The implications of model formulation when transitioning from spatial to landscape ecology

Previous Article
An evaluation of dynamic outlet boundary conditions in a 1D fluid dynamics model
MBE Home
This Issue
Next Article
Nonlinear stochastic Markov processes and modeling uncertainty in populations

2012, 9(1): 27-60. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2012.9.27

The implications of model formulation when transitioning from spatial to landscape ecology

Robert Stephen Cantrell ^1, , Chris Cosner ^1, and William F. Fagan ^2,

1.	Department of Mathematics, The University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124, United States, United States
2.	Department of Biology, The University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, United States

Received January 2011 Revised May 2011 Published December 2011

Abstract
Related Papers

In this article we compare and contrast the predictions of some spatially explicit and implicit models in the context of a thought problem at the interface of spatial and landscape ecology. The situation we envision is a one-dimensional spatial universe of infinite extent in which there are two disjoint focal patches of a habitat type that is favorable to some specified species. We assume that neither patch is large enough by itself to sustain the species in question indefinitely, but that a single patch of size equal to the combined sizes of the two focal patches provides enough contiguous favorable habitat to sustain the given species indefinitely. When the two patches are separated by a patch of unfavorable matrix habitat, the natural expectation is that the species should persist indefinitely if the two patches are close enough to each other but should go extinct over time when the patches are far enough apart. Our focus here is to examine how different mathematical regimes may be employed to model this situation, with an eye toward exploring the trade-off between the mathematical tractability of the model on one hand and the suitability of its predictions on the other. In particular, we are interested in seeing how precisely the predictions of mathematically rich spatially explicit regimes (reaction-diffusion models, integro-difference models) can be matched by those of ostensibly mathematically simpler spatially implicit patch approximations (discrete-diffusion models, average dispersal success matrix models).

Keywords: spatially explicit models, spatial and landscape ecology, spatially distributed population dynamical patch models., Habitat fragmentation.

Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 92D40; Secondary: 92D2.

Citation: Robert Stephen Cantrell, Chris Cosner, William F. Fagan. The implications of model formulation when transitioning from spatial to landscape ecology. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2012, 9 (1) : 27-60. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2012.9.27

References:

[1]	A. Berman and J. Plemmons, "Nonnegative Matrices in the Mathematical Sciences," Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, Academic Press [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], New York-London, 1979.
[2]	K. J. Brown, C. Cosner and J. Fleckinger, Principal eigenvalues for problems with indefinite weight function on $\mathbbR^n$, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 109 (1990), 147-155. doi: 10.2307/2048374.
[3]	R. S. Cantrell and C. Cosner, "Spatial Ecology via Reaction-Diffusion Equations," Wiley Series in Mathematical and Computational Biology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, 2003.
[4]	C. Cosner, Reaction-diffusion equations and ecological modeling, in "Tutorials in Mathematical Biosciences. IV" (ed. A. Friedman), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1922, Springer, Berlin,(2008), 77-115.
[5]	W. F. Fagan and F. Lutscher, Average dispersal success: Linking home range, dispersal, and metapopulation dynamics to refuge design, Ecological Applications, 16 (2006), 820-828. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[0820:ADSLHR]2.0.CO;2.
[6]	I. Hanski, Predictive and practical metapopualtion models: The incidence function approach, in "Spatial Ecology" (eds. D. Tilman and P. Kareiva), Princton University Press, Princeton, NJ, (1997), 21-45.
[7]	I. Hanski, "Metapopulation Ecology," Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1999.
[8]	I. Hanski and O. Ovaskainen, The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape, Nature, 404 (2000), 755-758. doi: 10.1038/35008063.
[9]	R. Levins, Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control, Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, 15 (1969), 237-240.
[10]	F. Lutscher and M. A. Lewis, Spatially-explicit matrix models, Journal of Mathematical Biology, 48 (2004), 293-324. doi: 10.1007/s00285-003-0234-6.
[11]	O. Ovaskainen and I. Hanski, Spatially structured metapopulation models: Global and local assessment of metapopulation capacity, Theoretical Population Biology, 60 (2001), 281-304. doi: 10.1006/tpbi.2001.1548.
[12]	R. Van Kirk and M. A. Lewis, Integro-difference models for persistence in fragmented habitats, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 59 (1997), 107-137.

show all references

References:

[1]	A. Berman and J. Plemmons, "Nonnegative Matrices in the Mathematical Sciences," Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, Academic Press [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], New York-London, 1979.
[2]	K. J. Brown, C. Cosner and J. Fleckinger, Principal eigenvalues for problems with indefinite weight function on $\mathbbR^n$, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 109 (1990), 147-155. doi: 10.2307/2048374.
[3]	R. S. Cantrell and C. Cosner, "Spatial Ecology via Reaction-Diffusion Equations," Wiley Series in Mathematical and Computational Biology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, 2003.
[4]	C. Cosner, Reaction-diffusion equations and ecological modeling, in "Tutorials in Mathematical Biosciences. IV" (ed. A. Friedman), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1922, Springer, Berlin,(2008), 77-115.
[5]	W. F. Fagan and F. Lutscher, Average dispersal success: Linking home range, dispersal, and metapopulation dynamics to refuge design, Ecological Applications, 16 (2006), 820-828. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[0820:ADSLHR]2.0.CO;2.
[6]	I. Hanski, Predictive and practical metapopualtion models: The incidence function approach, in "Spatial Ecology" (eds. D. Tilman and P. Kareiva), Princton University Press, Princeton, NJ, (1997), 21-45.
[7]	I. Hanski, "Metapopulation Ecology," Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1999.
[8]	I. Hanski and O. Ovaskainen, The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape, Nature, 404 (2000), 755-758. doi: 10.1038/35008063.
[9]	R. Levins, Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control, Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, 15 (1969), 237-240.
[10]	F. Lutscher and M. A. Lewis, Spatially-explicit matrix models, Journal of Mathematical Biology, 48 (2004), 293-324. doi: 10.1007/s00285-003-0234-6.
[11]	O. Ovaskainen and I. Hanski, Spatially structured metapopulation models: Global and local assessment of metapopulation capacity, Theoretical Population Biology, 60 (2001), 281-304. doi: 10.1006/tpbi.2001.1548.
[12]	R. Van Kirk and M. A. Lewis, Integro-difference models for persistence in fragmented habitats, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 59 (1997), 107-137.

[1]	Weiwei Ding, Xing Liang, Bin Xu. Spreading speeds of $N$-season spatially periodic integro-difference models. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2013, 33 (8) : 3443-3472. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2013.33.3443
[2]	Arthur D. Lander, Qing Nie, Frederic Y. M. Wan. Spatially Distributed Morphogen Production and Morphogen Gradient Formation. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2005, 2 (2) : 239-262. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2005.2.239
[3]	Cecilia Cavaterra, Maurizio Grasselli. Asymptotic behavior of population dynamics models with nonlocal distributed delays. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2008, 22 (4) : 861-883. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2008.22.861
[4]	Heikki Haario, Leonid Kalachev, Marko Laine. Reduction and identification of dynamic models. Simple example: Generic receptor model. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2013, 18 (2) : 417-435. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2013.18.417
[5]	Peixuan Weng, Xiao-Qiang Zhao. Spatial dynamics of a nonlocal and delayed population model in a periodic habitat. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2011, 29 (1) : 343-366. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2011.29.343
[6]	Nhu N. Nguyen, George Yin. Stochastic partial differential equation models for spatially dependent predator-prey equations. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020, 25 (1) : 117-139. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2019175
[7]	Vincenzo Capasso, Sebastian AniȚa. The interplay between models and public health policies: Regional control for a class of spatially structured epidemics (think globally, act locally). Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2018, 15 (1) : 1-20. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018001
[8]	Timothy C. Reluga, Allison K. Shaw. Optimal migratory behavior in spatially-explicit seasonal environments. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2014, 19 (10) : 3359-3378. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2014.19.3359
[9]	Torsten Lindström. Discrete models and Fisher's maximum principle in ecology. Conference Publications, 2003, 2003 (Special) : 571-579. doi: 10.3934/proc.2003.2003.571
[10]	Anouar El Harrak, Amal Bergam, Tri Nguyen-Huu, Pierre Auger, Rachid Mchich. Application of aggregation of variables methods to a class of two-time reaction-diffusion-chemotaxis models of spatially structured populations with constant diffusion. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (7) : 2163-2181. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2021055
[11]	Zhihua Liu, Hui Tang, Pierre Magal. Hopf bifurcation for a spatially and age structured population dynamics model. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2015, 20 (6) : 1735-1757. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2015.20.1735
[12]	Abed Boulouz. A spatially and size-structured population model with unbounded birth process. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2022 doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2022038
[13]	Thomas Lorenz. Nonlocal hyperbolic population models structured by size and spatial position: Well-posedness. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2019, 24 (8) : 4547-4628. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2019156
[14]	Robert Stephen Cantrell, Brian Coomes, Yifan Sha. A tridiagonal patch model of bacteria inhabiting a Nanofabricated landscape. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2017, 14 (4) : 953-973. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017050
[15]	Carlos Castillo-Chavez, Baojun Song. Dynamical Models of Tuberculosis and Their Applications. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2004, 1 (2) : 361-404. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2004.1.361
[16]	Dongxue Yan, Xianlong Fu. Asymptotic analysis of a spatially and size-structured population model with delayed birth process. Communications on Pure and Applied Analysis, 2016, 15 (2) : 637-655. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2016.15.637
[17]	Teresa Faria. Asymptotic behaviour for a class of delayed cooperative models with patch structure. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2013, 18 (6) : 1567-1579. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2013.18.1567
[18]	David M. Chan, Matt McCombs, Sarah Boegner, Hye Jin Ban, Suzanne L. Robertson. Extinction in discrete, competitive, multi-species patch models. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2015, 20 (6) : 1583-1590. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2015.20.1583
[19]	Brooke L. Hollingsworth, R.E. Showalter. Semilinear degenerate parabolic systems and distributed capacitance models. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 1995, 1 (1) : 59-76. doi: 10.3934/dcds.1995.1.59
[20]	Luca Gerardo-Giorda, Pierre Magal, Shigui Ruan, Ousmane Seydi, Glenn Webb. Preface: Population dynamics in epidemiology and ecology. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020, 25 (6) : i-ii. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020125

2018 Impact Factor: 1.313

Tools

Metrics

Other articles
by authors

on AIMS
Robert Stephen Cantrell Chris Cosner William F. Fagan
on Google Scholar
Robert Stephen Cantrell Chris Cosner William F. Fagan

[Back to Top]