Metapopulation ecology in the sea: from Levins' model to marine ecology and fisheries science

Abstract

Introduction 132Over-emphasis on extinction? 133Ecology versus evolution, fisheries versus farms 133A matter of scales 134Example of metapopulation analysis in fisheries 137Spatial structure and spatial management 137Conclusions 138Acknowledgements 139References 139 AbstractMarine and fisheries scientists are increasingly using metapopulation concepts to better understand and model their focal systems. Consequently, they are considering what defines a metapopulation. One perspective on this question emphasizes the importance of extinction probability in local populations. This view probably stems from the focus on extinction in Levins' original metapopulation model, but places unnecessary emphasis on extinction-recolonization dynamics. Metapopulation models with more complex structure than Levins' patch-occupancy model and its variants allow a broader range of population phenomena to be examined, such as changes in population size, age structure and genetic structure. Analyses along these lines are critical in fisheries science, where presence-absence resolution is far too coarse to understand stock dynamics in a meaningful way. These more detailed investigations can, but need not, aim to assess extinction risk or deal with extinction-prone local populations. Therefore, we emphasize the coupling of spatial scales as the defining feature of metapopulations. It is the degree of demographic connectivity that characterizes metapopulations, with the dynamics of local populations strongly dependent upon local demographic processes, but also influenced by a nontrivial element of external replenishment. Therefore, estimating rates of interpopulation exchange must be a research priority. We contrast metapopulations with other spatially structured populations that differ in the degree of local closure of their component populations. We conclude with consideration of the implications of metapopulation structure for spatially explicit management, particularly the design of marine protected area networks.

Human-induced evolution caused by unnatural selection through harvest of wild animals

“…Models of reserves in both terrestrial (102) and marine (103) systems support this approach for a wide variety of conditions. However, the actual effectiveness of such reserves on exploited populations outside of the protected area depends on the amount of interchange between protected and nonprotected areas and on understanding the pattern and drivers of dispersal, migration, and genetic subdivision (104,105). Some have suggested that as exploitation pressure intensifies outside protected areas, local protection could select for decreased dispersal distance and thereby increase isolation and fragmentation and potentially reduce the genetic capacity of organisms to respond to future environmental changes (106).…”

Detecting range shifts among Australian fishes in response to climate change

“…In freshwater systems, range shifts can be heavily constrained by catchment boundaries. For many species that have highly dispersive larvae, distribution patterns are most appropriately described by using metapopulation models (Kritzer and Sale 2004), with adult populations connected by larval propagules. Therefore, the vagaries of larval dispersal as well as persistence in adult habitat are key ingredients to successful establishment.…”

Rapid in situ settlement following spawning by Acropora corals at Ishigaki, southern Japan

“…Because intensive larval recruitment over a short period may be a key factor in population maintenance and resilience in Acropora corals (i.e. 'demographic connectivity' sensu Kritzer & Sale 2004), it would be useful information for sustainable management of coral reefs, such as the establishment of marine protected areas. If the 'demographic connectivity' of Acropora corals is relatively smaller than previously thought (i.e.…”