1: % Moorcroft paper on analytic solution to resource selection analysis model
2:
3: \documentclass[aps,pre,onecolumn]{revtex4}
4:
5: \usepackage{graphicx,bm,hyperref,amssymb,amsmath}
6: % -------------------------------------- macros --------------------------
7: % general ...
8: \newcommand{\bi}{\begin{itemize}}
9: \newcommand{\ei}{\end{itemize}}
10: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{enumerate}}
11: \newcommand{\een}{\end{enumerate}}
12: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
13: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
15: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
16: \newcommand{\bc}{\begin{center}}
17: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{center}}
18: \newcommand{\bp}{{\it Proof:\ }}
19: \newcommand{\ep}{\hfill $\square$ \\ }
20: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.\ }}
21: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.\ }}
22: \newcommand{\pd}[1]{\frac{\partial}{\partial #1}}
23: \newcommand{\pdd}[1]{\frac{\partial^2}{\partial #1^2}}
24: \newcommand{\pdc}[3]{\left. \frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}\right|_{#3}}
25: \newcommand{\infint}{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \!\!} % infinite integral
26: \newcommand{\tbox}[1]{{\mbox{\tiny #1}}}
27: \newcommand{\mbf}[1]{{\bm #1}}
28: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et.\ al.\ }}
29: % local...
30: \newcommand{\pO}{{\partial\Omega}}
31: \newcommand{\uN}{u^{(N)}}
32: \newcommand{\emach}{\epsilon_\tbox{mach}}
33: \newcommand{\ino}{\int_\Omega}
34: \newcommand{\ke}{k} % kernel, was k_\tau
35: \newcommand{\ph}{\phi} % jump kernel - tau-dep or not?
36: \newcommand{\melp}{{MERSA}} % name of our model {MeLP} ?
37: \newcommand{\phr}{\ensuremath{\tilde{\ph}}} % phi as func of 1 var.
38: % -------------------------------- theorem environments ----------------------
39: \newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}
40: \newtheorem{cnj}{Conjecture}
41: \newtheorem{lem}{Lemma}
42: \newtheorem{cor}{Corollary}
43: \newtheorem{rmk}{Remark}
44: \newtheorem{pro}{Proposition}
45: % -----------------------------------------------------------------------
46:
47: \begin{document}
48: \title{%Analytic
49: % exact (not precise enough)
50: Analytic steady-state space use patterns
51: % without passing via a continuous-time advection-diffusion eqn limit
52: and rapid computations in mechanistic home range analysis}
53: %
54: % Analytic steady-state space use patterns in a mechnistic
55: % resource selection model?
56: %
57: \author{Alex H. Barnett}
58: \affiliation{Department of Mathematics, 6188 Kemeny Hall,
59: Dartmouth College, Hanover NH 03755, USA}
60: \email{ahb@math.dartmouth.edu}
61: \author{Paul R. Moorcroft}
62: \affiliation{OEB Dept, Harvard University, 22 Divinity Ave,
63: Cambridge MA 02138, USA}
64: \date{\today}
65:
66: \begin{abstract}
67: Mechanistic home range models are important tools in modeling
68: animal dynamics in spatially-complex environments.
69: We introduce a class of %one- and two-dimensional
70: stochastic models for animal movement in a habitat of varying preference.
71: %[Explain they use local preference function only].
72: Such models interpolate between spatially-implicit resource selection
73: analysis (RSA)
74: and advection-diffusion models, possessing these two models as
75: limiting cases. We find a closed-form solution
76: for the steady-state (equilibrium) probability distribution $u^*$
77: using a factorization of the redistribution operator
78: into symmetric and diagonal parts.
79: How space use is controlled by the preference function
80: $w$ then depends on the characteristic width of the redistribution kernel:
81: when $w$ changes rapidly compared to this width, $u^* \propto w$,
82: whereas on global scales large compared to this width, $u^* \propto w^2$.
83: We analyse the behavior at discontinuities in $w$
84: which occur at habitat type boundaries.
85: We simulate the dynamics of space use given
86: two-dimensional prey-availability data and explore the effect of
87: the redistribution kernel width.
88: %and
89: %show numerical simulations of time-evolution towards the steady state
90: %in both one and two dimensions.
91: Our factorization allows such numerical
92: simulations to be done extremely fast;
93: we expect this to aid the computationally-intensive
94: task of model parameter fitting and inverse modeling.
95: \end{abstract}
96: \maketitle
97:
98:
99:
100: \begin{figure}[t] % ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
101: \bc\includegraphics[width=5in]{bigpic.eps}\ec
102: \caption{
103: \label{fig:bigpic}
104: Schematic comparing conventional resource selection analysis (RSA)
105: against our proposed model for space use, in two dimensions.
106: Shaded regions show areas of habitat in which the
107: preference function $w(x)$ is constant.
108: a) RSA. The probability of finding an animal in each region is proportional
109: to the product of preference (resource selection function)
110: $w_j$ and area of the region $A_j$.
111: There is no account taken of the animal's current habitat type or
112: location within the habitat.
113: b) Proposed \melp\ model for space use.
114: The animal responds only to the preference function
115: within a distance scale $L$ from its
116: current location (black dot). Each time step the future location
117: (white dot) is chosen randomly from a localized distribution
118: biased by the preference function.
119: }
120: \end{figure} % fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
121:
122:
123: % iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
124: \section{Introduction}
125:
126:
127: % * Pref func (in contrast to a simple den-seeking convection term)
128: % ideal for winter wolves where there is no den, rather,
129: % communal network of traversed paths.
130:
131: % spatio-temporal evolution fast enough to animate with real-time calc.
132: % (try this for general sparse matrix).
133:
134:
135: Due to the influences of habitats on the availability of food, shelter,
136: mates and risk of predation, patterns of animal space use are strongly
137: influenced by the spatial distribution of habitat types across
138: landscapes. A widespread technique for analyzing such relationships
139: between habitats
140: %and other landscape attributes
141: and patterns of animal
142: space use has been resource selection analysis (RSA)
143: \cite{johnsonrsa,manly,boycerev}, in which the intensity of space use
144: %by individuals in different locations
145: is assumed to reflect
146: an underlying resource selection function
147: giving an individual's
148: preference for the habitat type found at that location. However, implicit
149: in this approach
150: %in which a resource selection function directly controls
151: %the intensity of space use
152: is an assumption that all habitats are
153: equally accessible to an individual regardless of its current
154: position: no account is made of the individual's finite
155: movement speed or the spatial geometry of habitats on the landscape
156: on which it moves \cite{mhra,recon}.
157:
158: More recently, an alternative framework
159: %for analyzing patterns of animal space use
160: has emerged in the form of mechanistic home range
161: models \cite{lewis,moorcroftroy,mhra}. In contrast to
162: RSA which is largely descriptive, such models yield spatially-explicit
163: %(and often time-evolving)
164: predictions for patterns of animal space use
165: in the form of a probability density function (pdf),
166: by modeling the process of individual movement.
167: Mathematically, the
168: fine-scale behavior of individuals is treated as
169: a stochastic (Markov) process \cite{patlak,okubo,kareiva,turchin},
170: specifying the probability of an animal at a given
171: location moving to a subsequent location during a given time interval.
172: From this description one can
173: derive, in the limit of small time intervals, a
174: continuous-time partial differential equation (PDE) for
175: the evolution of the pdf.
176: For example, a recent analysis of coyote home ranges in
177: Yellowstone \cite{moorcroftroy} used a ``prey availability plus
178: conspecific avoidance'' (PA+CA) mechanistic home range model to account
179: for the observed patterns of coyote home ranges within the park.
180: In this model, individuals exhibited an avoidance response to
181: encounters with foreign scent marks and a foraging response to prey
182: availability (individuals decreased their mean step length in
183: response to increasing small mammal abundance in different habitats.)
184: In such mechanistic models,
185: inferences about long-term space use are usually made
186: by evolving the continuous-time PDE in order to converge to
187: its steady-state; this can be computationally
188: time-consuming \cite{moorcroftthesis,mhra}.
189: % ^- HELPS MOTIVATE THIS WORK
190:
191: In recent work \cite{recon}, we developed a mechanistic home range
192: model which reconciles these two main approaches by combining the
193: concept of a spatial preference function $w(x)$ with a stochastic
194: model of fine-scale movement behavior. At each time-step the movement
195: of an individual is governed by its relative preference for the {\em local}
196: habitat
197: surrounding its current spatial position \ie the preference function
198: restricted to a region of size $L$ centered on the individual's
199: current location. The length scale $L$ has two roles: it is the
200: typical (jump) distance per time step, but also can be interpreted as
201: the distance over which the animal is able to {\em perceive}
202: differences in surrounding habitats. This new model, which we will call a
203: MEchanistic
204: %spatially-explicit
205: RSA, or \melp\ model, is
206: compared against traditional RSA in Fig.~\ref{fig:bigpic}, and
207: detailed in Section \ref{sec:model}.
208: In \cite{recon} we were able to show that,
209: in one dimension (1D) with a spatially smooth habitat
210: preference function, using the Kramers-Moyal expansion
211: (\cite{stoc,recon} and App.\ A and E of \cite{mhra})
212: one may derive an an
213: advection-diffusion equation for the expected patterns of space
214: use, with advection and diffusion coefficients related
215: to the parameters of the underlying stochastic movement model. We then
216: showed that the resulting steady-state pdf could be determined
217: analytically, giving a intensity of space use proportional
218: to the square of the preference function.
219:
220: In this paper we expand and generalize this result to the more
221: biologically relevant case of individuals moving in two space dimensions
222: across landscapes which may include discrete habitat types
223: giving rise to a {\em non-smooth} preference function.
224: Specifically, in Section \ref{sec:ex} we solve for
225: the steady-state pdf of our discrete-time
226: stochastic model of fine-scale movement behavior directly and
227: analytically, for arbitrary preference functions, without
228: resorting to the conventional procedure of taking the continuous-time limit
229: %
230: \footnote{%
231: One may ask whether discrete or continuous time is more appropriate
232: for animal movement modeling.
233: Clearly in reality animals move in continuous time, however a
234: continuous-time diffusion equation (Brownian process)
235: cannot be realistic on the shortest time-scales for the simple
236: reason that this would require infinite movement speed
237: (\eg see \cite{othmer}).
238: Therefore models with a fixed discrete time step remain crucial for
239: fine-scale modeling.}.
240: %
241: %Our result makes use of a factorization property of our model
242: (Note that this relies on a particular algebraic feature of our model;
243: for a general redistribution kernel such an analytic solution
244: is not available.)
245: By doing so, we are able rapidly to compute exact steady-state
246: space use patterns for
247: %arising from the underlying individual-based stochastic movement
248: the model for a full range of possible length scale
249: values $L$, rather than being confined to the limit of small $L$
250: inherent in a PDE-based approach.
251: We also gain an understanding of the numerically-observed
252: pdf behavior at jumps in preference function, which had remained
253: a mystery \cite{recon}.
254: A consequence of our solution
255: is that the computationally-intenstive task of solving
256: an inverse problem to fit multiple model parameters
257: can become orders of magnitude faster.
258: We discuss such numerical implications in Section~\ref{sec:num}, and
259: give CPU timings for our numerical examples throughout.
260:
261: For illustrative purposes, we choose a
262: translationally-invariant exponential distribution of jump lengths, a
263: kernel which has proven useful for modeling coyote foraging movement
264: \cite{mhra}. However, our analytic solution also holds for a
265: generalization of the model of \cite{recon} to {\em spatially-varying}
266: diffusion coefficient (spatially-dependent length scale $L$) such as
267: occurs in modeling the prey-density dependent foraging rate of wolves
268: and coyotes \cite{white,lewis,moorcroftroy}.
269: In Section \ref{sec:ust}
270: we explore the transition from small $L$ (where the model tends to the
271: advection-diffusion equation derived in \cite{recon}), to large $L$
272: (where the model becomes equivalent to RSA). Here `large' and `small'
273: are in comparison to the typical spatial scale on which the preference
274: function changes. In Section \ref{sec:ust} we explore this
275: numerically both in 1D, and with a 2D preference function derived from
276: discontinuous real-world small mammal abundance data appropriate for
277: coyotes.
278: In Section \ref{sec:evol} we show rapid and efficient numerical simulation
279: of the time evolution of the pdf. Furthermore in Section
280: \ref{sec:jump} we analyse the behavior at a sharp discontinuity in
281: preference function, and show that on spatial scales larger than $L$
282: this effect may be approximated by effective matching conditions in
283: coupled advection-diffusion equations. Finally in Section
284: \ref{sec:conc} we discuss implications and draw conclusions.
285:
286:
287: % mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
288: \section{Mechanistic spatially-explicit (\protect\melp) model}
289: \label{sec:model}
290:
291: The time-dependent pdf of an animal we will represent by $u(x,t)$,
292: where $x\in\Omega$ is the location, $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^d$
293: represents the habitat
294: region of interest, and $d$ is the dimensionality of space (usually 1 or 2).
295: Thus, in a 1D setting,
296: $u(x,t)dx$ is the probability that at time $t$ a given individual
297: is to be found in the interval $[x,x+dx]$.
298: (Note in 2D we use $x$ rather than $\mbf{x}$ to represent location vector.)
299: Its normalization is
300: \be
301: \ino u(x,t) dx \; = \; 1 \qquad \mbox{for all } t
302: \label{eq:nrm}
303: \ee
304: Our \melp\ model is an example of a
305: Markov process.
306: At each time step of length $\tau$
307: the current pdf at time $t$ is acted on by a fixed linear operator to
308: get the pdf at time $t+\tau$.
309: This is expressed by the master equation
310: \be
311: u(x,t+\tau) = \ino \ke(x,x') u(x',t) dx' \qquad \mbox{for } x\in\Omega
312: \label{eq:master}
313: \ee
314: Given an initial pdf $u(x,0)=u_0(x)$ for all $x\in\Omega$,
315: by iteration the pdf at arbitrarily large future times
316: (multiples of $\tau$) may be computed.
317: Here the redistribution operator kernel $\ke(x,x')$ is defined as
318: the conditional pdf of an individual animal's
319: location $x$, a time interval $\tau$ into the future, given
320: that its current location is $x'$
321: \footnote{Note that in the stochastic
322: literature the order of $x$ and $x'$ is often reversed \cite{stoc}}.
323: This is an uncorrelated jump or `kangaroo' process \cite{othmer}
324: (note the animal has no memory beyond the fixed time scale $\tau$).
325: Since a redistribution kernel is a conditional
326: pdf it is everywhere non-negative and (`columnwise') normalized by
327: \be
328: \ino \ke(x,x') dx = 1 \qquad \mbox{for all } x'\in\Omega
329: \label{eq:knrm}
330: \ee
331: Clearly for a given ecological situation the choice
332: of $\tau$ determines the form of $\ke(x,x')$.
333: For example, shorter $\tau$ may demand a smaller
334: kernel width $L$ simply because animal speed is limited.
335: By the length scale $L$ we mean the typical size of $|x-x'|$ for which
336: $\ke(x,x')$ is significant.
337: We will not indicate explicitly the dependence on $\tau$ of the form of
338: $\ke$.
339: The appropriate value of $\tau$
340: depends on the application; it needs to be large enough that
341: successive
342: animal relocations can be approximately treated as
343: uncorrelated.
344: %in terms of the movement direction of individual. - NOT JUST DIRECTION?
345: Real-world location data collection technology also can be a factor
346: if fine-scale model fitting is to be done.
347: For coyotes, a typical value of $\tau$ is 10 minutes \cite{mhra}.
348:
349: %A standard result (\eg see \cite{recon,moorcroftbook})
350: %is that in the limit of
351: %time interval $\tau\to0$ (and therefore a kernel of vanishing width),
352: %this master equation tends to a continuous-time advection-diffusion equation
353: %for $u$
354: %(with the caveat that the kernel have well-behaved moments).
355:
356: We consider a spatial preference (resource selection) function
357: $w\in L^1(\Omega)$
358: which controls relative preference for each location in the domain.
359: We represent unbiased (`preference-free') diffusive animal movement
360: with a {\em symmetric} redistribution kernel $\ph(x,x')$,
361: that is,
362: \be
363: \ph(x,x') = \ph(x',x) \qquad \mbox{for all } x,x'\in\Omega.
364: \ee
365: The kernel $\phi$ obeys the Markov normalization (\ref{eq:knrm});
366: from this and symmetry it follows that
367: \be
368: \ino \phi(x,x') dx' = 1 \qquad \mbox{for all } x\in\Omega
369: \label{eq:pinv}
370: \ee
371: which is the statement that a constant pdf
372: is invariant under redistribution by $\ph$.
373: %(One may check that inserting $u(x,t) = 1$ for all $x$ returns
374: %$u(x,t+\tau)=1$ for all $x$ in (\ref{eq:master})).
375: Since a uniform density gives no net probability mass flow, we say
376: that (an operator with kernel) $\ph$
377: is {\em advection-free}.
378: Our \melp\ redistribution kernel $k$ is this advection-free
379: jump kernel biased by the preference function, in other words,
380: \be
381: \ke(x,x') = \frac{w(x)\ph(x,x')}{z(x')}
382: \label{eq:ke}
383: \ee
384: with normalization function (easily seen to be required to
385: satisfy (\ref{eq:knrm})),
386: \be
387: z(x'):=\ino w(x'')\ph(x'',x') dx''.
388: \label{eq:z}
389: \ee
390: For (\ref{eq:ke}) to be meaningful we must have $z>0$ everywhere;
391: it is sufficient that $w>0$ everywhere for this to hold,
392: which we will assume from now on.
393: %\footnote{
394: %The only way this could fail to hold is if the function $\ph$ were to have
395: %$w=0$ in a region larger than the ...}
396: %
397: %This is spatially-continuous version of models of Arthur, Rhodes et al.
398: % Forgotten who????
399: Note that since $\ph(x,x')$ may depend independently on $x$ and $x'$
400: (barring the symmetry constraint), it may represent a
401: spatially-varying (and also anisotropic) diffusion coefficient.
402: The \melp\ model is thus more general than that of \cite{recon},
403: which was restricted to the translationally-invariant case
404: \be
405: \ph(x,x') = \phr(x-x').
406: \label{eq:trans}
407: \ee
408: Here %(abusing notation slightly)
409: $\phr(\cdot)$ is a function of relative displacement alone,
410: which limits one to a spatially-invariant distribution
411: of step-lengths in the underlying stochastic movement model.
412: %take $\phi(\cdot)$ to represent some function of one variable;
413: %the distinction will be clear from the context).
414:
415:
416:
417: \subsection{Limiting cases of the model} % ----------------------------------
418: \label{sec:lim}
419:
420: We now discuss two limiting forms of \melp.
421: Firstly,
422: consider the case $\ph(x,x') = 1/\mbox{vol}(\Omega)$ for all $x,x'\in\Omega$.
423: This corresponds to preference-free redistribution to a uniformly-random
424: location
425: in $\Omega$, without regard to current location. (\ref{eq:ke}) then becomes
426: \be
427: %\lim_{L\to\infty}
428: \ke(x,x') = \frac{w(x)}{\ino w(x'') dx''}.
429: \label{eq:llim}
430: \ee
431: Since this is independent of $x'$, within a {\em single} time step
432: (and for all future time steps) the master equation reaches its
433: steady-state pdf $u^* := \lim_{t\to\infty} u(\cdot,t)$
434: given by
435: \be
436: u^*(x) = C_1 w(x), \qquad \mbox{with normalization constant }\quad
437: C_1^{-1}=\ino w(x'') dx''.
438: \label{eq:rsa}
439: \ee
440: This is formally equivalent to a conventional (time-invariant) RSA model,
441: with linear dependence on preference.
442: This assertion is illustrated when
443: $\Omega$ is divided into regions $j=1\cdots m$ each of area $A_j$
444: and constant preference function $w_j$, for then (\ref{eq:rsa}) assumes the
445: more familiar RSA form $u_j = A_j w_j / (\sum_{i=1}^m A_k w_k)$
446: where $u_j$ is the probability of being in region $j$
447: \cite{johnsonrsa,manly,boycerev}, see Fig.~\ref{fig:bigpic}a.
448: In the case of an infinite domain such as $\Omega=\mathbb{R}^d$
449: (in which case $w$ alone delineates the habitat)
450: no constant normalizable $\ph$ exists; however, the above result
451: may be reproduced by considering the limit in which
452: a the kernel $\ph$ becomes much wider
453: than all spatial scales of interest
454: in the habitat ($L\to\infty$).
455: Then $\ph(x,x')$ tends to a constant for $x$ and $x'$ within the habitat,
456: and (\ref{eq:rsa}) again follows.
457: Thus for both cases above we will call this the $L\to\infty$ limit,
458: and state that in this limit our \melp\ model degenerates to RSA.
459:
460:
461: Secondly, consider the $L\to 0$ limit where $k$ tends to a diagonal kernel.
462: In order for time evolution to take place at all, we must
463: also take the limit $\tau\to0$. It is well known \cite{okubo,othmer}
464: that the correct way to balance
465: these two limits in order to reach a well-defined diffusion coefficient
466: is to choose the variance of the kernel $k$ to scale as $\tau$.
467: In the 1D case of smooth $w$,
468: and a translation-invariant kernel (\ref{eq:trans}),
469: we have derived \cite{recon}
470: that in this limit our \melp\ model gives a Fokker-Planck PDE with
471: known advection and diffusion coefficients.
472: From this we showed that the steady-state pdf is
473: \be
474: u^*(x) = C_2 w^2(x),
475: \qquad\mbox{with constant }\quad C_2^{-1} = \ino w^2(x'')dx'',
476: \label{eq:ustw2}
477: \ee
478: that is, quadratic in preference function.
479: (The integral is bounded since $w$ is smooth and in $L^1(\Omega)$).
480: We note that in this Fokker-Planck limit,
481: our model is equivalent to that of \cite{thermal}
482: with the `potential' function $U(x) = - 2D \log w(x)$ and constant
483: diffusion $d(x) = D$.
484:
485: We will see in Section \ref{sec:ust} how these differing
486: $L\to\infty$ and $L\to0$ steady-state limits are reached in practice.
487:
488:
489:
490: % eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
491: \section{Analytic formula for steady-state pdf}
492: \label{sec:ex}
493:
494: The condition that $u^*$ be a steady-state pdf is that it be invariant
495: under the master equation (\ref{eq:master}), in other words,
496: \be
497: u^*(x) = \ino \ke(x,x') u^*(x') dx' \qquad \mbox{ for all } x\in\Omega.
498: \label{eq:ust}
499: \ee
500: Our main result is the following claim.
501: \begin{pro} % ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
502: A steady-state pdf for the model redistribution kernel (\ref{eq:ke})
503: is given by
504: \be
505: u^*(x) = C w(x) z(x), \qquad \mbox{ with constant } \quad
506: C^{-1} = \ino w(x') z(x') dx',
507: \label{eq:ex}
508: \ee
509: where the function $z$ is defined by (\ref{eq:z}).
510: \label{pro:ex}
511: \end{pro} % pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
512: The proposition is proved by substituting (\ref{eq:ke}) and
513: (\ref{eq:ex}) into the right side of
514: (\ref{eq:ust}) then noticing that $z$ cancels, allowing the simplification
515: \bea
516: \ino \ke(x,x') C w(x') z(x') dx' &=& C \ino w(x)\ph(x,x')w(x')dx'
517: \nonumber \\
518: &=& C w(x)\ino\ph(x',x)w(x')dx'
519: \nonumber \\
520: &=& C w(x)z(x),
521: \nonumber \\
522: &=& u^*(x),
523: \label{eq:proof}
524: \eea
525: verifying (\ref{eq:ust}).
526: Crucially, it is the
527: assumption that $\ph$ is symmetric that allows us to proceed
528: from the first to second line.
529: Notice that once standard assumptions about ergodicity
530: are satisfied,
531: the steady-state $u^*$ is unique
532: (\eg see Doeblin condition in \cite{meyntweedie} p.396;
533: in our ecological context this is satisfied since
534: we can
535: assume that there is always some randomness to animal motion, \ie
536: the kernel $\ph$ is
537: always somewhat spreading at each spatial location).
538: Since $w$ is assumed to be everywhere positive, so is $u^*$.
539:
540: %Some intuition as to why such a simple formula for the steady-state exists
541: %is gained by
542: We now derive some secondary results on the
543: structure of $K$, giving intuition into the reason for
544: existence of the simple formula (\ref{eq:ex}).
545: They may be skipped if no further mathematical insight is required.
546: We switch to operator notation, expressing (\ref{eq:ust})
547: as $u^* = Ku^*$ where $K$ is a Markov operator.
548: Recall that a Markov operator is an integral operator with non-negative kernel
549: obeying (\ref{eq:knrm}),
550: which can be expressed $K^T 1 = 1$ where $1$ is the constant function
551: and $K^T$ the adjoint operator (with respect to uniform measure).
552: Our model (\ref{eq:ke}) expresses the factorization
553: \be
554: K=W\Phi Z^{-1},
555: \label{eq:fac}
556: \ee
557: where $\Phi$ is the (Markov)
558: operator defined by the integral kernel $\ph(x,x')$,
559: and $W$ and $Z$ are
560: the diagonal operators which multiply by the functions $w$ and $z$
561: respectively.
562: Thus the structure is an operator with constant invariant measure
563: sandwiched between two diagonal operators.
564: Note that $z = \Phi w$ since $\Phi$ is symmetric.
565: %self-adjoint with respect to constant measure.
566: Then we have,
567: \begin{pro} % ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
568: With the assumption $w\ge c$ everywhere, for some $c>0$, our model Markov operator (\ref{eq:fac})
569: \ben
570: \item satisfies detailed balance,
571: that is,
572: \be
573: k(x,x')u^*(x') = k(x',x)u^*(x)\qquad \mbox{ for all } x,x'\in\Omega,
574: \label{eq:detbal}
575: \ee
576: \item is self-adjoint with respect to the measure $1/u^*$,
577: and
578: \item has all eigenvalues real.
579: \een
580: \label{pro:sa}
581: \end{pro} % pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
582: The proof is as follows. We define $U^*$ to be the operator multiplying
583: by the function $u^*$; it can be written $U^* = ZW$. Using
584: (\ref{eq:fac}) gives $KU^* = W\Phi W$, explicitly symmetric.
585: In other words
586: \be
587: (KU^*)^T = KU^*,
588: \label{eq:kut}
589: \ee
590: which is equivalent to detailed balance (\ref{eq:detbal}).
591: Now we use $(\cdot,\cdot)$ to indicate the $L^2(\Omega)$ (real)
592: inner product with respect to uniform measure, and $(\cdot,\cdot)_{1/u^*}$
593: with respect to measure $1/u^*$.
594: Using (\ref{eq:kut}) and the boundedness of $1/u^*$ in the middle step we have
595: \be
596: (a, K b)_{1/u^*} =
597: (\frac{a}{u^*},KU^* \frac{b}{u^*}) = (KU^* \frac{a}{u^*},\frac{b}{u^*})
598: = (Ka, b)_{1/u^*}\qquad \mbox{ for all } a,b\in
599: L^2(\Omega)
600: \ee
601: which proves part 2.
602: Part 3
603: %and other well-known properties such as orthogonal eigenvectors,
604: immediately follows by self-adjointness.
605: We remark that the simple formula (\ref{eq:ex}) for $u^*$ can now
606: be seen as a result of the need to symmetrize the factorization (\ref{eq:fac}).
607:
608:
609:
610:
611:
612:
613: % nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
614: \subsection{Implications for fast numerical modeling}
615: \label{sec:num}
616:
617: We discuss briefly why the above result is important in practice.
618: The analytic steady-state pdf formula (\ref{eq:ex}) is special because,
619: for a general redistribution kernel no such formula exists.
620: In particular, there is no formula for $u^*$ for commonly-used % ?
621: mechanistic kernels such as those expressed in polar coordinates with
622: exponential radial jumps
623: and a von Mises angular distribution (Ch. 3 of \cite{mhra}).
624: %
625: % any other work with such kernels?
626: %
627: (In that work all steady-state distributions had to be computed in
628: the advection-diffusion limit,
629: often in a numerically-intensive fashion;
630: see App. G of \cite{mhra} and \cite{moorcroftthesis}).
631: In fitting model parameters to real-world location data, a large number of
632: such steady-state pdfs must be found
633: as part of the parameter-optimization process
634: (\eg Sec.~4.3 of \cite{mhra}).
635:
636: Numerical solution of $u^*$ for any redistribution kernel
637: requires discretization of the domain into $N$ degrees of freedom.
638: In 2D the $N$ required for acceptable accuracy can be large (\eg $10^4$).
639: Solving for $u^*$ given a
640: general kernel is then an eigenvector problem involving
641: a (possibly dense) $N$-by-$N$ matrix discretization of that kernel.
642: The iterative solution of such large eigenproblems can be slow especially when
643: diffusion rates are small.
644: In constrast, the formula (\ref{eq:ex}) in our \melp\ model bypasses this
645: and requires only the computational effort of the
646: {\em single} matrix-vector multiplication
647: required to evaluate the (discretized) integral (\ref{eq:z}).
648: This is an acceleration by orders of magnitude.
649:
650: There is a further numerical advantage to a special case of the \melp\ model.
651: Namely if $\ph$ is translationally-invariant
652: (diffusion coeffcient is spatially constant)
653: then the action of the (discretized)
654: convolution operator $\Phi$ may be computed in time $O(N \ln N)$
655: via the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) \cite{numrec}, which for large $N$
656: is much faster than the $O(N^2)$ dense matrix-vector multiply.
657: This further speeds up computing $u^*$ via (\ref{eq:z}).
658: Finally, the time-evolution $u(x,t)$ can now be computed much
659: more efficiently.
660: A single time-step of the master equation (\ref{eq:master}) may be performed
661: with $O(N \ln N)$ effort by using (\ref{eq:fac})
662: in a {\em split-operator method}:
663: division by $z$, followed by FFT application of $\Phi$,
664: followed by multiplication by $w$.
665:
666: We illustrate these numerical techniques and advantages below.
667: All CPU timings are reported using a single core of
668: a 2GHz Intel Core Duo processor running MATLAB 7.0 in GNU/Linux.
669:
670:
671:
672: \begin{figure}[t] % ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
673: \bc\includegraphics[width=6in]{phiseq.eps}\ec
674: \caption{
675: \label{fig:phiseq}
676: Steady-state pdfs $u^*$ for exponential jump pdf
677: of (\ref{eq:exp}) for an increasing sequence of $L$ values.
678: The preference function $w$ (thin solid line) is chosen
679: to be smooth on the left side of the domain, and discontinuous
680: and oscillatory on the right side.
681: }
682: \end{figure} % fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
683:
684:
685: \begin{figure}[t] % ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
686: \bc
687: \includegraphics[width=3in]{biomass_data.eps}
688: \ec
689: \caption{
690: \label{fig:biomass}
691: Small-mammal abundance for Lamar Valley region of
692: Yellowstone National Park
693: collected by Crabtree \etal (unpublished); see Ch.~7 of \cite{mhra}.
694: Units are the total biomass density of small mammals in kg/ha with
695: darker colors indicating larger values.
696: The $x$- and $y$-axes are in kilometers.
697: The highest abundances of small mammals are found in the
698: mesic grassland habitats.
699: }
700: \end{figure} % fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
701:
702: \begin{figure}[t] % ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
703: \bc
704: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{2d_biomass.eps}
705: \ec
706: \caption{
707: \label{fig:seq2d}
708: Steady-state 2D pdfs $u^*$ for the exponential jump kernel
709: (\ref{eq:exp2}),
710: applied to preference functions $w$
711: derived from biomass data shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:biomass}.
712: The three columns represent the choices $\alpha = 2, 15, 500$ in the
713: preference model (\ref{eq:biopref}).
714: At the top of each column is a surface plot of
715: the preference function, followed below
716: by surface plots of $u^*$ for three decreasing values of $L$.
717: }
718: \end{figure} % fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
719:
720:
721:
722:
723: % nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
724: \section{Numerical results for an exponential jump kernel}
725:
726: In this section we illustrate the predictions of our \melp\ model
727: for steady-state and time evolution of space use for an idealized
728: 1D preference function, and for a 2D preference function that is based on
729: spatially-complex, real-world measurements of prey abundance in different habitat types.
730: Throughout we
731: consider a translationally-invariant $\ph$ kernel,
732: choosing an exponential kernel with width $L$, which takes the form in 1D
733: \be
734: \phr(\rho) = \frac{1}{2L}e^{-|\rho|/L}
735: \label{eq:exp}
736: \ee
737: where $\rho := x-x'$, and in 2D
738: \be
739: \phr(\rho) = \phi(|\rho|) =
740: \frac{1}{2\pi L}\frac{e^{-|\rho|/L}}{|\rho|}
741: \label{eq:exp2}
742: \ee
743: where we remind the reader that $\rho$ is a vector in the latter.
744: This 2D kernel has been used as a model of animal movement,
745: for instance describing the fine-scale movement of coyotes with remarkable
746: accuracy \cite{mhra}.
747: Note that the 2D kernel is radially symmetric, and when integrated
748: over angle it gives a distribution of jump distances $r:=|\rho|$
749: which is exponential, $(1/L)e^{-r/L}$.
750:
751:
752: % ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
753: \subsection{Steady-state}
754: \label{sec:ust}
755:
756: Here we will assume the domain has periodic boundary conditions.
757: It has the interpretation that the piece of habitat $\Omega$ in question
758: is surrounded by similar (repeating) habitat, often a reasonable assumption.
759: %
760: %On a mechanistic level
761: %animals which jump outside $\Omega$ are mapped back inside
762: %
763: Mathematically this condition is achieved in the case
764: of the unit interval $\Omega=[0,1)$ by replacing
765: (\ref{eq:exp}) by a sum over a few nearby `image' kernels,
766: \be
767: \phr(\rho) = \frac{1}{2L}\sum_{m=-M}^M e^{-|\rho-m|/L}
768: \label{eq:expimg}
769: \ee
770: where $M$ is chosen such that $\phr$ is periodic to some high
771: accuracy (\eg $10^{-6}$).
772: An analogous
773: 2D image sum is used in the 2D case where $\Omega$ is a rectangle.
774:
775: Note that our formalism can handle
776: other boundary conditions. For instance
777: we model a standard zero-flux boundary in Section \ref{sec:evol}.
778: We have also checked that the periodic steady-state
779: results are very similar to those
780: for zero-flux, except when $L$ is of order the size of the whole domain.
781: (In this case for zero-flux
782: $u^*$ is affected by the effective boundary discontinuity
783: in $w$, a complication which we will not pursue here).
784: %the issue of exactly what boundary condition is then appropriate
785: %in the \melp\ model becomes subtle and we will not discuss it further here).
786:
787:
788: % 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
789: \subsubsection{One-dimensional case}
790: \label{sec:ust1d}
791:
792: In Fig.~\ref{fig:phiseq} we show $u^*$ computed via (\ref{eq:ex})
793: and (\ref{eq:z})
794: for the exponential kernel, for an ascending sequence of $L$ values,
795: in the unit interval.
796: %A toy preference function with features at various length-scales has been
797: %chosen.
798: Our example preference function $w$ has been chosen to exhibit a
799: variety of lengthscales: for $x<0.6$ it is smooth, corresponding to a
800: gradation in habitat preference, whereas for $x>0.6$ it is piecewise constant
801: with discontinuous oscillations between the values 1 and 2
802: corresponding to isolated patches of more favorable habitat.
803: The shortest length scale of $w$ is 0.015, namely the size of the smallest
804: constant patch near $x=0.76$.
805: We see that for very small $L$, $u^*$ accurately matches $w^2$ for
806: all regions apart from those with the most rapid $w$ variations.
807: This matches the expectation in Section \ref{sec:lim}.
808: %this is result of a local decision rule compounded by multiple jumps.
809:
810: A gradual transition is seen in the sequence of Fig.~\ref{fig:phiseq}.
811: As $L$ becomes larger than a given feature, $u^*$ in the vicinity
812: of that feature starts to become locally proportional to $w$.
813: Finally in plot (f), $L$ is larger than any feature and
814: $u^*$ globally becomes linear in $w$.
815: The explanation for this transition is simple and
816: lies with (\ref{eq:ex}) combined with the realisation that
817: the function $z$ is given by the function $w$ smoothed locally
818: over a width of about $L$. Fine ($<L$) features
819: in $w$ will thus be smoothed away giving a locally constant
820: $z$, whereas for coarse ($>L$) features $z \approx w$
821: and quadratic dependence in $w$ results.
822: %
823: This effect is common to any jump kernel with characteristic width $L$:
824: fine-scale habitat features result in $u^* \propto w$,
825: in accordance with the $L\to\infty$ limit (\ref{eq:rsa}),
826: whereas coarse-scale habitat features are tracked according
827: to $u^* \propto w^2$, in accordance with the Fokker-Planck
828: limit (\ref{eq:ustw2}).
829:
830: Since $u^*$ is computed analytically via (\ref{eq:ex}),
831: its numerical accuracy is limited only by quadrature of the integral.
832: We computed $z$ using (\ref{eq:z}) via FFT convolution (Section \ref{sec:num})
833: in a few thousandths of a second on a uniform quadrature
834: grid of $N=400$ points.
835: This contrasts the order 1 s needed
836: to iteratively solve for
837: the dominant eigenvector of the dense matrix
838: discretization of $\Phi$ that would be required if no simplifying
839: factorization of $K$ or analytic solution for $u^*$ were known.
840:
841:
842:
843:
844: % 2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
845: \subsubsection{Two-dimensional case with real-world habitat heterogeneity}
846: \label{sec:ust2d}
847:
848: We start with the small-mammal density data $B(x)$
849: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:biomass} where location $x$ was sampled on
850: a 0.1 km grid over a 7 km by 12 km domain $\Omega$.
851: This density is piecewise constant, being derived from
852: measured prey densities (mice, ground squirrels,
853: pocket gophers and red-backed voles) appropriate for coyotes
854: in six different habitat types (see Ch.~7 of \cite{mhra}).
855: The main habitat feature is a strip of mesic grassland (the darkest
856: region in the figure), which follows a valley floor and
857: supports a high abundance of small mammals.
858:
859: We use a linear relationship between prey availability and preference
860: \be
861: w(x) = 1 + \alpha B(x) \qquad \mbox{ for all } x \in \Omega
862: \label{eq:biopref}
863: \ee
864: where $\alpha$ (units of ha/kg) controls the strength of the
865: preference per unit of prey biomass. The resulting steady-state pdfs
866: $u^*$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:seq2d}. This shows the patterns of
867: space use for 3 different values of $\alpha$, in combination with 3
868: different values of length scale $L$ (\ref{eq:exp2}). Each column
869: represents an $\alpha$ value, ranging from a weak preference (left
870: column) to strong (right column). For comparison, the $w$ function is
871: shown at the top of each column.
872:
873: The computational grid was moderately-sized ($N=8591$), the same
874: spatial resolution as the underlying estimates of prey abundance was
875: sampled. Once $\phi(\rho)$ had been evaluated on the grid, solving for
876: each steady-state pdf required only 0.009 s using (\ref{eq:ex}) with
877: $z$ computed from $w$ by 2D FFT convolution
878: \footnote{We have also tried other model preference functions on larger
879: grids: a 200 by 200 grid ($N=40000$) requires 0.025 to find $u^*$.
880: By contrast, note that solving for $u^*$ without the factorization
881: of $K$ is impractical
882: (even representing $K$ as a dense $N$-by-$N$
883: matrix on this grid would require 12 GB of memory).}%
884: .
885: This is 100-1000 times faster than an iterative solution
886: for the dominant eigenvector of $K$
887: if neither the factorization nor analytic formula are used
888: (a single dense matrix application of a general $K$ takes 0.45 s and many such
889: iterations are required for convergence, the number depending on $L$ and
890: the particular $w$).
891: Even if the factorization (split operator method) were used to perform
892: each iteration, our analytic formula (\ref{eq:ex}) would still be
893: 10-100 times faster.
894:
895: How is steady-state space use controlled by $\alpha$ and $L$?
896: Comparing the $L=6$ row (cases b,f,j) to the preference function itself
897: (a, e, i), we see that with this large length scale $u^*$ is very close
898: to proportional to $w$, as in 1D and as as explained
899: in Section \ref{sec:lim}.
900: Proceeding down the figure, we see smaller $L$ values result in a
901: $u^*$ with an exaggerated tendency towards space use becoming
902: increasingly concentrated in areas of higher preference. This results
903: in much more relative animal concentration in the mesic grassland
904: region than would be predicted by traditional RSA. This tendency has
905: reached its limit by the bottom $L=0.1$ row (d, h, l), where $u^*$ is
906: close to proportional to $w^2$.
907:
908: Consider the right-hand column (j, k, l).
909: Changing from $L=6$ to $L=0.7$ causes a substantial increase in relative
910: space use in the western part of the mesic grassland
911: (see the large bump to the left in k), but very little change in the
912: eastern part of this same habitat type.
913: The explanation is simple: the grassland strip is generally wider
914: than $L=0.7$ on the western side resulting in
915: a local tendency towards $u^*\propto w^2$,
916: but narrower than $L=0.7$ on the eastern side giving here
917: $u^*\propto w$.
918: Finally in case l $L=0.1$ is narrower than all parts of the mesic
919: grassland and the densities equalize on west and east sides.
920: This is analogous to the transition discussed in Section \ref{sec:ust1d}.
921: This interesting geometric effect is absent in traditional RSA.
922:
923:
924:
925: \begin{figure}[th] % ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
926: a)\quad \raisebox{-1.6in}{\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{evol_w.eps}}
927:
928: \includegraphics[width=5in]{evol.eps}
929: \caption{
930: \label{fig:evol}
931: a) Piecewise linear model preference function $w(x)$, steady state pdf
932: $u^*(x)$,
933: and predicted limiting case of steady-state pdf (\ref{eq:ustw2}) (dashed).
934: b)-e) Snapshots of
935: time evolution of $u(x,t)$ under master equation (\ref{eq:master}) in 1D,
936: at four times (indicated by $t/\tau$ the number of iterations).
937: The exponential jump pdf of (\ref{eq:exp}) is used with $L=0.01$.
938: In e) $u$ is very close to steady-state; the prediction
939: (\ref{eq:ustw2}) is also shown (dashed).
940: }
941: \end{figure} % fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
942:
943: \begin{figure}[th] % ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
944: \bc
945: \includegraphics[width=6in]{evol2d_biomass.eps}
946: \ec
947: \caption{
948: \label{fig:evol2d}
949: Density plots snapshots
950: of the time evolution of $u(x,t)$ under master equation
951: (\ref{eq:master}) in 2D, at four times
952: (indicated by $t/\tau$ the number of iterations).
953: The exponential jump pdf of (\ref{eq:exp2}) is used with $L=0.7$,
954: and preference function
955: derived from biomass data in Fig.~\ref{fig:biomass} via Eq.(\ref{eq:biopref})
956: with $\alpha=500$.
957: In d) $u$ is very close to steady-state,
958: which is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:seq2d}k.
959: }
960: \end{figure} % fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
961:
962:
963:
964: % ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
965: \subsection{Evolution in time}
966: \label{sec:evol}
967:
968: In Figure ~\ref{fig:evol} we show the time-dependent evolution of
969: space use $u(x,t)$ under the master equation (\ref{eq:master}) in a
970: single space dimension for simple piecewise linear model preference
971: function with a single discontinuity (see panel a), with exponential
972: kernel with length scale $L=0.01$.
973: Zero-flux boundary
974: conditions were created by using the non-periodic jump kernel
975: (\ref{eq:exp}). Panels b-e show the resulting dynamics of space use,
976: starting from an initial condition $u_0(x) = \delta(x-x_0)$ where
977: $x_0=0.82$
978: %[PRM -- I suggest plotting the intial condition in panel
979: %b], which can interpreted as the pdf of a single individual known to
980: %be at location $x_0$ at time $t=0$.
981: %
982: % AHB:
983: % I have made the first time very early so it is close to the initial condition
984:
985:
986: The computation with $N=400$ grid points took 0.0005 s per time step;
987: this was done with iterated multiplication by the dense $K$ matrix
988: since the non-periodic choice of $\phr$ makes the $\Phi$ operator
989: no longer a convolution. Notice the discontinuity feature in $u$ at $x=0.75$ establishes itself rapidly and persists throughout
990: the full time range.
991: %Also notice that the zero-flux condition causes a boundary layer
992: %of smaller $u$ values.
993:
994: Fig.~\ref{fig:evol2d} shows the time-depednent evolution of space use
995: for the 2D real-world biomass preference model (\ref{eq:biopref}) with
996: $\alpha=500$ and $L=0.7$ (same parameters as Fig.~\ref{fig:seq2d}k),
997: for a delta-function initial condition at $x_0 = (9,4)$. After a
998: single iteration (panel a), the local preference biases the individual's
999: movements towards the narrow nearby eastern strip of mesic
1000: grassland. In panel (b) its space use is still split between an
1001: expanding radial distribution about its initial position and the
1002: nearby grassland. In panel (c), the compounded mechanistic movement
1003: steps have caused the individual's space use to become concentrated in
1004: the eastern strip of mesic grassland but the mesic grasslands in the
1005: western portion of the landscape are, at this stage, mostly
1006: unoccupied. Much later in the simulation however (panel d), the intensity
1007: of space use in the western mesic grassland areas is higher than the
1008: eastern mesic grasslands, due to the geometric effects on the steady-state
1009: $u^*$ described in Section \ref{sec:ust2d}.
1010:
1011: The simulation from which the snapshots
1012: in Figure \ref{fig:evol2d} were extracted is very rapid,
1013: animating smoothly in real time at 30 frames/s even though $N \approx
1014: 10^4$, allowing immediate interactive model exploration. The raw
1015: calculation (no graphical animation) takes 0.008 s per time-step,
1016: benefitting greatly from the split operator method using FFT
1017: convolution. Performing this without the aid of the factorization
1018: (\ref{eq:fac}) is about 100 times slower. Furthermore, we find that the
1019: additional effort needed to extract the mean-square displacement
1020: $<x^2>(t) := \ino (x-x_0)^2 u(x,t) dx$,
1021: a useful measure of spreading,
1022: is negligible. We remark that
1023: in order to model zero-flux boundary conditions while still using FFT
1024: convolution, a periodized kernel was used but the $w$ array was
1025: zero-padded with a border of width $O(L)$, at negligible extra cost.
1026: %
1027: %[PRM -- THIS PARAGRAPH SEEMS RATHER DISJOINTED]
1028:
1029: \begin{figure}[t] % ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
1030: \bc
1031: a)\quad\raisebox{-2in}{\includegraphics[width=2.8in]{expjump.eps}}\hfill
1032: b)\quad\raisebox{-2in}{\includegraphics[width=2.8in]{expjumpevol.eps}}
1033: \ec
1034: \caption{
1035: \label{fig:expjump}
1036: a) Detail of transition in steady-state space use
1037: occurring within distance $L$ of
1038: a discontinuity
1039: in preference function of the form (\ref{eq:wo}) with
1040: $w_0=2$, for the 1D exponential jump kernel
1041: of (\ref{eq:exp}).
1042: b) Time-evolution of $u(x,t)$ in this same local region for 10 time-steps
1043: of the master equation (\ref{eq:master}), starting from an initial
1044: pdf $u_0(x) = w(x)^2$.
1045: }
1046: \end{figure} % fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
1047:
1048:
1049:
1050:
1051: % dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
1052: \section{Local behavior near a sharp habitat transition}
1053: \label{sec:jump}
1054:
1055: We now examine in more detail what takes place at the discontinuities
1056: in preference function $w(x)$ that arise at the boundaries between
1057: different habitat types. As noted earlier, such discontinuities were
1058: not able to be treated in the derivation of the advection-diffusion
1059: limit in previous work \cite{recon}.
1060:
1061: For simplicity, we consider a single discontinunity on a 1D landscape,
1062: however we expect, and observe, similar behavior in the more
1063: biologically relevant case of multiple discontinuities arising at the
1064: edges of different habitat types on a 2D landscape. Consider a
1065: landscape in which there exists a single boundary between two habitat
1066: types located at $x=0$, resulting in the following discontinous
1067: preference function:
1068: \be
1069: w(x) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}1,& x<0\\w_0, & x>0\end{array}\right.
1070: \label{eq:wo}
1071: \ee
1072: Given a jump kernel of width $L$ it follows from (\ref{eq:z}) that
1073: $z(x)$ is a smoothed
1074: (mollified) step-function with transition region width $L$.
1075: The analytic formula (\ref{eq:ex}) then tells us that the steady-state pdf
1076: jumps by a ratio of $w_0$ precisely at the habitat transition;
1077: however,
1078: when viewed on length scales larger than $L$, the pdf jumps
1079: by a ratio $w_0^2$. For the 1D exponential kernel (\ref{eq:exp}),
1080: the analytic expression for the steady-state
1081: follows from that of $z$ via (\ref{eq:ke}), and is
1082: \be
1083: u^*(x) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1 + \frac{W-1}{2} e^{x/L},& x<0\\
1084: W\left[W - \frac{W-1}{2}e^{-x/L}\right], & x>0\end{array}\right.
1085: \ee
1086: The spatial decay length is thus the same as that of the kernel $\ph$.
1087: This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:expjump}a.
1088:
1089: How fast is this equilibrium reached? We
1090: demonstrate in Fig.~\ref{fig:expjump}b that
1091: the transition region's shape reaches its approximate
1092: equilibrium in only a single time-step
1093: (a slight change also occurs over the next few time-steps).
1094: Here we chose initial conditions which already matched the global
1095: pdf ratio of $w_0^2$, in order to study the equilibration in this
1096: local region alone.
1097:
1098:
1099: \subsection{Effective boundary condition for advection-diffusion equation}
1100:
1101: Armed with this understanding of the local behavior at a
1102: preference function discontinuity, we can incorporate
1103: this into the Fokker-Planck PDE model
1104: for the evolution of $u(x,t)$ in the
1105: $\tau\to 0$ limit (in which case kernel width $L$ must also go to zero at an
1106: appropriate rate).
1107: We remind the reader that the Fokker-Planck equation is
1108: \be
1109: \pd{t}u = - \pd{x}[ c(x) u ] + \pdd{x}[ d(x) u]
1110: \ee
1111: where $c(x)$ and $d(x)$, representing drift and diffusion rates,
1112: take on values given by the $\tau$-scaling of the second moment
1113: of the jump kernel $\ph$ \cite{stoc,mhra,recon}
1114:
1115: We combine two observations: i) locally the steady-state in the vicinity
1116: of a discontinuity in $w$ enforces a multiplicative
1117: jump (the square of the $w$ ratio) in $u$, and ii)
1118: in the $\tau\to0$ limit the Fokker-Planck equation evolves on much
1119: slower time-scales than the local equilibration in this vicinity
1120: (which happens in $O(\tau)$).
1121: Thus we expect that, for evolution on time-scales long relative to $\tau$
1122: the transition region is in {\em local equilibrium}, with the
1123: effective boundary condition
1124: \be
1125: \frac{u(x_-,t)}{(w_-)^2} = \frac{u(x_+,t)}{(w_+)^2},
1126: \qquad \mbox{for all } t>0,
1127: \label{eq:effbc}
1128: \ee
1129: where the subscripts $-$ and $+$ indicate limiting values on the
1130: left and right side of the discontinuity respectively.
1131: Similarly, by conservation of the flux $J(x) = \pd{x}[d(x) u] - c(x) u$
1132: across the discontinuity, we must have that if $d(x)$ is continuous
1133: and $c(x)=0$ then
1134: \be
1135: \pd{x}u(x_-,t) = \pd{x}u(x_+,t), \qquad \mbox{for all } t>0,
1136: \label{eq:effbcd}
1137: \ee
1138: at a step discontinuity in $w$.
1139: We may now interpret (\ref{eq:effbc}) and (\ref{eq:effbcd})
1140: as {\em matching conditions} for coupled
1141: advection-diffusion equations on either side of the discontinuity.
1142: In this way we have a recipe to understand the diffusion limit
1143: even in the presence of discontinuous preference functions.
1144: We remark that our assumption of locally vanishing $c$ corresponds
1145: to no gradient in $w$ locally on either side
1146: (the case with general values of $w'$ either side we postpone for future work).
1147: The above argument is non-rigorous, relying on reasoning
1148: based on separation of length- and time-scales.
1149: However it seems to be supported qualitatively by the evidence in
1150: Fig.~\ref{fig:evol}b-e (although at early times (\ref{eq:effbc}) does
1151: not appear to hold accurately).
1152: We suggest that a more detailed analysis via
1153: matched asymptotic expansions should be carried out.
1154: % in order to uncover the $O(L)$ corrections.
1155:
1156:
1157: % ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
1158: \section{Conclusions}
1159: \label{sec:conc}
1160:
1161: We have analyzed the mathematical properties of a mechanistic resource
1162: selection
1163: (\melp)
1164: model that captures the influence of spatially-localized
1165: habitat preference on the movement behavior of individuals and
1166: predicts their resulting patterns of space use.
1167: The model combines random foraging motion with a local sensitivity
1168: to habitat preference over a `perceptual radius' $L$.
1169: Directed
1170: movement bias is generated
1171: in a similar manner to the angle-biased (von Mises) jump
1172: kernels used in \cite{mhra}, and also becomes equivalent in the
1173: small-$L$ limit to continuous-time advection-diffusion in a `confining
1174: potential' as in \cite{thermal}.
1175: Our analysis shows that the model has a desirable
1176: factorization (\ref{eq:fac})
1177: which yields a simple
1178: closed-form formula (\ref{eq:ex}) for the steady state pdf.
1179: The effect of the compounded random
1180: movement decisions upon this steady state pdf
1181: is a novel geometry-dependent scaling
1182: with the preference function: linear when $L$ is large
1183: (compared to local habitat features), but quadratic when $L$ is small.
1184:
1185: These novel spatial effects are absent in conventional RSA, and have
1186: only been analysed previously in mechanistic home range models in the
1187: context of the advection-diffusion limit \cite{recon} in which the
1188: perceptual radius of individuals is small ($L \to 0$). Our analytic
1189: formula developed here allows this to be understood for the case of
1190: discontinuous preference functions and for any given perceptual radius
1191: $L$.
1192:
1193: Large gains in
1194: computational efficiency have been demonstrated throughout, including
1195: the case of discontinuous 2D preference functions motivated by
1196: observations of spatially-varying prey availability across different
1197: habitat types. We believe such efficient forward models will be
1198: important tools, as inverse modeling, and fitting of multiple model
1199: parameters to observations, become more popular and time-consuming.
1200:
1201: Although we did not construct or study them numerically in this work,
1202: we expect that the benefits demonstrated here for a %the simple case of a
1203: model that is linear in $u$
1204: (with prey- or spatially-
1205: dependent movement rates) will also apply in the analysis of {\em
1206: non-linear} models such as those with density-dependent diffusion (\eg
1207: Sec.~3 of \cite{white}), and
1208: scent-mediated interactions between multiple
1209: animal packs \cite{white,lewis,mhra}.
1210: For example, chemotaxis could
1211: be included in the preference function $w$, in which case our
1212: analytic formula
1213: (\ref{eq:ex}) could be used to turn a coupled PDE system into coupled
1214: algebraic systems, a huge simplification.
1215: % may be able to incorporate chemotaxis into pref func, and solve for
1216: % steady-state rapidly.
1217: We also expect that by extending our preliminary operator analysis
1218: (Proposition \ref{pro:sa}), the spectral properties,
1219: and hence equilibration rates of animal home range
1220: space use, may be deduced.
1221:
1222:
1223: %Give example form of $\phi(x,x')$.
1224: %Recall $\phi$ must have no drift, ie 1 is a steady-state soln for $\phi$.
1225:
1226: Concise Matlab codes for computation of all figures in this work are
1227: freely available at {\tt http://math.dartmouth.edu/$\sim$ahb/moorcroft/}
1228:
1229: \acknowledgments
1230: AHB and PRM thank Robert L. Crabtree for the dataset on small mammal
1231: abundance in Yellowstone National Park.
1232: AHB thanks Jonathan Goodman and Luc Rey-Bellet for useful discussions
1233: on the properties of Markov operators.
1234: AHB is partially funded by NSF-0507614.
1235:
1236: %\section{List of speculative ideas for Paul}
1237:
1238: %\bi
1239: %\item Reconstruct $w$ from real-world steady-state density data using
1240: %$w \propto \sqrt{u^*}$ ? (would such a $w$ be meaningful given that
1241: %we don't really know the jump rules in a local $w$ environment?)
1242: %\item Simulate time-evolution for a real-world piecewise constant $w$
1243: %from habitat types
1244: %\item Unfortunately the radial-exponential with angular-von-Mises kernels
1245: %from Ch 3 of book don't factorize as above, I think.
1246: %\item how measure the jump rules from real-world
1247: %data - enough data to estimate
1248: %$\ke(x,x')$ directly ?
1249: %\ei
1250:
1251:
1252:
1253:
1254: % BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
1255: \bibliographystyle{abbrv} % but how get titles to not appear? % plain
1256: \bibliography{alex}
1257:
1258: \end{document}