Animal Space Use

In Part IX a standard Coupled map lattice model was shown to be able to display a 1/f power spectrum, by careful tuning of one of the conditions for population mixing. On the other hand, I also showed that the Zoomer model under similar general conditions showed a higher resilience with respect to the 1/f property. In the present post I explore this statistical resilience of the Zoomer model further, by stressing the population system towards other corners of extreme conditions. However, I start by elaborating on this pressing question: Why this recurrent focus on 1/f noise? To stimulate your curiosity I also reproduce from my book two analyses of empirical data; the sycamore aphid Drepanosiphum platanoides and the leaf miner Leucoptera meyricki . First, a brief bird’s view of complex dynamics. I have repeatedly given partly answers to the question “why focusing on 1/f noise?”, but here I seek to give you a broader perspective, starting with a citation from Scholarpedia: 1/f fluc

In the previous post I presented a time series of the Zoomer model, verifying a 1/f (pink) noise signature. For the sake of comparison I here present a series from scale-specific dynamics (standard Coupled map lattice model) using a comparable system setup. Interestingly, some specific similarities with some statistical aspects of the Zoomer model is appearing, given some “Fine tuning” of conditions. However, some aspects are able to pinpoint the difference anyway. The present CML model conditions are the same as for the Zoomer version with 5-scale zooming of 1% zoomers pr. scale level and time increment, except for replacing zooming with 1% diffusion between neighbour cells at unit scale. Recall from previous posts in this series – and from the older post where the Zoomer model was described in mathematical terms (search Archive) – that zooming has a component of intraspecific cohesion. In contrast, diffusion is a memory-less (Markov compliant) kind of re-distribution of individua