Landscape Ecology

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 25–36 | Cite as

Using fractal analysis to assess how species perceive landscape structure

  • Kimberly A. With


To develop a species-centered definition of ‘landscapes,’ I suggest using a fractal analysis of movement patterns to identify the scales at which organisms are interacting with the patch structure of the landscape. Significant differences in the fractal dimensions of movement patterns of two species indicate that the species may be interacting with the patch structure at different scales. Fractal analysis therefore permits comparisons of ‘landscape perceptions’ of different species within the same environment.

I tested the utility of this fractal application by analyzing the movement patterns of three species of acridid grasshoppers (Orthoptera) in a grassland mosaic. The largest species moved up to 6 times faster than the two smaller species, and species exhibited different responses to microlandscape structure within 25-m2 plots. Further, the largest species exhibited different responses to microlandscape structure in two pastures subjected to different intensities of cattle grazing. This species thus is able to integrate information on landscape structure at broad spatial scales. Fractal analysis of movement patterns revealed that the two small species had significantly more tortuous patterns than the larger species, which suggests that these species are interacting with patch structure at a finer scale of resolution than the large species. Fractal analysis can be used to identify the perceptive resolution of a species; that is, the spatial grain and extent at which they are able to perceive and respond to heterogeneity. Analysis of movement patterns across a range of spatial scale may reveal shifts in fractal dimension that reflect transitions in how species respond to the patch structure of the landscape at different scales.


fractal dimension grassland grasshoppers landscape perception microlandscape movement patterns 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, N.S. 1964. Some relationships between grasshoppers and vegetation. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 57: 736–742.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R.V., Tracy, C.R. and Abramsky, Z. 1979. Habitat selection in two species of short-horned grasshoppers. Oecologia 38: 359–374.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett-Clark, H.C. 1990. Jumping in Orthoptera. In Biology of Grasshoppers, pp. 173–203. Edited by R.F. Chapman and A. Joern. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, J.B., Arnett, W.H., Lambley, J.D., Jantz, O.K. and Knutson, H. 1974. Grasshoppers (Acrididae) of the Flint Hills native tallgrass prairie in Kansas. Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Paper, No. 19: 1–146.Google Scholar
  5. Capinera, J.L. and Sechrist, T.S. 1982. Grasshoppers (Acrididae) of Colorado: identification, biology and management. Bulletin No. 584S, Colorado State University Experiment Station, Fort Collins.Google Scholar
  6. Chapman, R.F. 1990. Food selection. In Biology of Grasshoppers, pp. 39–72. Edited by R.F. Chapan and A. Joern. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Crist, T.O., Guertin, D.S., Wiens, J.A. and Milne, B.T. 1992. Animal movement in heterogeneous landscapes: an experiment with Eleodes beetles in shortgrass prairie. Functional Ecology 6: 536–544.Google Scholar
  8. Dicke, M. and Burrough, P.A. 1988. Using fractal dimensions for characterizing the tortuosity of animal trails. Physiological Entomology 13: 393–398.Google Scholar
  9. Gabriel, J.M. 1985. The development of the locust jump mechanism. I. Allometric growth and its effect on jumping performance. Journal of Experimental Biology 118: 313–326.Google Scholar
  10. Gendron, R.P. and J.E.R. Staddon. 1983. Searching for cryptic prey: the effect of search rate. American Naturalist 121: 172–186.Google Scholar
  11. Joern, A. 1982. Vegetation structure and microhabitat selection in grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Southwestern Naturalist 27: 197–209.Google Scholar
  12. Joern, A. 1983. Small-scale displacements of grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) within arid grasslands. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 56: 131–139.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, A.R., Wiens, J.A., Milne, B.T. and Crist, T.O. 1992. Animal movements and population dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes. Landscape Ecology 7: 63–75.Google Scholar
  14. Kareiva, P. 1982. Experimental and mathematical analyses of herbivore movement: quantifying the influence of plant spacing and quality on foraging discrimination. Ecological Monographs 52: 261–282.Google Scholar
  15. Kareiva, P.M. and Shigesada, N. 1983. Analyzing insect movement as a correlated random walk. Oecologia 56: 234–238.Google Scholar
  16. Kennedy, J.S. 1939. The behavior of the desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria (Forsk.)) (Orthopt.) in an outbreak centre. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 89: 385–542.Google Scholar
  17. King, A.W. 1991. Translating models across scales in the landscape. In Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology, pp. 479–517. Edited by M.G. Turner and R.H. Gardner. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Kolasa, J. and C.D. Rollo. 1991. Introduction: the heterogeneity of heterogeneity: a glossary. In Ecological Heterogeneity, pp. 1–23. Edited by J. Kolasa and S.T.A. Pickett. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Kotliar, N.B. and Wiens, J.A. 1990. Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59: 253–260.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Mandelbrot, B.B. 1983. The fractal geometry of nature. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  22. McCulloch, C.E. and Cain, M.L. 1989. Analyzing discrete movement data as a correlated random walk. Ecology 70: 383–388.Google Scholar
  23. Merriam, G., Henein, K. and Stuart-Smith, K. 1991. Landscape dynamics models. In Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology, pp. 399–416. Edited by M.G. Turner and R.H. Gardner. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Milchunas, D.G. and Lauenroth, W.K. 1989. Three-dimensional distribution of plant biomass in relation to grazing and topography in the shortgrass steppe. Oikos 55: 82–86.Google Scholar
  25. Milne, B.T. 1991. Lessons from applying fractal models to landscape patterns. In Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology, pp. 199–235. Edited by M.G. Turner and R.H. Gardner. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Milne, B.T., Turner, M.G., Wiens, J.A. and Johnson, A.R. 1992. Interactions between the fractal geometry of landscapes and allometric herbivory. Theoretical Population Biology 41: 331–353.Google Scholar
  27. Mulkern, G.B. 1967. Food selection by grasshoppers. Annual Review of Entomology 12: 59–78.Google Scholar
  28. Otte, D. 1981. The North American grasshoppers. Volume I. Acrididae: Gomphocerinae and Acridinae. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  29. Parmenter, R.R., Parmenter, C.A. and Cheney, C.D. 1989. Factors influencing microhabitat partitioning among coexisting species of arid-land darkling beetles (Tenebrionidae): behavioral responses to vegetation architecture. Southwestern Naturalist 34: 319–329.Google Scholar
  30. Pfadt, R.E. and Lavigne, R. J. 1982. Food habits of grasshoppers inhabiting the Pawnee site. Science Monograph 42, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Wyoming, Laramie.Google Scholar
  31. Risser, P.G. 1987. Landscape ecology: state of the art. In Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance, pp. 3–14. Edited by M.G. Turner. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Smith, J.N.M. 1974. The food searching behavior of two European thrushes. II. The adaptiveness of the search patterns. Behavior 49: 1–61.Google Scholar
  33. Swihart, R.K., Slade, N.A. and Bergstrom, B.J. 1988. Relating body size to the rate of home range use in mammals. Ecology 69: 393–399.Google Scholar
  34. Turner, M.G. and Gardner, R.H. 1991. Quantitative methods in landscape ecology: an introduction. In Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology, pp. 3–14. Edited by M.G. Turner and R.H. Gardner. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Turner, M.G., Dale, V.H. and Gardner, R.H. 1989. Predicting across scales: theory development and testing. Landscape Ecology 3: 245–252.Google Scholar
  36. Van Horn, D.H. 1972. Grasshopper population numbers and biomass dynamics on the Pawnee site from Fall of 1968 through 1970. US International Biological Program Grassland Biome Technical Report No. 148.Google Scholar
  37. Wallace, G.K. 1958. Some experiments on form perception in the nymphs of the desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria Forskal. Journal of Experimental Biology 35: 765–775.Google Scholar
  38. Welch, J.L., Redak, R. and Kondratieff, B.C. 1991. Effect of cattle grazing on the density and species of grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) of the Central Plains Experimental Range, Colorado: a reassessment after two decades. Journal of Kansas Entomological Society 64: 337–343.Google Scholar
  39. Wiens, J.A. 1985. Vertebrate responses to environmental patchiness in arid and semiarid ecosystems. In The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Edited by S.T.A. Pickett and P.S. White, pp. 169–193. Academic Press, Florida.Google Scholar
  40. Wiens, J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3: 385–397.Google Scholar
  41. Wiens, J.A. 1990. On the use of ‘grain’ and ‘grain size’ in ecology. Functional Ecology 4: 720.Google Scholar
  42. Wiens, J.A. 1992. What is landscape ecology, really? Landscape Ecology 7: 149–150.Google Scholar
  43. Wiens, J.A. and Milne, B.T. 1989. Scaling of ‘landscapes’ in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from a beetle's perspective. Landscape Ecology 3: 87–96.Google Scholar
  44. Wiens, J.A., Crist, T.O. and Milne, B.T. in press. On quantifying insect movements. Environmental Entomology.Google Scholar
  45. With, K.A. in review. Ontogenetic shifts in how grasshoppers interact with landscape structure: an analysis of movement patterns. Functional Ecology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SPB Academic Publishing bv 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kimberly A. With
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology and Program for Ecological StudiesColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations