IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v408y2019ic9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consequences of neglecting cryptic life stages from demographic models

Author

Listed:
  • Nguyen, Vuong
  • Buckley, Yvonne M.
  • Salguero-Gómez, Roberto
  • Wardle, Glenda M.

Abstract

Information on individuals from all stages of life is crucial to explore their ecology, evolution and conservation biology. However, the life cycles of many species contain cryptic life stages that are difficult to detect and track over time and are therefore omitted from demographic models. One example is the dormant seed bank, an evolutionary bet-hedging mechanism that buffers plant populations in variable environments. To evaluate this methodological oversight, we conduct simulations to explore the effect of seed bank parameter uncertainties on demographic outputs such as the deterministic (λ1) and stochastic population growth rate (λS), and extinction probabilities of 12 plant species. We have used uninformed and informed priors for seed bank parameters based on literature estimates, and reconstructed published models in which the seed bank was excluded without justification. Trials on removing the seed stage from models (6 species) explored the worst-case scenario for ignoring the seed bank. Inclusion of a seed bank and demographic uncertainty in seed bank parameters have little impact on stable populations (λ1 ≈ 1) with high post-seedling survival. When populations deviate from stability or demonstrate temporal demographic variation, greater changes in λ1 and the range of possible growth rates caused by demographic uncertainty are observed. As expected, decreasing populations (λ1 < 1) benefit from the inclusion of a seed bank through increases in the growth rate and extinction times, whereas increasing populations (λ1 > 1) are slowed down. While germination estimates from the literature cannot accurately reflect those obtained in the field, they provide a starting point to assess the relative importance of a seed bank. The exclusion of the seed bank must be justified by confirming that dormancy is either non-existent or not important. Accounting for cryptic stages in demographic models will produce better informed management decisions for threatened or invasive species.

Suggested Citation

  • Nguyen, Vuong & Buckley, Yvonne M. & Salguero-Gómez, Roberto & Wardle, Glenda M., 2019. "Consequences of neglecting cryptic life stages from demographic models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 408(C), pages 1-1.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:408:y:2019:i:c:9
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108723
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380019302236
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108723?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Logofet, Dmitrii O. & Kazantseva, Elena S. & Onipchenko, Vladimir G., 2020. "Seed bank as a persistent problem in matrix population models: From uncertainty to certain bounds," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 438(C).
    2. Dmitrii O. Logofet & Leonid L. Golubyatnikov & Nina G. Ulanova, 2020. "Realistic Choice of Annual Matrices Contracts the Range of λ S Estimates," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Logofet, Dmitrii O. & Golubyatnikov, Leonid L. & Kazantseva, Elena S. & Belova, Iya N. & Ulanova, Nina G., 2023. "Thirteen years of monitoring an alpine short-lived perennial: Novel methods disprove the former assessment of population viability," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 477(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:408:y:2019:i:c:9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.