Abstract

An important mechanism of species co-existence in spatially structured landscapes is the competition-colonisation trade-off which states that co-existence of competing species is possible if, all other things equal, the better competitor is the worse coloniser. The effectiveness of this trade-off for the facilitation of co-existence, however, is likely to depend on the spatial arrangement of the habitat, because too strong agglomeration of the habitat may overly benefit the strong competitor (being the poor disperser), implying extinction of the inferiour competitor, while too much dispersion of the habitat may drive the superiour competitor (being the inferiour coloniser) to extinction. In working landscapes, biodiversity conservation is often induced through conservation payments that offset the forgone profits incurred by the conservation measure. To control the spatial arrangement of conservation measures and habitats in a conservation payment scheme, the agglomeration bonus has been proposed to provide financial incentives for allocating conservation measures in the vicinity of other sites with conservation measures. This paper presents a generic spatially explicit ecological-economic simulation model to explore the ability of the agglomeration bonus to cost-effectively conserve multiple competing species that differ by their competition strengths, their colonisation rates and their dispersal ranges. The interacting effects of the agglomeration bonus and different species traits and their trade-offs on the species richness in the model landscape are analysed. Recommendations for the biodiversity-maximising design of agglomeration bonus schemes are derived.

Highlights

  • Loss and fragmentation of habitat are major drivers of the world-wide decline of biodiversity (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005)

  • A generic model is developed and analysed to explore the costeffectiveness of the agglomeration bonus (Parkhurst et al, 2002) to conserve several competing species which are structured as a metacommunity (Leibold et al, 2004; Holyoak et al, 2005)

  • Competition here is modeled such that the species differ by their competition strength, and if individuals from several species immigrate into a habitat patch the superiour species are likely to win the competition and colonise the patch; while inferiour species are likely to be locally replaced by superiour species

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Loss and fragmentation of habitat are major drivers of the world-wide decline of biodiversity (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). The oldest examples are the models by Lotka (1920) and Volterra (1931) for the description of two competing species and predator-prey systems Another useful ecological concept is the competitioncolonisation trade-off coined by Tilman (1994). It proposes that two species competing for the same resource can coexist if the superiour competitor has a lower mobility or ability to colonise empty habitat patches, so that the inferiour but more mobile species can persistently escape from the superiour competitor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
Ecological Results
Economic Results
DISCUSSION
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call