Effect of ephemeral stepping stones on metapopulations on fragmented landscapes

In both percolation models and metapopulation (habitat patch) models, habitat pattern is assumed to be fixed and binary (matrix is unsuitable). In percolation models movement (dispersal) is strictly to neighbors whereas in metapopulation models movement is not explicitly considered but is factored into the colonization coefficients. Models with explicit dispersal also typically treat habitat as binary. Disturbance, if considered, is usually assumed to affect only preferred habitat. In this study, a dispersal kernel is assumed with spatially explicit populations and habitat, and the matrix is assumed to be affected by disturbances or fluctuating environmental conditions that open sites for dispersers (e.g., seeds) on a temporary basis. These ephemeral habitat patches are shown to act as stepping stones between preferred habitat. The consequence of stepping stones in this case is an increase in persistence when remnant preferred habitat is rare, and the conversion of extinction scenarios into persistence scenarios in some cases. The utilization of stepping stones by a species leads to nonintuitive relationships between observed abundance and habitat preference that could cause conservation strategies to backfire.     

The retina of the phalangid,Opilio ravennae,with particular reference to arhabdomeric cells

Summary The retina of the phalangid, Opilio ravennae, consists of retinula cells with distal rhabdomeres, arhabdomeric cells, and sheath cells. The receptive segment of retinula cells shows a clear separation into a Proximal rhabdom, organized into distinct rhabdom units formed by three or four retinula cells, and a Distal rhabdom, consisting of an uniterrupted layer of contiguous rhabdomeres. One of the cells comprising a retinula unit, the so-called distal retinula cell (DRC), has two or three branches that pass laterally alongside the rhabdom, thereby separating the two or three principal retinula cells of a unit. The two morphologically distinct layers of the receptive segment differ with respect to the cellular origin of rhabdomeral microvilli: DRC-branches contribute very few microvilli to the proximal rhabdom and develop extremely large rhabdomeres in the distal rhabdom only, causing the rhabdom units to fuse. Principal retinula cells, on the other hand, comprise the majority of microvilli of the proximal rhabdom, but their rhabdomeres diminish in the distal rhabdom. It is argued that proximal and distal rhabdoms serve different functions in relation to the intensity of incident light.In animals fixed 4 h after sunset, pigment granules retreat from the distal two thirds of the receptive segment. A comparison of retinae of day- and night-adapted animals shows that there is a slight (approximately 15%) increase in the cross-sectional area of rhabdomeral microvilli in dark-adapted animals, which in volume corresponds to the loss of pigment granules from the receptive segment. The length of the receptive segment as well as the pattern and shape of rhabdom units, however, remain unchanged.Each retinula unit is associated with one arhabdomeric cell. Their cell bodies are located close to those of retinula cells, but are much smaller and do not contain pigment granules. The most remarkable feature is a long, slender distal dendrite that extends up to the base of the fused rhabdom where it increases in diameter and develops a number of lateral processes interdigitating with microvilli of the rhabdom. The most distal dendrite portion extends through the center of the fused rhabdom and has again a smooth outline. All dendrites end in the distal third of the proximal rhabdom and are never present in the layer of the contiguous distal rhabdom. Arhabdomeric cells are of essentially the same morphology in day- and night-adapted animals. They are interpreted as photoinsensitive secondary neurons involved in visual information-processing that channel current collected from retinula cells of the proximal rhabdom along the optic nerve. A comparison is made with morphological equivalents of these cells in other chelicerate species.     

Evolutionary ecology of colonial reef-organisms, with particular reference to corals

Sedentary reef-organisms such as sponges, colonial coelenterates, bryozoans and compound ascidians produce repeated modules (aquiferous systems, polyps, zooids) as they grow. Modular construction alleviates constraints on biomass imposed by mechanical and energetic factors that are functions of the surface area to volume ratio. Colonies thus may grow large whilst preserving optimal modular dimensions. Among corals, optimal polyp size is smaller in the more autotrophic than in the more heterotrophic species. Modular construction allows flexibility of growth form, which can adapt to factors such as water currents, silting, light intensity and proximity of competitors. Modular colonies have great regenerative capacities, even separated fragments may survive and grow into new colonies. All fragments from a parental colony are genetically identical and large branching corals frequently undergo clonal propagation through fragmentation during storms. Soft corals can also fragment endogenously. By spreading the risk of mortality among independent units, the generation and dispersal of fragments lessens the likelihood of clonal extinction. In spite of their ability to propagate asexually, most benthic colonial animals also reproduce asexually. The selective advantages of the genetic diversity among sexually produced offspring seem not to be linked with dispersal, but probably lie in the biological interactions with competitors, predators and pathogens in the parental habitat. Age at first sexual maturity and the proportional investment of resources in sexual reproduction are related to colonial survivorship. Small branching corals on reef flats grow quickly, attain sexual maturity within 1–4 years, planulate extensively, but reach only small sizes before dying. Massive corals are longer lived and have the opposite characteristics of growth and reproduction. Most sessile reef organisms compete for space, food or light. Faster growers can potentially outcompete slower growers, but are often prevented from doing so by several forms of aggression from competitors and by the damage inflicted by storms. Competitive interactions among sedentary organisms on coral reefs are unlikely to be linear or deterministic, and so the co-existence of diverse species is possible.