Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-03T01:54:00.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Evidence of source–sink dynamics in marine and estuarine species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2011

By
Romuald N. Lipcius  and
Gina M. Ralph
Edited by
Jianguo Liu ,
Vanessa Hull ,
Anita T. Morzillo  and
John A. Wiens
Romuald N. Lipcius
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Gina M. Ralph
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Jianguo Liu
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Vanessa Hull
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Anita T. Morzillo
Affiliation:
Oregon State University
John A. Wiens
Affiliation:
PRBO Conservation Science
Get access

Summary

We review the evidence for source–sink dynamics in marine and estuarine species ranging from algae and seagrasses to invertebrates and vertebrates. There are only a few species with strong evidence for source–sink dynamics, primarily due to the logistical difficulties inherent in demonstrating source–sink dynamics convincingly, but there is extensive circumstantial evidence for the existence of source–sink dynamics, indicating that the issue requires serious consideration and further examination. The most prevalent mechanisms underlying source–sink dynamics include variation in habitat quality (natural or anthropogenic), dispersal, predation, and fishery exploitation, as well as interactions between these factors. In efforts to conserve or restore marine and estuarine metapopulations, optimal results are most likely to be achieved by identifying the connectivity between populations and preserving source populations or interconnected networks of sources and sinks. Further investigation of source–sink dynamics is critically needed to promote the effective conservation and restoration of marine and estuarine species.

Type
Chapter
Information
Sources, Sinks and Sustainability , pp. 361 - 381
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akçakaya, R. and Baker, P. (1998). Zebra Mussel Demography and Modeling: Preliminary Analysis of Population Data from Upper Midwest Rivers. USACE Contract Report EL-98-1. US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armsworth, P. (2002). Recruitment limitation, population regulation, and larval connectivity in reef fish metapopulations. Ecology 83: 1092–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babcock, R. and Keesing, J. (1999). Fertilization biology of the abalone Haliotis laevigata: laboratory and field studies. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 1658–1678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, B., Levin, L., Fodrie, F. and McMillan, P. (2007). Complex larval connectivity patterns among marine invertebrate populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104: 3267–3272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Begg, G. and Marteinsdottir, G. (2000). Spawning origins of pelagic juvenile cod Gadus morhua inferred from spatially explicit age distributions: potential influences on year-class strength and recruitment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 202: 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertness, M., Gaines, S., Bermudez, D. and Sanford, E. (1991). Extreme spatial variation in the growth and reproductive output of the acorn barnacle Semibalanus balanoides. Marine Ecology Progress Series 75: 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bode, M., Bode, L. and Armsworth, P. (2006). Larval dispersal reveals regional sources and sinks in the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series 308: 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brickman, D., Marteinsdottir, G., Logemann, K. and Harms, I. (2007). Drift probabilities for Icelandic cod larvae. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64: 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byers, J. and Noonberg, E. (2007). Poaching, enforcement, and the efficacy of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 17: 1851–1856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheung, S., Chan, H., Liu, C. and Shin, P. (2008). Effect of prolonged hypoxia on food consumption, respiration, growth, and reproduction in marine scavenging gastropod Nassarius festivus. Marine Pollution Bulletin 57: 280–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chockley, B., St. Mary, C. and Osenberg, C. (2008). Population sinks in the Upper Florida Keys: the importance of demographic variation in population dynamics of the marine shrimp Stenopus hispidus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 360: 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowen, R., Lwiza, K., Sponaugle, S., Paris, C. and Olson, D. (2000). Connectivity of marine populations: open or closed?Science 287: 857–859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crowder, L., Lyman, S., Figueira, W. and Priddy, J. (2000). Source–sink population dynamics and the problem of siting marine reserves. Bulletin of Marine Science 66: 799–820.Google Scholar
Diaz, R. (2001). Overview of hypoxia around the world. Journal of Environmental Quality 30: 275–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diaz, R. and Rosenberg, R. (2008). Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321: 926–929.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ebert, T., Schroeter, S., Dixon, J. and Kalvass, P. (1994). Settlement patterns of red and purple sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus and S. purpuratus) in California, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 111: 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellien, C., Thiébaut, E., Barnay, A.-S., Dauvin, J.-C., Gentil, F. and Salomon, J.-C. (2000). The influence of variability in larval dispersal on the dynamics of a marine metapopulation in the eastern Channel. Oceanologica Acta 23: 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlandsson, J. and McQuaid, C. (2004). Spatial structure of recruitment in the mussel Perna perna at local scales: effects of adults, algae, and recruit size. Marine Ecology Progress Series 267: 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueira, W. and Crowder, L. (2006). Defining patch contribution in source–sink metapopulations: the importance of including dispersal and its relevance to marine systems. Population Ecology 48: 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogarty, M. J. and Botsford, L. W. (2006). Metapopulation dynamics of coastal decapods. In Marine Metapopulations (Kritzer, J. P. and Sale, P. F., eds.). Academic Press/Elsevier, Amsterdam: 271–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaylord, B., Reed, D., Raimondi, P. and Washburn, L. (2006). Macroalgal spore dispersal in coastal environments: mechanistic insights revealed by theory and experiment. Ecological Monographs 76: 481–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, L., Heppell, S., Ballantyne, F. and Sala, E. (2004). The role of dispersal and demography in determining the efficacy of marine reserves. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 863–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, N., Wilson, S., Jennings, S., Polunin, N., Bijoux, J. and Robinson, J. (2006). Dynamic fragility of oceanic coral reef ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 103: 8425–8429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, R. (1973). Feeding, growth, reproduction, and nitrogen utilization by the harpacticoid copepod Tigriopus brevicornis. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 35: 785–800.Google Scholar
Harwell, M. and Orth, R. (2002). Long-distance dispersal potential in a marine macrophyte. Ecology 83: 3319–3330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, M., Hastings, A. and Botsford, L. (2003). The effect of small dispersal rates on extinction times in structured metapopulation models. American Naturalist 160: 389–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindar, K., Tufto, J., Saettem, L. and Balstad, T. (2004). Conservation of genetic variation in harvested salmon populations. ICES Journal of Marine Science 61: 1389–1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoback, W. and Barnhart, M. (1996). Lethal limits and sublethal effects of hypoxia on the amphipod Gammarus pseudolimnaeus. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, R. (1985). Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution. Theoretical Population Biology 28: 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, T., Lamberti, G., Lodge, D. and Perry, W. (1996). Zebra mussel dispersal in lake-stream systems: source–sink dynamics?Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 564–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Incze, L., Xue, H., Wolff, N., Xu, D., Wilson, C., Steneck, R., Wahle, R., Lawton, P., Pettigrew, N. and Chen, Y. (2010). Connectivity of lobster (Homarus americanus) populations in the coastal Gulf of Maine. Part II. Coupled biophysical dynamics. Fisheries Oceanography 19: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (2001). Metapopulation dynamics of Tigriopus brevicornis (Harpacticoida) in intertidal rock pools. Marine Ecology Progress Series 211: 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolly, M., Viard, F., Weinmayr, G., Gentil, F., Thiébaut, E. and Jollivet, D. (2003). Does the genetic structure of Pectinaria koreni (Polychaeta: Pectinariidae) conform to a source–sink metapopulation model at the scale of the Baie de Seine?Helgoland Marine Research 56: 238–246.Google Scholar
Junkins, R., Kelaher, B. and Levinton, J. (2006). Contributions of adult oligochaete emigration and immigration in a dynamic soft-sediment community. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 330: 208–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, C. (1985). A nonequilibrium marine predator–prey interaction. Ecology 66: 1426–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krkosek, M. and Lewis, M. (2010). An R0 theory for source–sink dynamics with application to Dreissena competition. Theoretical Ecology 3: 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafferty, K., Swift, C. and Ambrose, R. (1999). Extirpation and recolonization in a metapopulation of an endangered fish, the tidewater goby. Conservation Biology 13: 1447–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, H., Breck, E., Chan, F., Lubchenco, J. and Menge, B. (2005). Barnacle reproductive hotspots linked to nearshore ocean conditions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 102: 10534–10539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levitan, D. and Petersen, C. (1995). Sperm limitation in the sea. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 228–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipcius, R. and Stockhausen, W. (2002). Concurrent decline of the spawning stock, recruitment, larval abundance, and size of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 226: 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipcius, R., Stockhausen, W., Eggleston, D., Marshall, L. and Hickey, B. (1997). Hydrodynamic decoupling of recruitment, habitat quality, and adult abundance in the Caribbean spiny lobster: source–sink dynamics?Marine and Freshwater Research 48: 807–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipcius, R., Stockhausen, W. and Eggleston, D. (2001). Marine reserves for Caribbean spiny lobster: empirical evaluation and theoretical metapopulation dynamics. Marine and Freshwater Research 52: 1589–1598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipcius, R., Crowder, L. and Morgan, L. (2005). Metapopulation structure and marine reserves. In Marine Conservation Biology (Norse, E. and Crowder, L. B., eds.). Island Press, Washington, DC: 328–345.Google Scholar
Lipcius, R., Eggleston, D., Schreiber, S., Seitz, R., Shen, J., Sisson, M., Stockhausen, W. and Wang, H. (2008). Importance of metapopulation connectivity to restocking and restoration of marine species. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16: 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, W. (2007). Hypoxia and Macoma balthica: ecological effects on a key infaunal benthic species. PhD dissertation, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
Marcus, N. H., Richmond, C., C. Sedlacek, G. A. Miller and Oppert, C. (2004). Impact of hypoxia on the survival, egg production, and population dynamics of Acartia tonsa Dana. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 301: 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marko, P. and Barr, K. (2007). Basin-scale patterns of mtDNA differentiation and gene flow in the bay scallop Argopecten irradians concentricus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 349: 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyake, Y., Kimura, S., Kawamura, T., Horii, T., Kurogi, H. and Kitagawa, T. (2009). Simulating larval dispersal processes for abalone using a coupled particle-tracking and hydrodynamic model: implications for refugium design. Marine Ecology Progress Series 387: 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munguia, P., Mackie, C. and Levitan, D. (2007). The influence of stage-dependent dispersal on the population dynamics of three amphipod species. Oecologia 153: 533–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nilsson, P., Kurdziel, J. and Levinton, J. (1997). Heterogeneous population growth, parental effects, and genotype–environment interactions of a marine oligochaete. Marine Biology 130: 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, P., Levinton, J. and Kurdziel, J. (2000). Migration of a marine oligochaete: induction of dispersal and microhabitat choice. Marine Ecology Progress Series 207: 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, E., Schlag, Z., Hood, R., Li, M., Zhong, L., Gross, T. and Kennedy, V. (2008). Vertical swimming behavior influences the dispersal of simulated oyster larvae in a coupled particle-tracking and hydrodynamic model of Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 359: 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, J., Merkouris, S. and Seeb, J. (2002). An examination of spatial and temporal genetic variation in walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) using allozyme, mitochondrial DNA, and microsatellite data. Fisheries Bulletin 100: 752–764.Google Scholar
Orth, R., Heck, K. Jr. and van Montfrans, J. (1984). Faunal communities in seagrass beds: a review of the influence of plant structure and prey characteristics on predator–prey relationships. Estuaries 7: 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paddack, M. and Estes, J. (2000). Kelp forest fish populations in marine reserves and adjacent exploited areas of central California. Ecological Applications 10: 855–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paine, R. (1979). Disaster, catastrophe, and local persistence of the sea palm Postelsia palmaeformis. Science 205: 685–687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paine, R. (1988). Habitat suitability and local population persistence of the sea palm Postelsia palmaeformis. Ecology 69: 1787–1794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, C. and Summerson, H. (1992). Basin-scale coherence of population dynamics of an exploited marine invertebrate, the bay scallop: implications of recruitment limitation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 90: 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, C., Fodrie, F., Summerson, H. and Powers, S. (2001). Site-specific and density-dependent extinction of prey by schooling rays: generation of a population sink in top-quality habitat for bay scallops. Oecologia 129: 349–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfister, C. A. (1998). Extinction, colonization, and species occupancy in tidepool fishes. Oecologia 114: 118–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, N. (2007). A spatial gradient in the potential reproductive output of the sea mussel Mytilus californianus. Marine Biology 151: 1543–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porri, F., McQuaid, C. and Radloff, S. (2006). Spatio-temporal variability of larval abundance and settlement of Perna perna: differential delivery of mussels. Marine Ecology Progress Series 315: 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulliam, H. (1988). Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132: 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, J. F., Wing, S. R. and Botsford, L. W. (1993). Harvest refugia in marine invertebrate fisheries: models and applications to the red sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus. American Zoologist 33: 537–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, D., Kilan, B., Raimondi, P., Washburn, L., Gaylord, B., and Drake, P. (2006). A metapopulation perspective on the patch dynamics of giant kelp in southern California. In Marine Metapopulations (Kritzer, J. P. and Sale, P. F., eds.). Academic Press/Elsevier, Amsterdam: 353–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rex, M., McClain, C., Johnson, N., Etter, R., Allen, J., Bouchet, P. and Waren, A. (2005). A source–sink hypothesis for abyssal biodiversity. American Naturalist 165: 163–178.Google ScholarPubMed
Roberts, C. (1997). Connectivity and management of Caribbean coral reefs. Science 278: 1454–1457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, C. (1998). Sources, sinks, and the design of marine reserve networks. Fisheries 23: 16–19.Google Scholar
Robertson, B. and Hutto, R. (2006). A framework for understanding ecological traps and an evaluation of existing evidence. Ecology 87: 1075–1085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers-Bennett, L., Hakker, P., Karpov, K. and Kushners, D. (2002). Using spatially explicit data to evaluate marine protected areas for abalone in southern California. Conservation Biology 16: 1308–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runge, J., Runge, M. and Nichols, J. (2006). The role of local populations within a landscape context: defining and classifying sources and sinks. American Naturalist 167: 925–938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanford, E. and Menge, B. (2007). Reproductive output and consistency of source populations in the sea star Pisaster ochraceus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 349: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoeckel, J., Schneider, D., Soeken, L., Blodgett, K. and Sparks, R. (1997). Larval dynamics of a riverine metapopulation: implications for zebra mussel recruitment, dispersal, and control in a large-river system. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 586–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swearer, S., Caselle, J., Lea, D. and Warner, R. (1999). Larval retention and recruitment in an island population of a coral-reef fish. Nature 402: 799–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiébaut, E., Lagadeuc, Y., Olivier, F., Dauvin, J. and Retière, C. (1998). Do hydrodynamic factors affect the recruitment of marine invertebrates in a macrotidal area? The case study of Pectinaria koreni (Polychaeta) in the Bay of Seine (English Channel). Hydrobiologia 375/376: 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, C. and Doyle, R. (1981). Reproductive strategies of marine benthic invertebrates: a settlement-timing hypothesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 4: 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wares, J., Gaines, S. and Cunningham, C. (2001). A comparative study of asymmetric migration events across a marine biogeographic boundary. Evolution 55: 295–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, J. (2008). Spatially coupled larval supply of marine predators and their prey alters the predictions of metapopulation models. American Naturalist 171: 179–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, S. and Orth, R. (1998). Genetic diversity and structure of natural and transplanted eelgrass populations in the Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays. Estuaries 21: 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wing, S. (2009). Decadal-scale dynamics of sea urchin population networks in Fiordland, New Zealand are driven by juxtaposition of larval transport against benthic productivity gradients. Marine Ecology Progress Series 378: 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wing, S., Gibbs, M. and Lamare, M. (2003). Reproductive sources and sinks within a sea urchin, Evechinus chloroticus, population of a New Zealand fjord. Marine Ecology Progress Series 248: 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wing, S., McLeod, R., Clark, K. and Frew, R. (2008). Plasticity in the diet of two echinoderm species across an ecotone: microbial recycling of forest litter and bottom-up forcing of population structure. Marine Ecology Progress Series 360: 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, M. and Mendo, J. (2000). Management of the Peruvian bay scallop (Argopecten purpuratus) metapopulation with regard to environmental change. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 10: 117–126.3.0.CO;2-T>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xue, J., Incze, L., Xu, D., Wolff, N. and Pettigrew, N. (2008). Connectivity of lobster populations in the coastal Gulf of Maine. Part I. Circulation and larval transport potential. Ecological Modelling 210: 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×