No abstract

No abstract

The persistence of metapopulations is likely to be highly dependent on whether population dynamics are correlated among habitat patches as a result of migration between patches and spatially-correlated environmental stochasticity (weather effects). We examined whether population dynamics of the ringlet butterfly, Aphantopus hyperantus, were synchronous in an area of approximately 0.5 km, with respect to extinction, colonization and population fluctuations. Monks Wood Butterfly Monitoring Scheme transect count data from 1973 to 1995, revealed (A) a major environmental perturbation, the drought of 1976, which caused synchronized extinctions of A. hyperantus in subsequent years, (B) synchronized recolonization in years following the large number of apparent extinctions, and (C) population changes by A. hyperantus were highly correlated in many of the 14 sections of the transect, presumably reflecting similar responses to environmental stochasticity, and the exchange of individuals among sections. However, extinction and population synchrony depended on habitat type. Following the 1976 drought, A. hyperantus apparently became extinct from the most open and most shady habitats it occupied, with some persistence in habitats of intermediate shading, thus showing retraction to core populations in central parts of an environmental gradient, albeit with an average shift to relatively open habitat. Populations at extreme ends of the environmental gradient occupied by A. hyperantus fluctuated least synchronously, suggesting a potential buffering effect of habitat heterogeneity, but this was not crucial to survival after the 1976 drought. Thus, not all habitats are equally important to persistence. Correlated temporal dynamics, variation in habitat quality and the interaction between habitat quality and temporal environmental stochasticity are important determinants of metapopulation persistence and should be incorporated in metapopulation models.

Interpretation of spatially structured population systems is critically dependent on levels of migration between habitat patches. If there is considerable movement, with each individual visiting several patches, there is one "patchy population"; if there is intermediate movement, with most individuals staying within their natal patch, there is a metapopulation; and if (virtually) no movement occurs, then the populations are separate (Harrison 1991, 1994). These population types actually represent points along a continuum of much to no mobility in relation to patch structure. Therefore, interpretation of the effects of spatial structure on the dynamics of a population system must be accompanied by information on mobility. We use empirical data on movements by ringlet butterflies, Aphantopus hyperantus, to investigate two key issues that need to be resolved in spatially-structured population systems. First, do local habitat patches contain largely independent local populations (the unit of a metapopulation), or merely aggregations of adult butterflies (as in patchy populations)? Second, what are the effects of patch area on migration in and out of the patches, since patch area varies considerably within most real population systems, and because human landscape modification usually results in changes in habitat patch sizes? Mark-release-recapture (MRR) data from two spatially structured study systems showed that 63% and 79% of recaptures remained in the same patch, and thus it seems reasonable to call both systems metapopulations, with some capacity for separate local dynamics to take place in different local patches. Per capita immigration and emigration rates declined with increasing patch area, while the resident fraction increased. Actual numbers of emigrants either stayed the same or increased with area. The effect of patch area on movement of individuals in the system are exactly what we would have expected if A. hyperantus were responding to habitat geometry. Large patches acted as local populations (metapopulation units) and small patches simply as locations with aggregations (units of patchy populations), all within 0.5 km. Perhaps not unusually, our study system appears to contain a mixture of metapopulation and patchy-population attributes.

No abstract