Journal of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 66, Issue 4–5, pp 767–794 | Cite as

Irreversible prey diapause as an optimal strategy of a physiologically extended Lotka–Volterra model

  • Kateřina Staňková
  • Alessandro Abate
  • Maurice W. Sabelis


We propose an optimal control framework to describe intra-seasonal predator–prey interactions, which are characterized by a continuous-time dynamical model comprising predator and prey density, as well as the energy budget of the prey over the length of a season. The model includes a time-dependent decision variable for the prey, representing the portion of the prey population in time that is active, as opposed to diapausing (a state of physiological rest). The predator follows autonomous dynamics and accordingly it remains active during the season. The proposed model is a generalization of the classical Lotka–Volterra predator–prey model towards non-autonomous dynamics that furthermore includes the effect of an energy variable. The model has been inspired by a specific biological system of predatory mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and prey mites (so-called fruit-tree red spider mites) (Acari: Tetranychidae) that feed on leaves of apple trees—its parameters have been instantiated based on laboratory and field studies. The goal of the work is to understand the decisions of the prey mites to enter diapause (a state of physiological rest) given the dynamics of the predatory mites: this is achieved by solving an optimization problem hinging on the maximization of the prey population contribution to the next season. The main features of the optimal strategy for the prey are shown to be that (1) once in diapause, the prey does not become active again within the same season and hence diapause is an irreversible process; (2) for the vast majority of parameter space, the portion of prey individuals entering diapause within the season does not decrease in time; (3) with an increased number of predators, the optimal population strategy for the prey is to start diapause earlier and to enter diapause more gradually. This optimal population strategy will be studied for its ESS properties in a sequel to the work presented in this article.


Predator–prey problems Fruit-tree red spider mites  Game theory Optimal control Singular characteristics 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

49L20 92B05 93C15 


  1. Akhmetzhanov A, Grognard F, Mailleret L (2011) Optimal life-history strategies in seasonal consumer-resource dynamics. Evolution 65(11):3113–3125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Başar T, Olsder GJ (1999) Dynamic noncooperative game theory. SIAM, PhiladelphiazbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellman R (1957) Dynamic programming. Princeton University Press, PrincetonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertsekas DP (2003) Nonlinear programming. Athena Scientific, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  5. Danks H (1987) Insect dormancy: an ecological perspective. Biological Survey of Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  6. DeLeenheer P, Aeyels D (2000) Accessibility properties of controlled Lotka–Volterra systems. In: Proceedings of the 39th IEEE conference on decision and control, Sydney, USA, pp 3977–3981Google Scholar
  7. Diekmann O, Gyllenberg M, Metz JAJ (2007) Physiologically structured population models: towards a general mathematical theory. In: Takeuchi Y, Iwasa Y, Sato K (eds) Biological and medical physics, biomedical engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 5–20Google Scholar
  8. Dreyfus S (2002) Richard Bellman on the birth of dynamic programming. Oper Res 50(1):48–51MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fitzgerald J, Solomon M (1991) Diapause induction and duration in the phytoseiid mite Typhlodromus pyri. Exp Appl Acarol 12:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goh B, Leitmann G, Vincent T (1974) Optimal control of a prey-predator system. Math Biosci 19:263–286MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gouzé J (1993) Global behavior of n-dimensional Lotka–Volterra systems. Math Biosci 113:231–242MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gouzé J (1994) Global stabilization of n-dimensional population models by a positive control. In: Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE conference on decision and control, Orlando, USA, pp 1335–1336Google Scholar
  13. Gyllenberg M, Hanski I, Lindström T (1996) A predator–prey model with optimal suppression of reproduction in the prey. Math Biosci 134(2):119–152MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gyllenberg M, Service R (2011) Necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of an optimisation principle in evolution. J Math Biol 62(3):359–369MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helle W, Sabelis MW (eds) (1985a) Spider mites: their biology, natural enemies and control. World crop pests, vol 1A. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 403Google Scholar
  16. Helle W, Sabelis MW (eds) (1985b) Spider mites: their biology, natural enemies and control. World crop pests, vol 1B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 458Google Scholar
  17. Hopper JL (1987) Opportunities and handicaps of antipodean scientists: A. J. Nicholson and V. A. Bailey on the balance of animal populations. Hist Rec Aust Sci 7(2):179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kirk DE (1970) Optimal control theory, an introduction. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolmanovskii V, Koroleva N (1991) Control of a predator–prey system with intraspecies competition. J Appl Math Mech 55:588–595Google Scholar
  20. Kroon A, Veenendaal R, Bruin J, Egas M, Sabelis MW (2004) Predation risk affects diapause induction in the spider mite Tetranychus urticae. Exp Appl Acarol 34:307–314Google Scholar
  21. Kroon A, Veenendaal RL (2005) Trade-off between diapause and other life-history traits in the spider mite Tetranychus urticae. Ecol Entomol 23(3):298–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kroon A, Veenendaal RL, Bruin J, Egas M, Sabelis MW (2008) Sleeping with the enemy—predator-induced diapause in mite. Naturwissenschaften 95:1195–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kroon A, Veenendaal RL, Egas M, Bruin J, Sabelis MW (2005) Diapause incidence in the two-spotted spider mite increases due to predator presence, not due to selective predation. Exp Appl Acarol 35(1–2):73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lika K, Kooijman SALM (2003) Life history implications of allocation to growth versus reproduction in dynamic energy budgets. Bull Math Biol 65:809–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lotka AJ (1920) Undamped oscillations derived from the law of mass action. J Am Chem Soc 42:1595–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNamara J, Houston AI (1996) State-dependent life histories. Nature 380(6571):215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Melikyan A (1994) Necessary optimality conditions for a singular surface in the form of synthesis. J Optim Theory Appl 82(2):203–217MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Melikyan A (1998) Generalized characteristics of first order PDEs: applications in optimal control and differential games. Birkhäuser, BostonzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Melikyan A, Olsder G (2010) Boundary singularities and characteristics of Hamilton–Jacobi equation. J Dyn Control Syst 16(1):77–99Google Scholar
  30. Metz JAJ, Mylius S, Diekmann O (2008) Even in the odd cases when evolution optimizes, unrelated population dynamical details may shine through in the ESS. Evol Ecol Res 10:655–666Google Scholar
  31. Metz JAJ, Mylius S, Diekmann O (2008) When does evolution optimize? Evol Ecol Res 10:629–654Google Scholar
  32. Pachepsky E, Nisbet R, Murdoch W (2008) Between discrete and continuous: consumer-resource dynamics with synchronized reproduction. Ecology 89(1):280–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perrin N, Sibly R (1993) Dynamic-models of energy allocation and investment. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 24:379–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perrin N, Sibly R, Nichols N (1993) Optimal-growth strategies when mortality and production-rates are size-dependent. Evol Ecol 7(6):576–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Persson L, Roos AD (2003) Adaptive habitat use in size structured populations: linking individual behavior to population processes. Ecology 84(5):1129–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stanková K (2009) On Stackelberg and inverse Stackelberg games& their applications in the optimal toll design problem, the energy market liberalization problem, and in the theory of incentives. Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  37. Tauber M, Tauber C, Masaki S (1986) Seasonal adaptations of insects. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Veerman A (1992) Diapause in phytoseiid mites: a review. Exp Appl Acarol 14:1–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Volterra V (1926) Variations and fluctuations of the number of the individuals in animal species living together. In: Chapman R (ed) Animal Ecology. McGrawHill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Volterra V (1927) Variations and fluctuations in the number of coexisting animal species, (1927). In: Scudo F, Ziegler J (eds) The golden age of theoretical ecology: 1923–1940. Springer, Berlin, pp 65–234Google Scholar
  41. Wright S (1932) The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. In: Proceedings of the sixth international congress on genetics, pp 355–366Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kateřina Staňková
    • 1
  • Alessandro Abate
    • 2
  • Maurice W. Sabelis
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Knowledge EngineeringMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Delft Center for Systems and ControlDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem DynamicsUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations