Appendix C. Sensitivity analyses: the effects of variation in model parameters and model assumptions on recolonization rate in the flood zone.
Parameter values for
,
em,
,
im, SE,
Sp, SA,nf, and SA,f were
changed to their upper and lower 95% percent confidence limits, one parameter
at a time, and the model simulation was rerun to estimate the sensitivity of
beetle population dynamics in the flood zone to variation in the parameters
and its effects on estimation of the post-natal dispersal parameter
.
We do not have a good measure of the 95% confidence interval for larval survival
probability (SL) during non-flood events, thus, we tested
the sensitivity of the model and its predictions to a wide range of probabilities
(0.51.0). Also, SE,f and SP,f
were changed to SE,nf and SP,nf (non-flood
probabilities) respectively, to evaluate the sensitivity of beetle population
dynamics in the flood zone to flooding having no effect on survivorship of eggs
and pupae. Larval survival was not varied because there is strong evidence
that flooding kills virtually 100% of larvae (Johnson 2004). We also tested
for the sensitivity of the model to the assumption that population growth of
C. fenestrata is equal to one. In a previous study, Johnson (2004)
estimated population growth rate of C. fenestrata to be 1.02 ±
0.06 SE. We varied the population growth rate by
two standard errors around the estimated level by varying the reproduction parameter
(R). We also tested for the potential effect of remote migration
from outside of the study area on recolonization of the flood zone. We
used an estimate of remote migration from a previous study (Johnson 2003). See
table for sensitivity of post-natal dispersal estimates to variations in these
parameters. In this study, we made the assumption that post-natal dispersal
probability was independent of natal patch size. We reran the analysis assuming
that post-natal dispersal was equally dependent on patch size as was subsequent
dispersal (so
em
= -0.51 and
replaced
in Eq. 3) and found that at the maximum realistic dispersal probability (
= 1) the model still underestimated recolonization of the flood zone following
a flood by 34%. Lastly, in this study we assumed that the dispersal kernel
for C. fenestata was a power decay function because in a concurrent study
we found that this function best described regional dynamics of the beetle (Johnson
2003). To test the sensitivity of the results to this assumption, we reran
the analysis using an exponential decay function (e-d
where
= 0.02 was
estimated from the mark-recapture data using the same methods as were the parameters
for the power decay function). The model with exponential decay predicted
a lower probability of post-natal dispersal (
= 0.49 compared to 0.81) than the model with the power decay function, and was
an approximately equally good fit to the recolonization data. Thus, the
estimate of post-natal dispersal probability was most sensitive to the assumption
of power decay dispersal kernel, and was secondarily sensitive to 95% CI
changes in the dispersal parameter
,
which predicted a range of post-natal dispersal probability (
)
from 0.58 to 1.00. Thus, although there is a wide confidence interval for
post-natal dispersal, these results demonstrate that it is still likely much
greater than subsequent dispersal probabilities (= 0.09 per 25 d assuming that
population size is proportional to patch size, which is supported by the data,
Johnson [2003]).
Parameter |
Estimate and [95% confidence interval] |
Underestimate of recolonization of the flood zone |
Estimates of
post-natal dispersal probability ( |
|
|
0.78 [0.57, 1.00] |
84% 90% |
0.76 0.86 |
|
|
-0.51 [-0.58, -0.45] |
82% 91% |
0.76 0.85 |
|
|
2.05 [1.61, 2.55] |
83% 91% |
0.58 1.00 |
|
|
0.57 [0.40, 0.88] |
86% 88% |
0.80 0.81 |
|
SE |
0.18 [0.12, 0.24] |
85% 88% |
0.79 0.83 |
|
SL |
0.87 [0.50, 1.00] |
77% 89% |
0.78 1.00 |
|
SP |
0.68 [0.59, 0.77] |
86% 87% |
0.80 0.81 |
|
SA,nf |
0.73 [0.55, 0.91] |
80% 92% |
0.74 0.96 |
|
SA,f |
0.09 [0.00, 0.25] |
86% 87% |
0.76 0.83 |
|
|
1.02 [0.90, 1.14]§ |
82% 90%% |
0.77 0.91 |
|
M |
2.46 (per 6 mo)|| |
86% |
0.80 |
Column 3 is the simulation model's percentage underestimate of the number of recolonizers of the flood zone following a flood compared to the observed number of recolonizers.
The range of parameter values for larval survival probability was set above what we considered to be reasonable estimates.
§ Population growth rate was varied to 2 SE from the mean by varying the reproductive parameter R between 1.3 and 13.
|| Remote migration (m), immigration from outside of the study area was estimated based on a previous study (Johnson 2003).
LITERATURE CITED
Johnson, D. M. 2003. Spatial analyses of a Neotropical beetle: Cephaloleia fenestrata (Hispinae: Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera). Dissertation. University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA.
Johnson, D. M. 2004. Source-sink dynamics in a temporally heterogeneous environment. Ecology 85:20372045.