... owl.¹

We'll talk in some detail about the northern spotted owl next time.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... information.²

We'll return to approaches conservation biologists can use to overcome the information deficit they face. But for the next hour or two, we're going to ignore this problem.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... 95\%.³

For no better reason than we accept a 95% confidence level as ``reasonable'' evidence against a null hypothesis in statistical tests.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... years.⁴

For no better reason than that 10 years seemed too short and 1000 years seemed unrealistic.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... purposes.⁵

We'll see later that this restriction gets broadened to include sets of interacting populations. These sets of interacting populations are known as metapopulations.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... populations,⁶

Some of which we've already seen and more of which we're about to encounter.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... persistence.⁷

More precisely, those components of the community that depend on these animals will go extinct. Other components may persist, but the community that persists will be quite different from the one currently in place.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... applicable.⁸

Insects and annual plants, though they pose their own problems for conservationists, are fairly simple to deal with demographically.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... rates.⁹

The discussion of Leslie and Lefkovitch matrices found here draws extensively on material in [1, Chapters 2-4].

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... offspring.¹⁰

In the models we'll be considering today, we also ignore demographic stochasticity, so the probability of surviving from one year to the next is equal to the fraction that actually survive. Notice that we're also ignoring demographic heterogeneity, i.e., the possibility that the probabilities in the matrix may vary from individual to individual.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

....¹¹

To keep things (relatively) simple, I'm assuming that all eigenvalues are distinct.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... Elasticity¹²

The elasticities sum to one, so each can be considered the element's ``contribution'' to determining the eigenvalue.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... season¹³

We ignored environmental stochasticity, remember.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... variance.¹⁴

Remember the simple relationships I told you about a couple of lectures ago. Their results are quite similar.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... remember:¹⁵

I'd urge you to recite them to yourself every night before you go to bed, but that's a bit much.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.