Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Brian P. Kinlan 1 Collaborators: Dan Reed 1, Pete Raimondi 2, Libe Washburn 1, Brian Gaylord 1, Patrick Drake 2 1 University of California, Santa Barbara 2 University of California Santa Cruz The Metapopulation Ecology of Giant Kelp in the Northeast Pacific
2
Photo: K. Lafferty
3
I. WHAT IS A METAPOPULATION? II. CASE STUDY: METAPOPULATION DYNAMICS IN SOUTHERN CA KELP FORESTS? III. REGIONAL VARIATION IV. CONCLUSIONS
4
2. CONNECTIVITY 1. PATCHINESS
5
3. TURNOVER 2. CONNECTIVITY 1. PATCHINESS
6
Modified from Hanski & Gilpin 1997 Persistence of Most Stable Patch Dispersal Distance (Relative to Interpatch Distance) “Classic” (Levins) Metapopulation Patchy Population Mainland-Island Non-Equilibrium (headed for extinction) Low (Most patches have some probability of extinction >> 0) High (some patches, generally very large, have virtually no probability of extinction) Source-sink? Classic, stable population
7
I. WHAT IS A METAPOPULATION? II. CASE STUDY: METAPOPULATION DYNAMICS IN SOUTHERN CA KELP FORESTS? III. REGIONAL VARIATION IV. CONCLUSIONS
8
32.5ºN 33.6ºN Data courtesy of L. Deysher, T. Dean & Southern California Edison Newport Beach Pt. Loma La Jolla Kelp Bed Dynamics (1967-1999)
9
Reed, Kinlan, Raimondi, Washburn, Gaylord & Drake, In press, Marine Metapopulations (P.F. Sale & J. Kritzer, eds.) METHODS – Identifying Habitat Long-term Kelp Distribution
10
METHODS – Defining Patches >500 m Bed 28 Bed 27 Patch 17 Patch 18 Patch 16 Patch 19
11
– 1000 – 100 – 10 – 0 Canopy Biomass (tons/km coast) 36.5°N 35.9°N 35.3°N 34.7°N 34.4°N 34.1°N 33.7°N 33.4°N 32.6°N 32.0°N 31.5°N 30.9°N 30.5°N 29.6°N Lat Location Carmel Bay Pt.Buchon Pt.Purisima Coal Oil Pt. Palos Verdes San Onofre Pt.Loma Pta.San Jose Pta.San Carlos METHODS – Estimating Turnover Raw data provided by D. Glantz, ISP Alginates, Inc. & Santa Barbara Coastal LTER Kelp canopy biomass, 34-year monthly time series
12
Historical Kelp Forest Dynamics b) Time c) Space
13
– 1000 – 100 – 10 – 0 Canopy Biomass (tons/km coast) 36.5°N 35.9°N 35.3°N 34.7°N 34.4°N 34.1°N 33.7°N 33.4°N 32.6°N 32.0°N 31.5°N 30.9°N 30.5°N 29.6°N Lat Location Carmel Bay Pt.Buchon Pt.Purisima Coal Oil Pt. Palos Verdes San Onofre Pt.Loma Pta.San Jose Pta.San Carlos Interpolated Canopy Biomass Estimates
14
METHODS - Turnover Criteria EXTINCT if biomass = 0 for for previous 6 months or more In any given month, all patches in an administrative unit are considered … OCCUPIED if biomass >0 Prob(Extinction) = P(Occupied Extinct) Prob(Colonization) = P(Extinct Occupied)
15
1970197519801985199019952000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Year Fraction of patches occupied (%) Patch Occupancy Reed et al., In press (Marine Metapopulations – P.F. Sale, ed.)
16
00.080.160.240.32 0 10 20 30 40 50 P(Extinction) Relative frequency (%) 00.080.160.240.32 0 10 20 30 40 50 P(Recolonization) Relative frequency (%) Extinction and Recolonization Probabilities
17
Extinction & Persistence Times
18
r 2 = 0.05, p = 0.06 r 2 = 0.15, p < 0.001 PATCH SIZE Extinction/recolonization dynamics weakly related to patch size
19
Metapopulation Criteria PATCHINESS TURNOVER CONNECTIVITY??
20
02468101214 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Nearest-neighbor distance (km) Relative frequency (%) 1101001000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Radius (km) Mean number of patches within radius (± 1 SD) Spatial arrangement of patches
21
Estimated Dispersal Distance (m) 1101001000 100 80 60 40 20 0 Percent of Trials Individual Plants 1101001000 Kelp bed 100 80 60 40 20 0 Reed et al., In press; D.C. Reed & P.T. Raimondi, unpubl. data Empirical Dispersal Profiles
22
0102030405060 Distance from individual plant (m) 0 10 20 30 40 Spores 2.5 mm -2 (+/- SE) 050100150 0 20 40 60 80 100 Distance from edge of kelp bed (m) Reed et al., In press; D.C. Reed & P.T. Raimondi, unpubl. data Empirical Settlement Curves
23
15 Jan – 15 Feb 2002 0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0 40 10 20 30 Frequency (%) Naples Carpinteria east west Along-shore current speed (m ● s -1 ) 1 - 30 June 2002 0 10 20 30 0 0.2 0.4 0.2 Frequency (%) east west 40 Reed et al., In press; D.C. Reed, P.T. Raimondi & L. Washburn, unpubl. data Modeling Connectivity Using Real Ocean Current Data Real Ocean Current Data
24
Table 1: Mean, minimum and maximum values for currents and significant wave height for the individual plant and kelp bed experiments. Mean currents were calculated over the duration of each experiment Current velocity (cm / s) Significant wave height (m) IndividualKelp bedIndividualKelp bed Minimum0.0010.040.3230.273 Maximum8.0071.7971.1720.801 Mean1.0750.4130.6970.501
25
0.00010.0010.010.1110100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Distance (km) Percent dispersing at least distance X 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent of interpatch distances less than X Carpinteria - Jan/Feb Carpinteria - June Naples - June Naples - Jan/Feb Numerical Model of Spore Dispersal Gaylord et al. 2002 Ecology 83:1239-1251; Gaylord et al. 2004 J. Marine Systems 49:19-39 Currents measured in vicinity of kelp bed:
26
(Using Currents for Carpinteria, June) Weak Source: Strong Source: Relative Frequency 0% 0123456 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% x c = 2.4 km 0% 0123456 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% x c = 0.14 km # of Connected Patches (50 th percentile) (90 th percentile) Prediction: Connectivity Variable, But Possible
27
Empirical Test of Connectivity: Isolation Index I j = isolation of patch j L i = area of patch i T = month D i,j = distance from patch j to patch i at closest point at closest point
28
r 2 = 0.57, p < 0.0001 r 2 = 0.39, p < 0.0001 ISOLATEDCONNECTEDISOLATEDCONNECTED Extinction & Colonization Rates Strongly Influenced by Connectivity “RESCUE EFFECT”
29
I. WHAT IS A METAPOPULATION? II. CASE STUDY: METAPOPULATION DYNAMICS IN SOUTHERN CA KELP FORESTS? III. REGIONAL VARIATION IV. CONCLUSIONS
30
San Francisco U.S. Mexico Los Angeles Pta. Eugenia CENTRAL SOUTHERN BAJA
31
Canopy Biomass by Region Central Southern Baja
32
1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Date Fraction of Patches Occupied (%) Patch Occupancy Central Southern Baja
33
ISOLATEDCONNECTED Isolation Effect Central Southern Baja E C E C E C
34
I. WHAT IS A METAPOPULATION? II. CASE STUDY: METAPOPULATION DYNAMICS IN SOUTHERN CA KELP FORESTS? III. REGIONAL VARIATION IV. CONCLUSIONS
35
Modified from Hanski & Gilpin 1997 Dispersal Distance (Relative to Interpatch Distance) “Classic” (Levins) Metapopulation Patchy Population Mainland-Island Non-Equilibrium (headed for extinction) Source-sink? Classic single population A: Context dependent, but metapopulation model likely to be applicable more often than not. Q: Where do Macrocystis populations fall on the spatial population dynamics spectrum? Persistence of Most Stable Patch
36
NASA Kelp Forest Dynamics Study
37
Modeling Framework Desired features: Spatial Dynamic Predictive Assimilative
38
Modeling Framework Grid Patch
39
Biomass dynamic –Production: B T+1 = f(∫Light, ∫Nutrients) –Loss: M=f(Waves[Substrate], Herbivory, Senescence/ Sloughing) Demographic –Density = f(Recruitment, Mortality) –Age/Size structure = f(?) –Fecundity = f(?) –Dispersal = f(Currents, Waves) –Recruitment = f(Light, Substrate, Nutrients(?)) Issues to Consider for first-stage (Grid- based) Model
40
Decisions re: Biomass dynamic vs. Demographic aspects of model Linking Data/Observations to Model Elements Identify data gaps Consider scaling issues Outputs of 6/4 Meeting?
44
What if the frequency of ENSO changes?
45
Scenario Analysis
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.