Interactions between the fractal geometry of landscapes and allometric herbivory

Abstract The scale at which herbivorous mammals forage is determined in part by home range area, population density, metabolic rate, movement speed, transport costs, and ingestion rate. These ecological, behavioral, and physiological characteristics that vary with body mass constitute the notion of allometric herbivory. In fractal landscapes, forage density varies with the scale at which animals perceive the resource. Interactions between scale-dependent resource density and allometric herbivory were investigated by using remotely sensed imagery to simulate fragmented distributions of forage biomass in an 810-ha landscape, and then simulating allometric herbivory for 2–6-kg animals. Between years, changes in landscape geometry altered foraging success. Within years, resource depletion resulted in increased aggregation among foragers followed by sudden increases in mobility and dispersion. Portions of the forage remained after the foragers shifted from the aggregation phase to one of mass dispersal. Spatial patterns of resources may regulate resource uptake and depletion rates within the landscape, with potential implications for demographics, intra-specific competition, and community assembly.

[1]  J. Harper.  Population Biology of Plants , 1979 .

[2]  James H. Brown.  Two Decades of Homage to Santa Rosalia: Toward a General Theory of Diversity , 1981 .

[3]  Benoit B. Mandelbrot,et al.  Fractal Geometry of Nature , 1984 .

[4]  Bruce T. Milne,et al.  Peninsulas in Maine: Woody Plant Diversity, Distance, and Environmental Patterns , 1986 .

[5]  Norman A. Slade,et al.  Relating Body Size to the Rate of Home Range Use in Mammals , 1988 .

[6]  Derek W. Bailey,et al.  Large Herbivore Foraging and Ecological HierarchiesLandscape ecology can enhance traditional foraging theory , 1987 .

[7]  J. Wiens.  Spatial Scaling in Ecology , 1989 .

[8]  A F Goetz,et al.  Imaging Spectrometry for Earth Remote Sensing , 1985, Science.

[9]  Bruce T. Milne,et al.  Lessons from applying fractal models to landscape patterns , 1991 .

[10]  F. Morrison.  Feeds and Feeding , 2009 .

[11]  H. Delcourt,et al.  Dynamic plant ecology: the spectrum of vegetational change in space and time , 1982 .

[12]  Lenore Fahrig,et al.  Effect of Spatial Arrangement of Habitat Patches on Local Population Size , 1988 .

[13]  B. Milne.  Measuring the fractal geometry of landscapes , 1988 .

[14]  A. Harestad,et al.  Home Range and Body Weight‐‐A Reevaluation , 1979 .

[15]  Richard F. Voss,et al.  Fractals in nature: from characterization to simulation , 1988 .

[16]  James O. Farlow,et al.  A Consideration of the Trophic Dynamics of a Late Cretaceous Large-Dinosaur Community (Oldman Formation) , 1976 .

[17]  Claude M. Penchina,et al.  The physics of amorphous solids , 1983 .

[18]  P. Burrough.  Fractal dimensions of landscapes and other environmental data , 1981, Nature.

[19]  R. Peters.  The Ecological Implications of Body Size , 1983 .

[20]  H. Eugene Stanley,et al.  Form: An Introduction to Self-Similarity and Fractal Behavior , 1986 .

[21]  R. Rosen.  Dynamical similarity and the theory of biological transformations. , 1978, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[22]  Bruce T. Milne,et al.  The utility of fractal geometry in landscape design , 1991 .

[23]  M. Turner,et al.  LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY : The Effect of Pattern on Process 1 , 2002 .

[24]  R. Orbach,et al.  Dynamics of Fractal Networks , 1986, Science.

[25]  W. R. Stahl,et al.  Scaling of respiratory variables in mammals. , 1967, Journal of applied physiology.

[26]  Thomas B. Starr,et al.  Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity , 1982 .