# Non-Mechanistic Dynamics: a Simple Illustration

**In my previous post I summarized my critique of mechanistic modelling when applied on animal movement. Simply stated, the Markovian design on which mechanistic models depend is in my view incompatible with a realistic representation of memory-influenced and scale-free space use. Below I illustrate the alternative approach, non-mechanistic dynamics, by a simple Figure. As conceptually described by the Scaling cube, an extra system dimension based on relative scale (“hierarchical scaling” of the dynamics), resolves the apparent paradox of non-mechanistic dynamics.**

I cite from my first post on the Scaling cube (December 25, 2015):

The scaling cube brings these directions of research together under a coherent biophysics framework. It also forces upon us a need to differentiate between mechanistic dynamics (the

M-floor) and non-mechanistic dynamics (thePP-ceiling).

As a supplement to my book presentation I have published a series of posts on this theme, where its unfamiliar nature has been revealed in a piece-wise manner. In particular, you got a “rolling dice” perception of how non-mechanistic dynamics pays out as a special universality class:

The basic challenge regards how to model a process that consists of a mixture of short term tactics and longer time (coarser scale) strategic goals. Consider that the concept of “now” for a tactical response regards a temporally finer-grained event than “now” at the time scale for executing a more strategic event, which consequently takes place within a more “stretched” time frame relative to the tactical scale. Strategy is defined in a hierarchy theoretical manner; coarser scale strategy consequently invokes a constraint on finer scaled events (references in my book). For example, while an individual executes a strategic change of state like starting a relatively large-distance displacement (towards a goal), finer-scaled events during this execution – consider shorter time goals – are processed freely but within the top-down constraint that they should not hinder the execution of the coarser goals. Hence, the degrees of process freedom increases with the scale distance between a given fine-scaled goal and a coarser-scaled goal.

From “The Inner Working of Parallel Processing” (blog post, February 8, 2019).

How to visualize non-mechanistic dynamics? Consider the output from a simple representation of a simulated animal path during a given time interval. The movement rules are constant and deterministic. Then consider repeating the simulation four times (marked by numbers in the image to the right). In compliance with classic design principles all repeat runs of the dynamics should be expected to show identical path progression over the habitat during the given interval. However, under non-mechanistic dynamics even a deterministic progression is expected to show occasional “surprise” moves (red line in run no 4).

**Simply stated, what appears to be a surprising and random move from one time resolution (fine-scale “now”) may appear deterministic and quite rational from a coarser time resolution, in compliance with the rules for the simulation at these scales (coarser scale “now”).**

Such unfamiliar and unconventional kind of model behaviour is expected to appear due to the fact that the path from the simulation is *logged* at a specific temporal scale (unit size time increments) while the dynamics are *executed* over a scale range, including coarser scales that the logged scale. The dynamics from parallel processing at coarser temporal scales will by necessity appear as stochastic surprise moves from the perspective of finer time scales.

For example, with reference to the “throwing dice” analogy (where number of eyes determine a specific state at the respective scale levels), most moves are executed at unit scale while some are executed at coarser scales. The latter may be formulated as deterministic moves at respective temporal resolutions, but will appear randomly; *i.e*., as a surprise, when observed from finer scales. The dice represent discrete-scale description of levels, which of course should be considered a continuous range in a real system.

The crucial difference between mechanistic and non-mechanistic kind of stochastic moves is thus buried in the process itself; is the move a result of a Markovian rule that involves some influence of randomness in the decision making about what to do next, or is the move the result of a more strategic decision? To clarify this key issue one has to apply specific statistical methods that have the potential to test for parallel processing. The acid test of parallel processing is performed by comparing some basic statistics from simulations of non-mechanistic dynamics with the similar statistics from real data. My papers, book and blog provide many results of such tests, spanning many aspects of the space use behaviour.

# On the Paradox of Mechanistic Movement Models

**Mechanistic design is still dominating animal space use modelling. As the readers of my papers, book and blog have understood I’m very critical to this framework. In particular, because both mechanics and statistical mechanics – due to their dependence on Markovian dynamics – under their present formulations seem to be unable to implement memory-influenced movement in a realistic manner. Thus, paradoxes abound. Unfortunately most theoreticians in movement ecology either don’t care or don’t know how to approach this issue. In this post I seek to pinpoint the most basic challenge, and how it may be potentially resolved by exploring a qualitatively new direction of modelling.**

Consider the standard, simplified illustration of animal foraging, which takes up much of an individual’s focus during a day. At each time increment the behaviour adheres to rules under the mathematical framework of a low order Markovian process. A similar diagram could have been shown for other behavioural modes; like looking for a mate, seeking a shelter for resting, and so on. In short, mechanistic behaviour describes rules, which may be executed deterministically, stochastically or as a mixture. The key point is that the process in model terms is described at a specific temporal resolution. In other words, each “Start” in the illustration to the right regards execution of behaviour during the current time increment; i.e., at the current moment at the given time scale.

A Markov chain is a stochastic model describing a sequence of possible events in which the probability of each event depends only on the state attained in the previous event. In probability theory and related fields, a Markov process, named after the Russian mathematician Andrey Markov, is a stochastic process that satisfies the Markov property (sometimes characterized as “memorylessness”). Roughly speaking, a process satisfies the Markov property if one can make predictions for the future of the process based solely on its present state just as well as one could knowing the process’s full history, hence independently from such history, that is, conditional on the present state of the system, its future and past states are independent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain

Animals including at least mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish (apparently also many species of invertebrates), have a cognitive capacity both to orient themselves in space and to relate to a larger or lesser degree to past experiences from visited space. For example, a home range is an emergent property of this capacity, where the animal under specific biological and ecological circumstances prefers to revisit some of its previously visited locations more frequently than by chance.

There have been many proposals for modelling spatial memory, based on the standard principles of the mechanistic (Markovian) framework. For example, the animal could cognitively store its experience from successive locations along its path with respect to local food attributes and the location of these experiences (memory map utilization). Along a trailing time window;* i.e.*, assuming a high order rather than low order Markovian design, older experiences beyond a given memory capacity is lost by computational necessity.

However, as I’ve documented over a large range of simulation examples where theory and empirical results are compared, the space use pattern as seen in large sets of individual relocations (e.g., in telemetry/GPS-based studies) do not seem to comply with the basic statistical properties of mechanistic/Markov behaviour. Animals seem to have a capacity for long term and spatially explicit memory utilization* well beyond the time scale of any high order Markov model. Simple statistical analyses from spin-offs under the alternative statistical-mechanical model designs reveal that these animals also relate to their environment in a scale-free manner, rather than the intrinsically scale-specific constraint of processing that *by necessity* follows from the standard Markovian designs.

The alternative approach to modelling animal space use – MRW and the Zoomer model – is advocated my papers, my book and on this blog. These contributions also provide several simple methods to test model compliance – Markovian *vs.* non-Markovian processing – using your own data.

**It’s of course up to each ecologist to ignore these warning signs for the realism of standard dynamic modelling of animal movement and space use, but be aware that an increasing number of physicists are now drawn towards this field of research. In an upcoming post I’ll summarize some of these recent developments, which in large part seem to have been initially inspired by my MRW simulations that began appearing in papers almost 15 years ago**.**

NOTES

*) Biological and ecological conditions may constrain the utilization to a more narrow range, for example when or where the environment is relatively unpredictable. In that case the value of old information i rapidly diminishing as a function of time.

**) In fact, the first simulations of MRW were published already in my PhD thesis back in 1998.

# Intraspecific Cohesion From Conspecific Attraction, Part III: A Simple Test

**In the real world, animals typically tend to congregate at the landscape scale, even when they show repellence at finer scales (territorial behaviour). In contrast, one of the basic assumptions of the vast majority of mathematical population models is independent space use by individuals. In other words, it is assumed that the individuals do not show conspecific attraction but adhere to “full mixing” from independent space use. A strange assumption, indeed! Using the part of the Parallel processing theory (PP) that was summarized in Part I and Part II it is a simple statistical exercise to test if a given population’s dispersion obeys the full mixing assumption (the Paradigm); or alternatively, indicating a positive feedback tendency from PP-compliant space use (the Zoomer model). **

The concept of conspecific attraction is verified among many species and taxa of animals. For example, lizards prefer to settle near conspecifics, even when unoccupied habitat is available nearby (Stamps 1987; 1988; 1991). Stamps (1991) searched the literature on territorial vertebrates but was unable to find any study in which a negative effect of the density of residents on the settlement of newcomers was demonstrated; *i.e*. the general assumption of habitat selection studies that prospective territory owners prefer relatively empty habitats proved to lack empirical evidence.

In contrast, in theoretical population models it is typically assumed that individuals both move and settle inter-independently. This “full mixing” assumption in models is a mathematical convenience. It is in fact a requirement, under the premise of the mean field framework, on which almost all population dynamical models adhere to. For example, to model population dynamics realistically with ordinary differential models one has to assume both full spatial mixing of individuals at the temporal scale of the analysis, and a closed system. If the system is open, one should apply partial differential equations, since this allows for an assumption of full mixing locally instead of system-wide (allowing for spatio-temporal “shifting mosaic” of local abundance) (Potts and Lewis 2019)*. The former is called a spatially implicit model, the latter is called a spatially explicit model.

**The “full mixing” requirement in classic and contemporary theory of space use by populations is one of the main reasons why theoreticians and field ecologists often tend to drift apart. Logically, it does not make sense, even before considering behavioual fitness arguments! As I argued in Part I and Part II, independent movement and settlement in an open environment will over time drift a Markov-compliant population towards extinction from diffusion and Allée effects. **

Empirical results show that (a) single-species populations tend to show scale-free spatial congregation, compliant with a power law (Taylor 1986), (b) empirical results continue to support Non-Markovian, spatial memory utilization by individuals, and (c) populations in general seem to adhere to the principle of conspecific attraction. References in by book and throughout this blog.

Scientifically, the primary question is: how to perform the initial task (prior to making follow-up ecological inference) to test for inter-dependent or independent space use? In other words, how to test if local dispersion is influenced by conspecific attraction?

Consider the PP-based model to represent a specific alternative hypothesis, which should be tested against the null hypothesis given by the Paradigm (for example, a reaction-diffusion model for spatially explicit population dynamics).

The protocol can be quite simple, at least in the first-level approach of analysis of empirical data.

Again, consider results from simulations of PP, i addition to a Paradigm compliant population dispersion. In the Figure to the right you find situation both from scale-specific (Markovian compliant random walk, the Paradigm) and scale-free individual space use with extensive spatial overlap (the PP model), and where both conditions are void of intraspecific cohesion to make the scearia comparable in this respect. This condition contrasts with the scenario in Part I, where I showed how a population with PP compliant space use generated a scale-free dispersion under influence of conspecific attraction. In the present two scenaria the conspecific attraction factor is absent. Individuals use space inter-independently, and below you learn how to test statistically for this lack of conspecific attraction at the so-called “landscape scale” under two qualitatively distinct model frameworks.

The result of inter-independency is seen in the lower part of the Figure. Both situations result in a lack of fractal spatial dispersion of abundance of the pooled set of locations. The reason is that the distribution complies with a negative exponential function (semi-log linear, not shown) rather than power law compliant one (log-log linear).

**When these two distinct system conditions are viewed from the population perspective, they both lead to mean field-like system properties with respect to the (M, F) regression at the population level. In other words, even the scenario where individual space use was PP compliant, the lack of conspecific attraction masked the fractal PP property of individuals when analyzed at the population level. Under log-log transformation of frequency of cells in respective bins of grid cell abundance the regression lines were not linear; i.e., not power law compliant. Basically, to test PP compliant space use under the additional property of intraspecific cohesion from conspecific attraction one needs to verify a scale-free (log-log linear) frequency distribution of local density of individuals.**

This result illustrates the interesting system property where space use at the individual level may adhere to scale-free dispersion of locations of respective individuals (analyzed separately) while space use at the population level (local abundance of the pooled sets of locations) apparently shows mean field compliance: local fluctuations of abundance are negative exponential compliant! Conclusion: the full mixing premise of the Paradigm – the mean field compliance – can easily be tested on real data.

I’d like to finish this post with an additional study:

In sum, we experimentally tested in breeding mallards two alternative and mutually exclusive hypotheses of habitat selection rules, and found more support for the conspecific attraction rule. However, taking into account the pattern of habitat distribution of breeding mallards (see references in Introduction; this study) pairs certainly use other ways of habitat assessment than mere presence of conspecifics. Some lakes had relatively stable pair numbers while others remained empty independently of experimental treatment.

Pöysäet al. 1998, p287

As I stated in Part II, “A given number of individuals cannot be everywhere all the time”. Thus, some lakes should – as a logical consequence under the premise of conspecific attraction – always be expected to be void of breeding pairs…

NOTE

*) Using the toolbox of partial differential equations and some alternatives it is shown how “diffusion-taxis” equations may show system-intrinsically driven heterogeneity of local population abundance between populations (Potts and Lewis 2019). However, this phenomenon regards *inter*specific cohesion (or repellence) between separate populations, not intraspecific cohesion. It is assumed that full mixing of individuals is satisfied for each of the populations at the temporal scale of analysis.

REFERENCES

Potts, J. R. and M. A. Lewis. 2019. Spatial memory and taxis-driven pattern formation in model ecosystems. arXiv:1903.05381v05382.

Pöysä, H., J. Elmberg, K. Sjöberg, and P. Nummi. 1998. Habitat selection rules in breeding mallards (*Anas platyrhynchos*): a test of two competing hypotheses. Oecologia 114:283-287.

Stamps, J. A. 1987. Conspecifics as cues to territory quality: a preference of juvenile lizards (Anolis aeneus) for previously used territories. The American Naturalist 129:629-642.

Stamps, J. A. 1988. Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. The American Naturalist 131:329-347.

Stamps, J. A. 1991. The effects of conspecifics on habitat selection in territorial species. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 28:29-36.

Taylor, L. R. 1986. Synoptic dynamics, migration and the Rothamsted insect survey. J. Anim. Ecol. 55:1-38.

# Intraspecific Cohestion from Conspecific Attraction, Part II: Paradox Resolved

**I briefly mentioned in Part I that the combination of spatial memory utilization and scale-free space use under the Parallel processing conjecture (PP) may lead to a fractal compliant population dispersion of intrinsic origin, given the additional condition of conspecific attraction. Below I elaborate on heterogeneous population dispersion as expected under the Paradigmatic framework (Markovian process, mean field compliance) and the contrasting PP kind of space use. In particular, one may find that two locations with different population density under the PP condition may reveal similar intensity of space use! Under the Paradigm such a result will appear paradoxical. Under the PP framework (the MRW and the Zoomer model) the paradox is resolved.**

Before switching to empirical results, consider the following crucial question for ecological theory of space use. What is the driving force behind the typical pattern of a shifting mosaic of population abundance over a range of spatial scales, apparently even before the landscape structure (habitat heterogenity) is considered as a complicating factor? In other words, a population is heterogeneously scattered over space. This widespread phenomenon, widely documented in insects, was intensively debated during the last half of the 20th century. In particular, because the dispersion typically adhere to a power law of fluctuation of abundance, i.e., a scale-free phenomenon (Taylor 1986). However, despite many attempts over the years to model such complex patterns they still appear quite paradoxical, with little degree of consensus. My own attempt to drill into this phenomenon led to the idea and development of the PP concept already in the early 1990’s. I cite from my post “Simulating Populations VI: the Unrealism of Standard Models“, dated 10 March, 2018:

First, consider the condition where the individuals are living in an open environment, which is the general condition. No species is abundant everywhere, meaning that a given population is surrounded by unoccupied space […] In some cases this fringe zone may be easily understood from the perspective of unfriendly neighbourhood in habitat terms, but often the surroundings appear quite similar to the conditions inside the distribution range. For example, the over-all population may be spatially fragmented with respect to abundance; particularly along the core areas’ perimeters, with no apparent reason why small and large chunks of the intermediate areas should not be habitable. Pick any well-studied species, and ask an expert on its distributional range to explain population absence in some regions with apparently similar ecological conditions to the population’s present range. In an in my view unsatisfactory manner the way out of this dilemma (the “shoot from the hip” answer) is normally to point to some environmental factor still not revealed, or some kind of statistical chance effect. In my Zoomer model such apparently inexplicable “clumping” of a population is explained as an emergent property of conspecific attraction and scale free redistribution of some individuals. A given number of individuals cannot be everywhere all the time.

To illustrate concept of system complexity from intraspecific cohesion, consider the sketch to the right (Gautestad and Mysterud 2006). As shown in the upper row, even in a hypothetical homogeneous habitat the process of conspecific attraction predicts heterogeneous space use (upper right). As stated above, “A given number of individuals cannot be everywhere all the time”. Individuals are congregating spatially within the limits that are set by local environmental constraints (size of the circles; upper row, right). In a heterogeneous environment (lower row, right), where these local constraints vary, this intrinsic force is mingling with the effect from local conditions*.

The sketch illustrates population dispersion at the given spatial scale of the virtual grid. Crucially, under PP a similar kind of heterogeneous dispersion with similar parameter values except for a trivial rescaling operation is expected if the observational scale is changed to another grid resolution. In other words, the dispersion is statistically scale-free, or fractal-compliant.

Consequently, both at the individual and the population level, to study PP-compliant space use where this property is verified (scale-free and memory-driven patch attraction or conspecific attraction, respectively) it is required to use PP-derived methods to infer intensity of local space use. This contrasts with the simpler expectation from standard mean field compliant modelling (the Paradigm), where a relatively straightforward positive correlation between local resource level and local abundance is expected (upper and lower left images in the Figure). As repeatedly shown elsewhere, under the Paradigm the intensity of space use is basically proportional with population density. Under the PP model, the intensity of use is less straightforward, and requires different quantification.

As an example of the statistical strength of applying PP-derived methods to study habitat selection where the animals had scale-free and memory-influenced space use, follow this link (PDF).

**To summarize, one should first test whether a given space use dispersion complies with the Paradigm or the PP framework. Next, one should apply a method from respective statistical toolboxes to infer ecology, like quantifying local intensity of space use as a function of – for example – local resource level.**

By applying a PP model, one may find that two locations with similar local density of individuals have different intensity of space use (indicating different strength of habitat selection). One may also find that two locations with different density may reveal similar intensity of space use! Under the Paradigm such results appear paradoxical. Under the PP framework (the MRW and the Zoomer model) the paradox is resolved.

NOTE

At the individual level and using the MRW model, a similar self-organized “clumping” emerges due to self-reinforcing patch use from targeted returns.

REFERENCES

Taylor, L. R. 1986. Synoptic dynamics, migration and the Rothamsted insect survey. J. Anim. Ecol. 55:1-38.

# Intraspecific Cohesion From Conspecific Attraction, Part I: Overview

**Animal survival requires some kind of intraspecific cohesion (“population glue”); an intrinsically driven tendency to counteract the diffusion effect from free dispersal. Populations of most species live in an open environment. Thus, without some kind of behavioural capacity to continuously or periodically seek and maintain contact with conspecifics only the most extreme and bizarre kind of environmental constraint would be required for the species’ long term survival. Despite the general agreement on this basic requirement, ecological models for individual movement and population dynamics have for a century maintained a different paradigm, a stubborn assumption that the animals follow the basic principles of mechanistic (Markovian) movement at the individual level and diffusion-advection laws at the population level. Fueled by empirical results and – in my view – common sense the Paradigm has from some researchers come under attack for many years, but mostly in vain. Ecological models and statistical methods are still deeply dependent on the Paradigm.**

Visual, auditory and olfactory cues are often not satisfactory mechanisms for individuals to effectively return home when a sally brings them too far away to maintain sufficient population contact. Hence, under the premise of Paradigm compliant behaviour*, the result is an extensive “lost in space” risk, in particular at the fringe zones of a population. However, since field data typically reveals a capacity for targeted returns beyond sensory guidance, this property should be included in space use model designs where applicable.

What does “a capacity for targeted returns beyond sensory guidance” mean? In both the book, in papers and throughout this blog I have presented two complementary and parsimonious models for the individual and the population level respectively, the Multi-scaled random walk (MRW) and the Zoomer model. These inter-coherent approaches are based on two Paradigm-opposing assumptions; (a) individuals have a capacity for spatial memory, and (b) individuals are processing this spatio-temporal information in compliance with the Parallel processing conjecture (PP; providing a potential for scale-free habitat utilization along three axes; space, time and scale). Both PP aspects are hypothesized to be key to mimic real population dynamics realistically. For example, they open for “a capacity for targeted returns beyond sensory guidance”.

Most crucially, I have presented several statistical methods that have the power to *test* PP-compliant space use against the Paradigm, including the challenging task to differentiate between PP and Markov-compliant execution of spatial memory. I have also presented several such tests on empirical data. On one hand, the spatial dispersion of an accumulated set of individual relocations (fixes) and on the other hand a snapshot of population dispersion of individuals produce clear statistical fingerprints using proper analyses, which can distinguish between a Paradigm- and a PP-compliant kind of behaviour.

If the PP conjecture continues to gain support, it is a short step to prolong this parsimonious modelling approach to explicitly explore the mathematically challenging aspect of intraspecific cohesion from conspecific attraction – outside the comfort zone of standard mechanistic and statistical-mechanistic (Markovian) designs. The illustration to the right shows an example using the MRW design. Alternatively, the Zoomer design could be explored if one prefers a population level abstraction of space use (an “ensemble” rather than a “particle” approach in statistical-mechanical terms).

**Basically, both approaches require just one extra assumption to study intraspecific cohesion. This assumption states that contact with conspecifics represent a resource for the animals, in a sense in line with other resources like food, shelter, refuges from predators, and so on (Gautestad and Mysterud 2006). However, inclusion of conspecific attraction in compliance with the PP conjecture predicts a qualitatively different kind of dynamics than you find under the Paradigm, resulting in complex space use and population dispersion. In particular, space use dispersion of individuals and local density fluctuation of the population develop an emergent property of a statistical fractal (aggregations within aggregation within…).**

By applying the PP-developed methods, both the MRW and the Zoomer model find support in data covering a wide range of species and taxa. Long-lasting but generally under-communicated paradoxes that appear when the Paradigm is confronted with real data find solution under the complementary PP models.

As always in ecology, exceptions to the general rule should be expected, but so far the PP compliance seem to be very comprehensive across the animal kingdom of vertebrates, and apparently also among many invertebrates (references are given in my book and here in my blog). Again, I challenge readers to test their own animal space use use data; whether they regard GPS fixes of mammal movement or multi-scale analysis of population dispersion of insects.

Unfortunately, my book (Gautestad 2015) is still the only extensive theoretical wrap-up of the Paradigm, why it needs to be replaced as the default framework of space use ecology, and how an alternative approach may be developed, explored and empirically tested. A broader scrutiny – involving follow-up from expertise covering a wide range of fields from wildlife management to theoretical modelling – is needed.

NOTE

*) Model examples of Paradigm compliant population dynamics are spatially implicit differential equations, spatially explicit partial differential equations and difference equations (including metapopulation models).

REFERENCES

Gautestad, A. O. 2015. Animal Space Use: Memory Effects, Scaling Complexity, and Biophysical Model Coherence Dog Ear Publishing, Indianapolis.

Gautestad, A. O. and I. Mysterud. 2006. Complex animal distribution and abundance from memory-dependent kinetics. Ecological Complexity 3:44-55.

# Conservation Biology and SLOSS , Part II: Parallel Processing and Network Topology

**Consider the following two system conditions and theoretical assumptions. First, a large nature reserve has a smaller periphery than several small ones with the same total area. Thus, all other factors equal, a smaller periphery pr. unit area of a large reserve implies a higher implicit survival rate for its embedded species. Fewer animals are “lost in space” due to accidentally diffusing out of their reserve. Consequently, a larger reserve is expected to have a proportionally larger species abundance of animals than a fragmented mosaic of smaller reserves, right? Second, again considering all other factors equal, distant reserves are functionally less connected. In other words, the population dynamics of two reserves in close proximity are assumed to be more in sync or anti-sync from intra-population dynamics than more distant ones, right? The conventional answers are obviously “yes”, but…**

In my previous post I referred to empirical results on snail kite *Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus* in Florida (Reichert *et al. *2016; Valle *et al.* 2017) that challenged the intuitive and unconditional “yes” answer to these two questions. Here I elaborate on this paradox of potential “no” answers, which may be resolved – as Reichert et al. (2016) and Valle *et al.* (2017) contributed to – by considering the network topology of the respective populations’ respective individuals.

Species with a cognitive capacity for spatial memory may require a novel modelling approach at all level of system abstraction; individual, population and community. The “lost in space” assumption becomes less valid, because individuals may return non-randomly even after long-lasting and distant exploratory moves. Returning individuals to a specific local site – steered to some extent by strategic spatial behaviour at the landscape scale – may represent a small number of all immigration events to this site. However, the accumulated effect on local population dynamics of such deterministic and occasionally long distance returns, when summed over the larger temporal scale of a reproductive cycle, should be expected to be profound. Individuals may take advantage of the extended knowledge of both local and distant conditions. Consequently, the SLOSS concept under conservation biology may require a theoretical rethinking.

Distance in space may to a smaller or larger degree be de-coupled from distance in network-topological terms. Supported by the Florida snail kite example, the difference in local population turnover within virtual sections of a given area may be expected to be less spatially correlated, and the functional effect from a variable distance between specific reserves becomes blurred. For example, if the red-rumped swallow this particular week in May (image above) just performed an occasional sally – albeit an extremely long one – followed by a memory-driven return to its original habitat, the two localities would have been drawn closer together in terms of network topological distance.

**As a complementary view of this network theoretical aspect, the “anti-dispersal effect” from intraspecific cohesion (a tendency to counteract free dispersal and effectively gluing a population together, as modelled by my Zoomer model) cannot be mimicked within a traditional, Markovian/mechanistic framework. Without spatial memory at the individual level, there is no or little glue to keep the population together in the long run. Individuals are easily lost in space, whether they – for example – happen to disperse into the surrounding matrix environment from large or small reserves. On the other hand, a capacity for targeted, memory-driven returns obviously improves survival and thus fitness, whether the context is some large or several small reserves. **

Recall from the Zoomer model for complex population dynamics that the influx of individuals to a given locality during a given interval may on average be equally distributed between short- and long distance immigrants (Gautestad 2015). This model property may sound counter-intuitive and paradoxical under the the traditional model architectures, unless one considers the premise of scale-free population flow during “zooming”. Statistically, a given individual in a distant location has a small probability of turning up at the given local site*. However, when summed over all individuals within this coarser spatial scale the migration rate becomes equal in magnitude to the probability from influx from more closely located individuals. Since number of individuals within a larger periphery are more numerous, their summed contribution to immigration to a finer-scale locality becomes equal to the immigration that originated from individuals more close-by. That is, given that individuals have shown equal weight to fine- and coarse-scale movement and space use on average (the default condition of both the MRW and the Zoomer models).

Targeted, goal-driven moves by individuals in the Zoomer model design drive the emergence of complex network topology of inter-population migration. Closely linked nodes in the network may be less dependent on physical distance between nodes (like reserves in a SLOSS context). This aspect, which has now found empirical support by studying multi-scaled individual movement’s effect on population redistribution, was illustrated by the snail kite papers that were reviewed in my previous post.

**In other words, individuals, populations and communities in distant patches may be functionally connected in a manner that is inexplicable in classic metapopulation terms. A multi-scale kind of system analysis is necessary to understand both population dynamics and community ecology. Without it, paradoxes in local changes of population abundance may prevail and the predictive power of individual- and population level models in conservation ecology will remain low.**

NOTE

*) Under classic models such a probability for visitors from a distant site is practically zero, due to the premise of a diffusion compliant migration; i.e., an exponentially declining distribution of individual displacement lengths. On the other hand, under the Zoomer model this exponential equation is replaced by a power law tail, which is thin but very long (up to the cut-off scale).

REFERENCES

Gautestad, A. O. 2015. *Animal Space Use: Memory Effects, Scaling Complexity, and Biophysical Model Coherence.* Dog Ear Publishing, Indianapolis.

Reichert, B. E., R. J. Fletcher, C. E. Cattau, and W. M. Kitchens. 2016. Consistent scaling of population structure across landscapes despite intraspecific variation in movement and connectivity. Journal of Animal Ecology 85:1563-1573.

Valle, D., S. Cvetojevic, E. P. Robertson, B. E. Reichert, H. H. Hochmair and R. J. Fletcher. 2017. Individual Movement Strategies Revealed through Novel Clustering

of Emergent Movement Patterns. Scientific Reports** 7** (44052):1-12.