitat patches. If the simplification of amphibians occupying metapopulations is accurate, then a regionally based conservation strategy, informed by metapopulation theory, is a powerful tool to estimate the isolation and extinction risk of ponds or populations. However, to date no attempt to assess the class-wide generalization of amphibian populations as metapopulations has been made. We reviewed the literature on amphibians as metapopulations (53 journal articles or theses) and amphibian dispersal (166 journal articles or theses for 53 anuran species and 37 salamander species) to evaluate whether the conditions for metapopulation structure had been tested, whether pond isolation was based only on the assumption of limited dispersal, and whether amphibian dispersal was uniformly limited. We found that in the majority of cases (74%) the assumptions of the metapopulation paradigm were not tested. Breeding patch isolation via limited dispersal and/or strong site fidelity was the most frequently implicated or tested metapopulation condition, however we found strong evidence that amphibian dispersal is not as uniformly limited as is often thought. The frequency distribution of maximum movements for anurans and salamanders was well described by an inverse power law. This relationship predicts that distances beneath 11-13 and 8-9 km, respectively, are in a range that they may receive one emigrating individual. Populations isolated by distances approaching this range are perhaps more likely to exhibit metapopulation structure than less isolated populations. Those studies that covered larger areas also tended to report longer maximum movement distances - a pattern with implications for the design of mark-recapture studies. Caution should be exercised in the application of the metapopulation approach to amphibian population conservation. Some amphibian populations are structured as metapopulations - but not all.</abstract><cop>Copenhagen</cop><pub>Munksgaard International Publishers</pub><doi>10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.04042.x</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0906-7590 |
ispartof | Ecography (Copenhagen), 2005-02, Vol.28 (1), p.110-128 |
issn | 0906-7590 1600-0587 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17629531 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | Amphibians Animal and plant ecology Animal, plant and microbial ecology Applied ecology Biological and medical sciences Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife Environmental conservation Fresh water ecosystems Freshwater Frogs Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Habitat conservation Metapopulation ecology Minireview Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking Ponds Population ecology Population structure Salamanders Synecology Toads |
title | Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T07%3A23%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dispersal%20and%20the%20metapopulation%20paradigm%20in%20amphibian%20ecology%20and%20conservation:%20are%20all%20amphibian%20populations%20metapopulations?&rft.jtitle=Ecography%20(Copenhagen)&rft.au=Alex%20Smith,%20M.&rft.date=2005-02&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=110&rft.epage=128&rft.pages=110-128&rft.issn=0906-7590&rft.eissn=1600-0587&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.04042.x&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3683453%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=17629531&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3683453&rfr_iscdi=true |