Hi Damiano,

This is a first point: I've used Nams' FRACTAL on several species up to now, that is Brown bear, the Alpine Ibex, Leisler's noctule and a putativa invasive bird species (Paradoxornis webbianus). I found the vFractal estimator rather useful to have an idea not just of the 'path tortuosity', but of the scale level at which 'search patterns' occur. The results achieved are quite interesting, i.e. Brown bears released in NE Italy showed significant differences in D calculated in the release year and in subsequent years, Ibexes showed a 'random walk peak' in the D-vs-scale diagram ad about 1 km (which does make perfect sense for an Ibex) and P. webbianus, already known as a short distamce mover, showed a 300 to 500 m search range. I found this very useful to have an idea of the scale of habitat perceprtion by a species, and since I run all my analyses in R (what else? :) I'm annoyed to go back and forth from FRACTAL to adehabitat.

This could be an example of fractal dimension use (...hope so...)


Many thanks for this answer, you made a very interesting point. Actually, my point of view is anchored in the field of statistical tools development for animal movement analysis, and I sometimes overlook the need of biologists in practical studies. I of course acknowledge that this approach could be used presently with benefits as a heuristic tool, to explore scale-related patterns in the trajectory.

However, this leads to an interesting question from a theoretical point of view: the fractal D has a clear mathematical meaning only when objects are self-similar (same properties at large and small scale), and from an "applied studies" point of view, this measure is mainly used on objects which are not self-similar, precisely to study this deviation from self-similarity, and the scale at which this deviation occurs (but IMHO, we should not call it "fractal" D in this context). What I do not understand is why a parameter measuring a property on one category of objects would necessarily be a meaningful measure of the deviation of one object from this category?

The main argument of Nams (2005; Oecologia 143: 179-188), a strong one actually, is an empirical observation: all the simulations he did seem to confirm that D changes continuously within domains, and that discontinuity occur at domain changes (under the hypothesis of spatial homogeneity of the trajectory). Both your successes in using this approach and this empirical argument make the approach interesting for multiscale analysis (together with the present lack of alternative approaches in the ecological literature).

This is a bit off-topic, so I do not pursue further, but I think that more theoretical research may be needed here to establish clearly the theoretical foundations of this approach, which would define the context on which it relies (hypotheses on which it relies, required properties for the trajectories, etc.; but I may have missed such work in the literature)...
Best wishes,


Clément Calenge
--

Clément CALENGE
Office national de la chasse et de la faune sauvage
Saint Benoist - 78610 Auffargis
tel. (33) 01.30.46.54.14

_______________________________________________
AniMov mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.faunalia.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/animov

Reply via email to