Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Revisiting the Stability of Spatially Heterogeneous Predator–Prey Systems Under Eutrophication

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We employ partial integro-differential equations to model trophic interaction in a spatially extended heterogeneous environment. Compared to classical reaction–diffusion models, this framework allows us to more realistically describe the situation where movement of individuals occurs on a faster time scale than on the demographic (population) time scale, and we cannot determine population growth based on local density. However, most of the results reported so far for such systems have only been verified numerically and for a particular choice of model functions, which obviously casts doubts about these findings. In this paper, we analyse a class of integro-differential predator–prey models with a highly mobile predator in a heterogeneous environment, and we reveal the main factors stabilizing such systems. In particular, we explore an ecologically relevant case of interactions in a highly eutrophic environment, where the prey carrying capacity can be formally set to ‘infinity’. We investigate two main scenarios: (1) the spatial gradient of the growth rate is due to abiotic factors only, and (2) the local growth rate depends on the global density distribution across the environment (e.g. due to non-local self-shading). For an arbitrary spatial gradient of the prey growth rate, we analytically investigate the possibility of the predator–prey equilibrium in such systems and we explore the conditions of stability of this equilibrium. In particular, we demonstrate that for a Holling type I (linear) functional response, the predator can stabilize the system at low prey density even for an ‘unlimited’ carrying capacity. We conclude that the interplay between spatial heterogeneity in the prey growth and fast displacement of the predator across the habitat works as an efficient stabilizing mechanism. These results highlight the generality of the stabilization mechanisms we find in spatially structured predator–prey ecological systems in a heterogeneous environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams PA, Walters CJ (1996) Invulnerable prey and the paradox of enrichment. Ecology 77:1125–1133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong RA (1994) Grazing limitation and nutrient limitation in marine ecosystems: steady state solutions of an ecosystem model with multiple food chains. Limnol Oceanogr 39:597–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auger P, Lett C, Moussouai A, Pioch S (2010) Optimal number of sites in artificial pelagic multi-site fisheries. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 67:296–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazykin A (1998) Nonlinear dynamics of interacting populations. World Scientific, River Edge

    Google Scholar 

  • Begon M, Townsend CR, Harper JL (2005) Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems, 4th edn. Blackwell Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollens SM, Frost BW (1989) Predator induced diel vertical migration in a marine planktonic copepod. J Plankton Res 11:1047–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd PW (2002) Environmental factors controlling phytoplankton processes in the Southern Ocean. J Phycol 38:844–861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs CJ, Hoopes MF (2004) Stabilizing effects in spatial parasitoid–host and predator–prey models: a review. Theor Popul Biol 65:299–315

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Calsina Á, Farkas JZ (2012) Steady states in a structured epidemic model with Wentzell boundary condition. J Evol Equ 12:495–512

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chavez FP, Buck KR, Barber RT (1990) Phytoplankton taxa in relation to primary production in the equatorial Pacific. Deep Sea Res 37:1733–1752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottier FR, Tarling GA, Wold A, Falk-Petersen S (2006) Unsynchronised and synchronised vertical migration of zooplankton in a high Arctic fjord. Limnol Oceanogr 51:2586–2599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushing JM (1998) An introduction to structured population dynamics. SIAM, Philadelphia

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen JJ, Lewis MR, Davis CO, Barber RT (1992) Photosynthetic characteristics and estimated growth rates indicate that grazing is the proximate control of primary production in the equatorial Pacific. J Geophys Res 97:639–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farkas JZ, Hagen T (2007) Linear stability and positivity results for a generalized size-structured Daphnia model with inflow. Appl Anal 86:1087–1103

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Farkas JZ, Hagen T (2009) Asymptotic analysis of a size-structured cannibalism model with infinite dimensional environmental feedback. Commun Pure Appl Anal 8:1825–1839

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Farkas JZ, Morozov AY (2014) Modelling effects of rapid evolution on persistence and stability in structured predator–prey systems. Math Model Nat Phenom 9:26–46

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Genkai-Kato M, Yamamura N (1999) Unpalatable prey resolves the paradox of enrichment. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1215–1219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentleman W, Leising A, Frost B, Strom S, Murray J (2003) Functional responses for zooplankton feeding on multiple resources: a review of assumptions and biological dynamics. Deep Sea Res II.50(50):2847–2875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilpin ME (1972) Enriched predator–prey systems: theoretical stability. Science 177:902–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin JGJ, Keenleyside MHA (1984) Foraging on patchy distributed prey by a cichlid fish, Teleostei, Cichlidae: a test of the ideal free distribution theory. Anim Behav 32:120–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1959) The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can Entomol 91:293–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen VAA (1995) Regulation of predator–prey systems through spatial interactions: a possible solution to the paradox of enrichment. Oikos 74:384–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen CXJ, Ginzburg LR (2005) Paradoxes or theoretical failures? The jury is still out. Ecol Model 188:3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacelnik A, Krebs JR, Bernstein C (1992) The ideal free distribution and predator–prey populations. Trends Ecol Evol 7:50–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampert W (2005) Vertical distribution of zooplankton: density dependence and evidence for an ideal free distribution with costs. BMC Biol 3:10 (electronic)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson P (1997) Ideal free distribution in Daphnia? Are daphnids able to consider both patch quality and the position of competitors? Hydrobiologia 360:143–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis ND, Morozov A, Breckels MN, Steinke M, Codling EA (2013) Multitrophic interactions in the sea: assessing the effect of infochemical-mediated foraging in a 1-d spatial model. Math Model Nat Phenom 8:25–44

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge DM, Barko JW, Strayer D, Melack JM, Mittelbach GG, Howarth RW, Menge B, Titus JE (1988) Spatial heterogeneity and habitat interactions in lake communities. In: Carpenter SR (ed) Complex interactions in lake communities. Springer, New York, pp 181–227

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M (1979) An evolutionarily stable feeding strategy in sticklebacks. Z Tierpsychol 51:36–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morozov A, Arashkevich E, Nikishina A, Solovyev K (2011) Nutrient-rich plankton communities stabilized via predator–prey interactions: revisiting the role of vertical heterogeneity. Math Med Biol 28:185–215

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Morozov AY, Pasternak AF, Arashkevich EG (2013) Revisiting the role of individual variability in population persistence and stability. PLoS ONE 8:e70576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morozov AY, Petrovskii SP, Nezlin NP (2007) Towards resolving the paradox of enrichment: the impact of zooplankton vertical migrations on plankton systems stability. J Theor Biol 248:501–511

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mougi A, Nishimura K (2007) A resolution of the paradox of enrichment. J Theor Biol 248:194–201

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch WW, Briggs CJ, Nisbet RM, Gurney WSC, Stewart-Oaten A (1992) Aggregation and stability in metapopulation models. Am Nat 140:41–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nachman G (2006) A functional response model of a predator population foraging in a patchy habitat. J Anim Ecol 75:948–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet RM, Diehl S, Wilson WG, Cooper SD, Donalson DD, Kratz K (1997) Primary productivity gradients and short-term population dynamics in open systems. Ecol Monogr 67:535–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oaten A, Murdoch WW (1975) Functional response and stability in predator–prey systems. Am Nat 109:289–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohman MD (1990) The demographic benefits of diel vertical migration by zooplankton. Ecol Monogr 60:257–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrovskii S, Li B, Malchow H (2004) Transition to spatiotemporal chaos can resolve the paradox of enrichment. Ecol Complex 1:37–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poggiale J-C, Auger P (2004) Impact of spatial heterogeneity on a predator–prey system dynamics. C R Biol 327:1058–1063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryabov AB, Blasius B (2011) A graphical theory of competition on spatial resource gradients. Ecol Lett 14:220–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig ML (1971) Paradox of enrichment: destabilization of exploitation ecosystems in ecological time. Science 171:385–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy S, Chattopadhyay J (2007) The stability of ecosystems: a brief overview of the paradox of enrichment. J Biosci 32:421–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewer for his/her helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Computing Science and Mathematics, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK

    J. Z. Farkas

  2. Department of Mathematics, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK

    A. Yu. Morozov

  3. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Moscow, 117851, Russia

    E. G. Arashkevich & A. Nikishina

Authors
  1. J. Z. Farkas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Yu. Morozov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. G. Arashkevich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Nikishina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Yu. Morozov.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 93 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farkas, J.Z., Morozov, A.Y., Arashkevich, E.G. et al. Revisiting the Stability of Spatially Heterogeneous Predator–Prey Systems Under Eutrophication. Bull Math Biol 77, 1886–1908 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-015-0108-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-015-0108-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation