Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract

Most current methods for describing animal home range assume that it may be represented as a Euclidean type shape such as a bell shaped curve or a closed polygon. Landscape ecology has increasingly shown that ecological objects are more often highly fragmented and irregular. A fractal approach to description of animal home range was thus developed. For each point where the animal was observed, a circle centered on this point was first laid down to represent the area searched for prey by the animal during a short time interval. In this way the behavior of the animal and differences between species can be represented. Next, a fine grid is laid over the map and the height of each grid square computed by the number of circles that overlap that square. Then, the fractal dimension of the resultant 3-D surface is calculated at several scales. From an analysis of data from a hawk, the existence of perching behavior can be inferred, as well as the observation that at coarse scales the hawk behavior is self-similar and resembles a random walk. The home range thus analyzed in no way resembles a closed figure such as a polygon because it is highly fragmented. Further analysis showed that the fractal measures are relatively insensitive to sample size and to measurement error. Code is included for performing the analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Altmann, S.A. and Altmann, J. 1970. Baboon ecology. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, D.J. 1982. The home range: a new nonparametric estimation technique. Ecology 63: 103–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnsley, M. 1988. Fractals Everywhere. Academic Press, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrough, P.A. 1986. Principles of geographical information systems for land resources assessment. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicke, M. and Burrough, P.A. 1988. Using fractal dimensions for characterizing tortuosity of animal trails. Physiolog. Ent. 13: 393–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, J.E. 1978. Computer programs for the analysis of radio telemetry data in the study of home range. U. Ark. Stat. Lab. Tech. Rept. 7.

  • Dunn, J.E. 1979. A complete test for dynamic territorial interaction. U. Ark. Stat. Lab. Tech. Rept. 10.

  • Dunn, J.E. and Gipson, P.S. 1977. Analysis of radio telemetry data in studies of home range. Biometrics 33: 85–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, R.G. and Krumme, D.W. 1979. The analysis of space use patterns. Journal of Theoretical Biology 76: 125–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • H»kanson, L. 1978. The length of closed geomorphic lines. Mathem. Geol. 10: 141–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harestad, A.S. and Bunnel, F.L. 1979. Home range and body weight — a reevaluation. Ecology 60: 389–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennrich, R.I. and Turner, F.B. 1969. Measurement of non-circular home range. Journal of Theoretical Biology 22: 227–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krummel, J.R., Gardner, R.H., Sugihara, G., O'Neill, R.V. and Coleman, P.R. 1987. Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos 48: 321–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, N.S.-N. 1990. Description and measurement of Landsat TM images using fractals. Phot. Eng. & Remote Sens. 56: 187–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loehle, C. 1983. The fractal dimension and ecology. Speculations in Science and Technology 6: 313–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy, S., Schertzer, D. and Tsonis, A.A. 1987. Functional box-counting and multiple elliptical dimensions in rain. Science 235: 1036–1038.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, D.W., Ball, F.G. and Hough, N.G. 1980. The evaluation of home range size and configuration using radio tracking data. In A Handbook on biotelemetry and radio tracking, pp 405–424. Edited by C.J. Amlaner and D.W. MacDonald. Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot, B.B. 1983. The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W.H. Freeman and Co., N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNab, B.K. 1963. Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. American Naturalist 97: 133–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, B.T. 1988. Measuring the fractal geometry of landscapes. App. Math. Comput. 27: 67–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, D.R., Lawton, J.H., Dodson, M.M. and Williamson, M.H. 1985. Fractal dimension of vegetation and the distribution of arthropod body lengths. Nature 314: 731–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neu, C.W., Byers, C.R. and Peek, J.M. 1974. A technique for analysis of utilization — availability data. J. Wildl. Manage. 38: 541–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, M.W. 1988. Fractal geometry: a tool for describing spatial patterns of plant communities. Vegetatio 75: 91–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, J.D. 1985. Measuring complexity of environmental gradients. Vegetatio 64: 95–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietgen, H.O. and Saupe, D. 1988. The Science of Fractal Images. Springer Verlag, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, M.D. and Garton, E.O. 1985. Home range: a weighted normal estimate and tests of underlying assumptions. J. Wildl. Manage. 49: 513–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, G.C. 1966. The study of mammal movements: A review. J. Wildl. Manage. 30: 215–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoener, T.W. 1968. Sizes of feeding territories among birds. Ecology 49: 123–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoener, T.W. 1981. An empirically based estimate of home range. Theoretical Population Biology 20: 281–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, P.J.H., Walker, J., Penridge, L.K., Wu, H. and Rykiel Jr, E.J. 1986. Spatial considerations in physiological models of tree growth. Tree Physiology 2: 403–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southwood, T.R.E. 1966. Ecological methods. Methuen, London. United Kingdom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swihart, R.K., Slade, N.A. and Bergstrom, B.J. 1988. Relating body size to the rate of home range use in mammals. Ecology 63: 393–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevor-Deutsch, B. and Hackett, D.F. 1980. An evaluation of several grid trapping methods by comparison with radio telemetry in a home range study of the eastern chipmunk (Tamiasstriatus L.). In A Handbook on Biotelemetry and Radio Tracking, pp 375–385. Edited by C.J. Amlaner and D.W. MacDonald. Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, F.B., Jennrich, R.I. and Weintraub, J.D. 1969. Home ranges and the body size of lizards. Ecology 50: 1076–1081.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M.G., Constanza, R. and Sklar, F.H. 1989. Methods to evaluate the performance of spatial simulation models. Ecol. Model. 48: 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Winkle, W. 1975. Comparison of several probabilistic home-range models. Journal of Wildlife Management 39: 118–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Winkle, W., Martin, D.C. and Sebetich, M.J. 1973. A home-range model for animals inhabiting an ecotone. Ecology 54: 205–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voigt, D.R. and Tinline, R.R. 1980. Strategies for analyzing radio tracking data. In A Handbook on Biotelemetry and Radio Tracking, pp 387–404. Edited by C.J. Amlaner and D.W. MacDonald. Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Loehle, C. Home range: A fractal approach. Landscape Ecol 5, 39–52 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00153802

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00153802

Keywords

Navigation