Interspecific variation in critical patch size and gap-crossing ability as determinants of geographic range size distributions

19Citations
Citations of this article
82Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

How biological processes such as reproduction and dispersal relate to the size of species' geographic ranges constitutes a major challenge in spatial ecology and biogeography. Here we develop a spatially explicit theoretical framework that links fundamental population-level ecological traits (e.g., rates of dispersal and population growth or decay) with landscape heterogeneity to derive estimates of species' geographic range sizes and, further, distributions of geographic range sizes across species. Although local (patch-scale) population dynamics in this model are completely deterministic, we consider a fragmented landscape of patches and gaps in which the spatial heterogeneity is itself stochastic. This stochastic spatial structure, which juxtaposes landscape-level patch and gap characteristics against population-level critical patch sizes and maximum gapcrossing abilities, determines how far a novel species can spread from its evolutionary origin. Given reasonable assumptions about landscape structure and about the distribution of critical patch sizes and critical gap lengths among species, we obtain distributions of geographic range sizes that are qualitatively similar to those routinely found in nature (e.g., many species with small geographic ranges). Collectively, our results suggest that both interspecific differences in population-level traits and the landscapes through which species spread help determine patterns of occupancy and geographic extent. © 2009 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fagan, W. F., Cantrell, R. S., Cosner, C., & Ramakrishnan, S. (2009). Interspecific variation in critical patch size and gap-crossing ability as determinants of geographic range size distributions. American Naturalist, 173(3), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1086/596537

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free