McLaughlin John F, Hellmann Jessica J, Boggs Carol L, Ehrlich Paul R
Department of Environmental Sciences, Huxley College of Environmental Studies, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, 98225-9181, USA.
Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305-5020, USA.
Oecologia. 2002 Aug;132(4):538-548. doi: 10.1007/s00442-002-0997-2. Epub 2002 Aug 1.
We compare results of field study and model analysis of two butterfly populations to evaluate the importance of alternative mechanisms causing changes in abundance. Although understanding and predicting population fluctuations is a central goal of population ecology, it is not often achieved because long-term abundance data are available for few populations in which mechanisms causing fluctuations also are known. Both kinds of information exist for two populations of the checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas editha bayensis, which are matched in most ways except for habitat area and topography. We applied results from field study to make predictions about the dynamics of the two populations. Then we tested these predictions using nonlinear modeling of abundance data. Models included endogenous factors, exogenous effects of weather, or both. Results showed that the populations differed in variability and responses to endogenous and exogenous factors. The population in the more homogeneous habitat varied more widely, went extinct first, and fluctuated more severely with climate. Dynamics of the population occupying the topographically diverse habitat were more complex, containing damped oscillations and weaker influences of weather. We draw four main conclusions. First, the routes to extinction for E. e. bayensis populations in protected habitat were random walks driven by climatic variability. Climatic influences dominated both populations, but the timing and functional forms of climatic effects differed between populations. Second, topographic diversity reduced weather-induced population variability and increased persistence time. Third, one must explicitly consider both endogenous and exogenous components to fully understand population dynamics. Fourth, resolving the debate over population regulation requires integrating long-term population sampling, model analysis, and investigation of mechanisms in the field.
我们比较了两个蝴蝶种群的实地研究结果和模型分析结果,以评估导致种群数量变化的不同机制的重要性。虽然理解和预测种群波动是种群生态学的核心目标,但由于只有少数种群有长期数量数据且已知导致波动的机制,这一目标并不常能实现。对于北美蝴蝶欧斐德斑蝶(Euphydryas editha bayensis)的两个种群,这两种信息都存在,除了栖息地面积和地形外,它们在大多数方面都相匹配。我们应用实地研究结果对这两个种群的动态进行预测。然后,我们使用数量数据的非线性建模来检验这些预测。模型包括内生因素、天气的外生影响或两者皆有。结果表明,这两个种群在变异性以及对内源和外源因素的反应方面存在差异。栖息地更同质的种群变化更大,首先灭绝,并且随气候波动更剧烈。占据地形多样栖息地的种群动态更复杂,包含阻尼振荡且天气影响较弱。我们得出四个主要结论。第一,在受保护栖息地中,北美蝴蝶欧斐德斑蝶种群的灭绝路径是由气候变异性驱动的随机游走。气候影响在两个种群中都占主导,但气候影响的时间和功能形式在两个种群之间有所不同。第二,地形多样性降低了天气引起的种群变异性并增加了持续时间。第三,必须明确考虑内生和外源成分才能全面理解种群动态。第四,解决关于种群调节的争论需要整合长期种群采样、模型分析和实地机制调查。