Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: extinction, theoretical ecology, food webs, metapopulation, Ecology, Environmental Science, metacommunity, trophic levels
Traditionally, community models have focused on density-dependent factors. More recently, though, studies that consider populations interacting on a spatial (as well as temporal) scale have become very popular. These metacommunity models often use the patch-occupancy approach, where the focus is on regional dynamics (patches are classied as simply occupied or vacant). A few studies have extended this work by modelling local dynamics explicitly, although the food webs involved have been relatively simple. This paper takes the next step and considers a spatially explicit habitat where species interact across three trophic levels. The aim is to investigate how web connectance, patch abundance and dispersal patterns aect a community's ability to recover from the loss of a species. I nd that asynchrony among patch dynamics may arise from relatively low rates of migration, and that the inclusion of space signicantly reduces the risk of cascading extinctions. It is shown that communities with sparsely connected food webs are the most sensitive to perturbations, but also that they are particularly well stabilised by the introduction of space. In agreement with theoretical studies of non-spatial habitats, species holding the highest trophic rank are the most susceptible to secondary extinctions, although they often take the longest to die out. This is particularly pronounced in spatial habitats, where the top predator appears to be the least well adapted to exploit the stabilising properties of space. Results such as these are discussed in detail, and their implications are set in the context of habitat management.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] Andrewartha, H. G. and Birch, L. C., eds. (1954). The Distribution and Abundance of Animals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.
    • [2] Bascompte, J. and Sole, R. V. (1998). The E ects of Habitat Destruction in a Predator-Prey Metapopulation Model. Journal of Theoretical Biology 195: 383-393.
    • [3] Blueweiss, L., Fox, H., Kudzma, V., Nakashima, D., Peters, R. and Sams, S. (1978). Relationships Between Body Size and Some Life History Parameters. Oecologia (Berlin) 37: 257-272.
    • [4] Caswell, H. (1978). Predator-Mediated Coexistence: A Non-Equilibrium Model. American Naturalist 112: 127-154.
    • [5] Chen, X. and Cohen, J. E. (2001). Global Stability, Local Stability and Permanence in Model Food Webs. Journal of Theoretical Biology 212: 223-235.
    • [6] Chesson, P. and Huntly, N. (1997). The Roles of Harsh and Fluctuating Conditions in the Dynamics of Ecological Communities. American Naturalist 150: 519-553.
    • [7] Cohen, J. E., Jonsson, T. and Carpenter, S. R. (2002). Ecological Community Description Using the Food Web, Species Abundance and Body Size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100: 1781-1786.
    • [8] Cramer, N. F. and May, R. M. (1971). Interspeci c Competition, Predation and Species Diversity: a Comment. Journal of Theoretica Biology 34: 289-293.
    • [9] de Ross, A. M. and Sabelis, M. W. (1995). Why Does Space Matter? In a Spatial Model it is Hard to See the Forest Before the Trees. Oikos 74: 347-348.
    • [10] Ebenman, B., Law, R. and Borrvall, C. (2004). Community Viability Analysis: The Response of Ecological Communities to Species Loss. Ecology (in press).
    • [11] Engen, S., Bakke, . and Islam, A. (1998). Demographic and Environmental Stochasticity | Concepts and De nitions. Biometrics bf : 840-846.
    • [12] Estes, J. A. and Palmisano, J. F. (1974). Sea Otters: Their Role in Structuring Nearshore Communities. Science 185: 1058-1060.
    • [13] Frodin, P., Fowler, M. and Enberg, K. (2002). The E ects of Space and Patch Number on Community Persistence. Space Interactions and Community Structure (PhD. Thesis, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden).
    • [14] Gause, G. F. (1935). The Struggle for Existence. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, USA.
    • [15] Hastings, A. (1988). Food Web Theory and Stability. Ecology 69: 1665-1668.
    • [16] Hanski, I. A. and Woiwod, I. P. (1993). Spatial Synchrony in the Dynamics of Moth and Aphid Populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 62: 656-668.
    • [17] Hanski, I. A. and Gilpin, M. E. (1997). Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics and Evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, USA.
    • [18] Hollyoak, M. and Lawler, S. P. (1996). The Role of Dispersal in Predator-Prey Metapopulation Dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 65: 640-652.
    • [19] Holt, R. D. (2002). Food Webs in Space: On the Interplay of Dynamic Instability and Spatial Processes. Ecological Research 17: 261-273.
    • [20] Holt, R. D., Lawton, J. H., Polis, G. A. and Martinez, N. D. (1999). Trophic Rank and the Species-Area Relationship. Ecology 80: 1495-1504.
    • [21] Hu aker, C. B. (1958). Experimental Studies on Predation: Dispersion Factors and Predator-Prey Oscillations. Hilgardia 27: 343-383.
    • [22] Jansen, W. (1987). A Permanence Theorem for Replicator and Lotka-Volterra systems. Journal of Mathematical Biology 25: 411-422.
    • [23] Jansen, V. A. A. (1995). Regulation of Predator-Prey Systems Through Spatial Interations: a Possible Solution to the Paradox of Enrichment. Oikos 74: 384-390.
    • [24] Kondoh, M. (2003). Foraging Adaptation and the Relationship Between Food-Web Complexity and Stability. Science 299: 1388-1391.
    • [25] Law, R. and Blackford, J. C. (1992). Self-Assembling Food Webs: A Global Viewpoint of Coexistence of Species in Lotka-Volterra Communities. Ecology 73: 567-578.
    • [26] Law, R. and Morton, D. (1993). Alternative Permanent States of Ecological Communities. Ecology 74: 1347- 1361.
    • [27] Leibold, M. A., Hollyoak, M., Mouquet, N., Amarasekare, P., Chase, J. M., Hoopes, M. F., Holt, R. D., Shurin, J. B., Law, R., Tilman, D., Loreau, M. and Gonzalez, A. (2004). The Metacommunity Concept: a Framework for Multi-Scale Community Ecology. Ecology Letters 7: 601-613.
    • [28] Levins, R. (1969). Some Demographic and Genetic Consequences of Environmental Heterogeneity for Biological Control. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 15: 237-240.
    • [29] Levins, R. (1970). Extinction. Some Mathematical Problems in Biology 2: 76-107.
    • [30] Lewis, H. M. (2004). Masters Thesis, University of York, York, UK.
    • [31] Lundberg, P., Ranta, E. and Kaitala, V. (2000). Species Leads to Community Closure. Ecology Letters 3: 465-468.
    • [32] MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.
    • [33] Mayers, R. A. and Worm, B. (2003). Rapid Worldwide Depletion of Predatory Fish Communities. Nature 423: 280-283.
    • [34] McCann K. S. (2000). The Diversity-Stabilty Debate. Nature 405: 228-233.
    • [35] McCann K. S., Hastings A. and Huxel G. R. (1998). Weak Trophic Interactions and the Balance of Nature. Nature 395: 794-798.
    • [36] Melian, C. J. and Bascompte, J. (2002). Food Web Structure and Habitat Loss. Ecological Letters 5: 37-46.
    • [37] Nee, S., May, R. M. and Hassell, M. P. (1997). Two-Species Metapopulation Models. In Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics and Evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, USA.
    • [38] Schuster, P., Sigmund, K. and Wol , R. (1979). Dynamical Systems Under Constant Organisation III: Cooperative and Competitive Behaviour of Hypercycles. Journal of Di erential Equations 32: 357-368.
    • [39] Ranta, E., Kaitala, V. and Lindstrom, J. and Linden, H. (1995). Synchrony in Population Dynamics. Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences 262: 113-118.
    • [40] Ranta, E., Kaitala, V. and Lundberg, P. (1997). The Spatial Dimension in Population Fluctuations. Science 278: 1621-1623.
    • [41] Riciardi, A. and Rasmussen, J. B. (2000). Extinction Rates of North American Freshwaer Fauna. Conservation Biology 13: 1220-1222.
    • [42] Ro , D. A. (1992). The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
    • [43] Thomas, C. D., Cameron, A., Green, R. E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L. J., Collingham, Y. C., Erasmus, B. F. N., de Siqueira, M. F., Grainger, A., Hannah, L., Hughes, L., Huntley, B., van Jaarsveld, A. S., Midgley, G. F., Miles, L., Ortega-Huerta, M. A., Peterson, A. T., Phillips, O. L. and Williams, S. E. (2004). Extinction Risk From Climate Change. Nature 427: 145-148.
    • [44] Thomas, J. A., Telfer, M. G, Roy, D. B., Preston, C. D., Greenwood, J. J. D., Asher, J., Fox, R., Clarke, R. T. and Lawton, J. H. Comparative Losses of British Butter ies, Birds and Plants, and the Global Extinction Crisis. Science 303: 1879-1881.
    • [45] Tilman, D. and Kareiva, P. (1997). Spatial Ecology: The Role of Space in Population Dynamics and Interspeci c Interactions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.
    • [46] Wootton, J. T. (1997). Estimates and Tests of Per Capita Interaction Strength: Diet, Abundance and Impact of Intertidally Foraging Birds. Ecological Monographs 67: 45-64.
    • Department of Mathematics, University of York, York, North Yorkshire, YO10 5DD, UK. E-mail address:
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article