Cooper and Mangel: Metapopulation structure in the conservation of salmonids 



223 



300 



300 

 200 



100 



o 

 D. 



300 

 200 

 100 



Deme1,r(1,0)=1.01 (sink) 



Deme 3, r(3,0) =1.06 (source) 



Deme 5, r(5,0) =1.06 (source) 



Deme 7, r(7.0) =1.09 (source) 



Deme 9, r(9,0) =0.87 (sink) 



300 

 200 

 100 



300 



200 



300 



200 



Deme 2, r(2,0) =0.97 (sink) 



»- CO en 



Deme 4, r(4,0) =1 .02 (sink) 



Deme 6. r(6.0) =0,96 (sink) 



Deme 8, r(8,0) =0 99 (sink) 



Deme 10, r(10,0) =0.96 (sink) 



Year 



Figure 7 



When Zg varies (scenario 4 in "Simulations" section), the local population sizes reflect such variation. 

 Compare with Figure 3. 



sample metapopulations from the simulations provide 

 demonstrations of how this may occur 



Figure 3 demonstrates one example where meta- 

 population structure could obscure management sig- 



nals. Keep in mind, there is neither density depen- 

 dence, observation error, nor stochasticity in the 

 population dynamics, and a deme could represent an 

 index reach (conforming to our uniform reproductive 



