2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.04.028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Varying effects of connectivity and dispersal on interacting species dynamics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular, genetic approaches based on dispersal over multiple generations (e.g., Gilg andHilbish 2003, Palumbi 2003) integrate multiple dispersal events and thus cannot provide information on interannual variation in connectivity. Therefore, a combination of single-generation approaches of connectivity and other methods operating at different scales (e.g., genetic and hydrodynamic models) could provide a deeper understanding of metapopulation dynamics under fluctuating connectivity, particularly for population persistence, distribution, and species coexistence (Carson et al 2011, Salau et al 2012, Watson et al 2012, Snyder et al 2014. Our results are also consistent with those analyzing geochemical tags to determine connectivity on similar species (e.g., Carson et al 2010, Lopez-Duarte et al 2012, despite slight methodological differences in the quantification of certain processes (e.g., sampling period, post-settlement mortality; Le Corre et al 2012).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, genetic approaches based on dispersal over multiple generations (e.g., Gilg andHilbish 2003, Palumbi 2003) integrate multiple dispersal events and thus cannot provide information on interannual variation in connectivity. Therefore, a combination of single-generation approaches of connectivity and other methods operating at different scales (e.g., genetic and hydrodynamic models) could provide a deeper understanding of metapopulation dynamics under fluctuating connectivity, particularly for population persistence, distribution, and species coexistence (Carson et al 2011, Salau et al 2012, Watson et al 2012, Snyder et al 2014. Our results are also consistent with those analyzing geochemical tags to determine connectivity on similar species (e.g., Carson et al 2010, Lopez-Duarte et al 2012, despite slight methodological differences in the quantification of certain processes (e.g., sampling period, post-settlement mortality; Le Corre et al 2012).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4A and details in SI Appendix). Future work might create a dataset where habitat quality indicators are represented as different ecological edge values in an ecological network as done in some theoretical modeling studies (30,75). Additional advances should also incorporate multiple social and multiple ecological network relationships (58,(76)(77)(78)(79) into the analysis of scale mismatch.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Connectivity as the structure and strength of information or resource flows in networks is highly context dependent though (Dakos et al 2015). In general, intermediate levels of connectivity are often considered better than the extremes of very high or very low levels (Salau et al 2012, Schoon et al 2014, Dakos et al 2015.…”
Section: Clustering Coefficientmentioning
confidence: 99%