| Literature DB >> 26257881 |
Anna-Sara Liman1, Peter Dalin1, Christer Björkman1.
Abstract
Variation in population size over time can influence our ability to identify landscape-moderated differences in community assembly. To date, however, most studies at the landscape scale only cover snapshots in time, thereby overlooking the temporal dynamics of populations and communities. In this paper, we present data that illustrate how temporal variation in population density at a regional scale can influence landscape-moderated variation in recolonization and population buildup in disturbed habitat patches. Four common insect species, two omnivores and two herbivores, were monitored over 8 years in 10 willow short-rotation coppice bio-energy stands with a four-year disturbance regime (coppice cycle). The population densities in these regularly disturbed stands were compared to densities in 17 undisturbed natural Salix cinerea (grey willow) stands in the same region. A time series approach was used, utilizing the natural variation between years to statistically model recolonization as a function of landscape composition under two different levels of regional density. Landscape composition, i.e. relative amount of forest vs. open agricultural habitats, largely determined the density of re-colonizing populations following willow coppicing in three of the four species. However, the impact of landscape composition was not detectable in years with low regional density. Our results illustrate that landscape-moderated recolonization can change over time and that considering the temporal dynamics of populations may be crucial when designing and evaluating studies at landscape level.Entities:
Keywords: Disturbance; population dynamics; regional synchrony; scale; time series; willow short rotation coppice
Year: 2015 PMID: 26257881 PMCID: PMC4523364 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1527
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Population densities (ind*shoot−1) in 17 natural grey willow stands (dotted lines) and 10 SRC willow stands (solid lines) in two coppice periods, 2003–2006 and 2007–2010 of two mirid predators (Orthotylus marginalis, Closterotomus fulvomaculatus and leaf beetle herbivores (Phratora vulgatissima and Galerucella lineola). Densities are presented as mean values with standard errors. Note the difference in scales on the y-axes.
Figure 2Model predicted population densities (ind*shoot−1) as a function of the proportion of open habitat in the surrounding landscape and/or year after harvest, two 4-year periods after coppice harvests of two mirid predators (Orthotylus marginalis, Closterotomus fulvomaculatus and two leaf beetle herbivores (Phratora vulgatissima and Galerucella lineola) in SRC willow stands (N = 10). Predictions in the left column are based on data from 2003 to 2006 and in the right column on data from 2007 to 2010. Note that only variables with an overall significant effect on population density were used for the model predictions (single dotted line = no difference between years, four dotted lines = difference between observation years (red = year 1, black = year 2, green = year 3, blue = year 4).
Analysis of variance for GLMMs (Poisson distribution and log link) describing population density as a function of proportion open habitat and year in four insect species. The models were fitted using quasi-likelihoods, with stand as a random effect and a first-order autocorrelation structure to account for spatial and temporal dependence between observations
| Year | Species | Fixed effect | Estimate | SE | df | Chisq | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003–2006 | Open habitat | 0.88 | 0.93 | 1 | 0.81 | 0.37 | |
| Year | −3.39 | 0.70 | 3 | 25.07 | <0.001 | ||
| Open habitat | −0.34 | 1.54 | 1 | 0.13 | 0.72 | ||
| Year | −3.06 | 1.09 | 3 | 30.62 | <0.001 | ||
| Open habitat | −1.31 | 1.72 | 1 | 0.53 | 0.46 | ||
| Year | −2.21 | 1.23 | 3 | 51.13 | <0.001 | ||
| Open habitat | −2.80 | 1.96 | 1 | 3.64 | 0.06 | ||
| Year | −3.02 | 2.00 | 3 | 63.64 | <0.001 | ||
| 2007–2010 | Open habitat | 1.92 | 0.77 | 1 | 6.81 | 0.009 | |
| Year | −2.87 | 0.69 | 3 | 29.65 | <0.001 | ||
| C. fulvomaculatus | Open habitat | −1.10 | 1.62 | 1 | 0.48 | 0.49 | |
| Year | −2.43 | 1.13 | 3 | 88.88 | <0.001 | ||
| Open habitat | −1.85 | 1.13 | 1 | 3.99 | 0.046 | ||
| Year | −0.91 | 0.69 | 3 | 2.39 | 0.50 | ||
| Open habitat | −3.32 | 1.25 | 1 | 6.85 | 0.009 | ||
| Year | −0.26 | 0.66 | 3 | 1.12 | 0.77 |
Estimates and SE are the parameter estimates for the fixed effects and their associated standard errors. Estimates and SE for the year variable are mean values across all levels of the factor.
P ≤ 0.05
P ≤ 0.01
P ≤ 0.001.