Responses of Metapopulation Dynamics to Two Different Kinds of Habitat Destruction Caused by Human Activities

Abstract

Habitat destruction can be classified into instantaneous destruction and continuous destruction by the different ways of human destroying habitat. Previous studies, however, always focused on instantaneous destruction. In this study, we develop a universal model, Multitime scale N-species model, to study and compare the responses of metapopulation dynamics to both kinds of habitat destruction. The model explores that: (1) under instantaneous habitat destruction, species extinction is determined by the proportion of habitat destruction (D) and the structure of metapopulation (q). When D>q, species will go extinct ranked from the best competitor to the worst. When D£ q, no species will go extinct, but the equilibrium abundances of odd-ranked competitors will decrease, and the equilibrium abundances of even-ranked competitors will increase; (2) under continuous destruction, species extinction is dependent on the speed of habitat destruction and the metapopulation structure. The higher the speed of habitat destruction and the bigger q are, the earlier species go extinct. Usually, there are two possible mechanisms of species extinction: one is that all species go extinct collectively following complete destruction, and the other is that species go extinct in ranked competitive order from best to worst, and the survivals, if they exist, will go extinct collectively following complete destruction. The oscillation amplitudes of inferior competitors are so large as to increase the probability of stochastic extinction under instantaneous destruction. Therefore, it is relatively propitious for the persistence of rare species under slow and continuous destruction, especially when continuous destruction stops.

Abundance patterns in multi-species communities exposed to habitat destruction

“…Despite some criticism (McCarthy et al, 1997), the metapopulation model developed by Tilman et al (1994) remains an important tool for exploring consequences of habitat loss in multi-species communities with competition (Loehle and Li, 1996;Stone et al, 1995;Stone et al, 1996;Klausmeier, 1998;Lin, 2005;Liu et al, 2007). In this paper, we address the issues related to succession in species abundances in such habitats: alterations of the abundance ranking, changes in the rank-abundance curve, variation in species evenness and diversity (see below).…”

“…Those species are often supposed to be strongest competitors due to the so-called competitioncolonization trade-off (Klausmeier and Tilman, 2002). Later works (Lin, 2005;Liu et al, 2007) pointed out, as well, the importance of some other issues: the existence of a minimal threshold p 0 of abundances and the influence of transition time from an intact habitat D ¼ 0 to a habitat with D ¼ D * 40.…”

Habitat destruction and the extinction debt revisited: The Allee effect

“…The persistence of natural populations faces three challenges: habitat destruction, climatic change and biological invasion, which are all human associated [1]. Studies have shown that species disappear up to 1000 times faster than without anthropogenic disturbance [2]. Among these challenges, habitat destruction has been suggested to be the foremost cause of species extinction [3][4][5].…”