A Practical Model of Metapopulation Dynamics

Spatial Dimensions of Population Viability

“…This is not a great restriction for systems that consist of large networks of well-connected habitat patches without a strongly aggregated spatial distribution; yet to relate the modeling results to empirical studies it is often useful to account explicitly for the spatial structure in metapopulations. The spatially structured metapopulation models developed by Hanski (1994Hanski ( , 1999 have recently been analyzed mathematically by Hanski and Ovaskainen (2000) and Ovaskainen andHanski (2001, 2002, unpublished). This line of modeling retains the present or absent description of dynamics in local populations, as in the original Levins model, but allows for finite patch networks with differences in the areas, qualities, and degree of connectivity of the patches.…”

A model for a spatially structured metapopulation accounting for within patch dynamics

“…There has been a high level of interest in the field since the late 60s [1,2], and this has continued to the present (see [3,4,5,6] and references therein). Of significant concern to ecologists is the survival of the population and under what conditions the population might become extinct.…”

“…This assumption is employed in the two most widely used metapopulation models: Levins' model [1] and Hanski's incidence function model [4].…”

Historical landscape structure affects plant species richness in wet heathlands with complex landscape dynamics

“…The spatial structure of target habitats was assessed using the following quantitative metrics, estimated for each of the five map dates and for each plateau: total habitat area, number of patches, patch area, patch connectivity (Hanski's S index in the Incidence Function Model index (Hanski, 1994), referred to as IFM S index) and patch isolation (Euclidian distance from a patch border to its 'nearest neighbour'). The IFM S index was computed using edge-toedge distances between all the patches, i.e.…”