The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Role of Local Populations within a Landscape Context: Defining and Classifying Sources and Sinks
Abstract
The interaction of local populations has been the focus of an increasing number of studies in the past 30 years. The study of source-sink dynamics has especially generated much interest. Many of the criteria used to distinguish sources and sinks incorporate the process of apparent survival (i.e., the combined probability of true survival and site fidelity) but not emigration. These criteria implicitly treat emigration as mortality, thus biasing the classification of sources and sinks in a manner that could lead to flawed habitat management. Some of the same criteria require rather restrictive assumptions about population equilibrium that, when violated, can also generate misleading inference. Here, we expand on a criterion (denoted "contribution" or Cr) that incorporates successful emigration in differentiating sources and sinks and that makes no restrictive assumptions about dispersal or equilibrium processes in populations of interest. The metric Cr is rooted in the theory of matrix population models, yet it also contains clearly specified parameters that have been estimated in previous empirical research. We suggest that estimates of emigration are important for delineating sources and sinks and, more generally, for evaluating how local populations interact to generate overall system dynamics. This suggestion has direct implications for issues such as species conservation and habitat management.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The genetical theory of natural selection
Fisher, R. A. (1930) · doi:10.5962/bhl.title.27468 · Cited by 17,617
(2011) · Wildlife Society Bulletin · doi:10.1002/(issn)1938-5463a · Cited by 5,545
Wright, S. (1943) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/28.2.114 · Cited by 5,479
Ingenta (1965) · Cited by 5,382
Sources, Sinks, and Population Regulation
Pulliam, H. R. (1988) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284880 · Cited by 5,367
Lebreton, J.-D., Burnham, K. P., Clobert, J., & Anderson, D. R. (1992) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/2937171 · Cited by 4,517
MATRIX POPULATION MODELS: CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Weckerly, F. W. (2001) · Natural Resource Modeling · doi:10.1111/j.1939-7445.2001.tb00075.x · Cited by 3,232
(2019) · Annales Zoologici Fennici · doi:10.5735/anzf · Cited by 2,526
Density as a Misleading Indicator of Habitat Quality
Horne, B. V. (1983) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3808148 · Cited by 2,406
Detecting immigration by using multilocus genotypes
Rannala, B., & Mountain, J. L. (1997) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.94.17.9197 · Cited by 2,208
Cited by
Mortelliti, A., Amori, G., & Boitani, L. (2010) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s00442-010-1623-3 · Cited by 274
Lloyd‐Jones, L. R., Brien, M. L., Feutry, P., Lawrence, E., Beri, P., Booth, S., Coulson, S., Baylis, S. M., Villiers, K., Taplin, L. E., et al. (2023) · Evolutionary Applications · doi:10.1111/eva.13545 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Runge, J. P., Runge, M. C., & Nichols, J. D.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2006-06
- Volume
- 167
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 925-938
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2001721264
- Cited by
- 260
- References
- 74
- FWCI
- 7.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Role of Local Populations within a Landscape Context: Defining and Classifying Sources and Sinks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/503531
- The paper
- Runge, J. P., Runge, M. C., & Nichols, J. D. (2006). The Role of Local Populations within a Landscape Context: Defining and Classifying Sources and Sinks. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/503531
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.