Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wjfd9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T21:02:13.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Practical persistence in ecological models via comparison methods*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2011

Robert Stephen Cantrell  and
Chris Cosner
Robert Stephen Cantrell
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124, U.S.A.
Chris Cosner
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A basic question in mathematical ecology is that of deciding whether or not a model for the population dynamics of interacting species predicts their long-term coexistence. A sufficient condition for coexistence is the presence of a globally attracting positive equilibrium, but that condition may be too strong since it excludes other possibilities such as stable periodic solutions. Even if there is such an equilibrium, it may be difficult to establish its existence and stability, especially in the case of models with diffusion. In recent years, there has been considerable interest in the idea of uniform persistence or permanence, where coexistence is inferred from the existence of a globally attracting positive set. The advantage of that approach is that often uniform persistence can be shown much more easily than the existence of a globally attracting equilibrium. The disadvantage is that most techniques for establishing uniform persistence do not provide any information on the size or location of the attracting set. That is a serious drawback from the applied viewpoint, because if the positive attracting set contains points that represent less than one individual of some species, then the practical interpretation that uniform persistence predicts coexistence may not be valid. An alternative approach is to seek asymptotic lower bounds on the populations or densities in the model, via comparison with simpler equations whose dynamics are better known. If such bounds can be obtained and approximately computed, then the prediction ofpersistence can be made practical rather than merely theoretical. This paper describes how practical persistence can be established for some classes of reaction–diffusion models for interacting populations. Somewhat surprisingly, themodels need not be autonomous or have any specific monotonicity properties.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Section A: Mathematics , Volume 126 , Issue 2 , 1996 , pp. 247 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Ahmad, S.. Convergence and ultimate bounds of solutions of the nonautonomous Volterra-Lotka competition equations. J. Math. Anal, Appl. 127(1987), 377–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Ahmad, S. and Lazer, A. C.. Asymptotic behavior of solutions of periodic competition diffusion systems. Nonlinear Anal. 13 (1989). 263–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Ahmad, S. and Lazer, A. C.. On the nonautonomous N competing species problems. Appl. Anal. 57, (1995) 309–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Ali, S. W. and Cosner, C.. On the uniqueness of the positive steady slate for Lotka Volterra models with diffusion. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 168, (1992) 329–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Alikakos, N. D.. An application of the invariance principle to reaction diffusion equations. J. Differential Equations 33, (1979) 201–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Amann, H.. Global existence for semilinear parabolic systems. J. Rcine Angew. Math. 360 (1985). 47–83.Google Scholar
7Blat, J. and Brown, K. J.. Bifurcation of steady-state solutions in predator-prey and competition systems. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 97 (1984), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Brown, P. N.. Decay to uniform states in ecological interactions. SIAM. J. Appl. Math. 38 (1980), 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Burton, T. A. and Hutson, V.. Permanence for nonautonomous predator-prey systems. Differential Integral Equations 4 (1991). 1269–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Butler, G., Freedman, H. and Wallman, P.. Uniformly persistent dynamical systems. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 96 (1986). 425–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Butler, G.. Schmid, R. and Waltman, P.. Limiting the complexity of limit sets in self-regulating systems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 147 (1990), 63–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Cantrell, R. S. and Cosner, C.. On the steady-state problem for the Volterra Lotka competition model with diffusion. Houston J. Math. 13 (1987), 337–52.Google Scholar
13Cantrell, R. S. and Cosner, C.. Diffusive logistic equations with indefinite weights: population models in disrupted environments. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 112 (1989). 293–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Cantrell, R. S. and Cosner, C.. Diffusive logistic equations with indefinite weights: population models in disrupted environments II. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 22 (1991), 1043–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Cantrell, R. S. and Cosner, C.. Should a park bean island? SIAM. J. Appl. Math. 53 (1993). 219–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Cantrell, R. S.. Cosner, C. and Hutson, V.. Permanence in ecological systems with spatial heterogeneity. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 123 (1993). 533–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Cantrell, R. S., Cosner, C. and Hutson, V.. Ecological models, permanence and spatial heterogeneity. Rocky Mountain. J. Math. 26 (1996). to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Cantrell, R. S., Cosner, C. and llulson, V.. Permanence in some diffuse Lotka–Voltcrra models for three interacting species Dynamic Systems and Appl. 2 (1993), 505–30.Google Scholar
19Cao, Y. and Gard, T. C.. Uniform persistence for population models with time delay using multiple Lyapunov functions. Differential Integral Equations 6 (1993), 883–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Cao, Y.. Fan, J. and Gard, T. C.. Persistence in Kolmogorov population models with time delay. Proceedings, World Congress of Nonlinear Analysts 1992 (to appear).Google Scholar
21Castro, A. and Lazer, A. C.. Results on periodic solutions of parabolic equations suggested by elliptic theory. Boll. Un. Mat. ltal. B(I) 6 (1982). 1089–104.Google Scholar
22Coleman, B. D.. Nonautonomous logistic equations as models of the adjustment of population to environmental change. Math. Biosci. 45 (1979), 159–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Cosncr, C. and Lazer, A. C.. Stable coexistence states in the Volterra Lotka competition model with diffusion. SIAM J. Appt. Math. 44 (1984), 1112–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Dancer, E. N.. On the existence and uniqueness of positive solutions for competing species models with diffusion. Trans. Amer. Math. Sot. 326 (1991). 829–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Feng, W.. Coexistence, stability, and limiting behavior in a one-predator two-prey model. J. Math. Anal Appl. (to appear).Google Scholar
26Feng, W.. Permanence effect in a three species food chain model (Preprint).Google Scholar
27Ghoreishi, A. and Logan, R.. Positive solutions of a class of biological models in a heterogeneous environment. Bull. Austral, Math, Soc. 44(1991), 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Gilpin, M. E. and Soulé, M. E.. Minimum viable populations; processes of species extinction. In Conservation Biology: The Sciences of Scarcity and Diversity, ed. Soule, M. F., (Sunderland. MA: Sinauer, 1986).Google Scholar
29Hale, J. K. and Waltman, P.. Persistence in infinite dimensional systems. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 20 (1989), 388–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Hess, P.. Periodic-Parabolic Boundary Value Problems and Positivity, Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics 247 (Harlow: Longman, 1991).Google Scholar
31Hofbauer, J. and Sigmund, K.. Dynamical Systems and the Theory of Evolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).Google Scholar
32Hutson, V. and Schmitt, K.. Permanence in dynamical systems. Math. Biosci. 111 (1992), 1–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Kareiva, P.. Population dynamics in spatially complex environments: theory and data. Philos, Trans. Roy. Sue. London Ser. B 330 (1990), 175–90.Google Scholar
34Lakoš, N.. Existence of steady-state solutions for a one predator-two prey system. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 21, (1990) 647– 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35Lazer, A. C.. Some remarks on periodic solutions of parabolic equations. In Dynamical Systems II, eds Bednarek, A. and Cesari, L.. 227–46 (New York: Academic Press, 1982).Google Scholar
36Leung, A.. Systems of Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations: Applications to Biology and Engineering (Norwell. MA: Kluwer, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37Li, L.. Global positive coexistence of a nonlinear elliptic biological interacting model. Math. Biosci. 97 (1989), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Li, L. and Liu, Y.. Spectral and nonlinear effects in certain elliptic systems of three variables. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 24 (1993), 480–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39Li, L. and Logan, R.. Positive solutions to general elliptic competition models. Differential Integral Equations 4 (1991). 817–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40Liu, Y.. Postive solutions to general elliiptic systems (Preprint).Google Scholar
41López-Gómez, J.. Positive periodic solutions of Lotka–Volterra reaction–diffusion systems. Differential Integral Equations 5 (1992), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42López-GómeZ, J. and Gil, R. Pardo San. Existence and uniqueness for some competition models with diffusion. C. R. Acad, Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 313 (1991). 933–8.Google Scholar
43López-Gómez, J. and Gil, R. Pardo San. Coexistence regions in Lotka–Volterra models with diffusion. Nonlinear Anal. 19 (1992), 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44McKenna, P. J. and Walter, W.. On the Dirichlet problem for elliptic systems. Appl Anal. 21 (1986), 207–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45Müller, M.. Über die Eindeutigkeit der Integrale eines Systems gewühulicher I Differential-gleichungen und die Konvergenz einer Gattung von Verfahren zur approximation diezer Integrale. Sitzungsber. Heideih. Akad. Wiss. Math.-Natur. Kb. 9 (1927).Google Scholar
46Murray, J. D.. Mathematical Biology (Berlin: Springer, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47Okubo, A.. Diffusion and Ecological Problems: Mathematical Models, Biomathematics 10 (Berlin: Springer. 1980).Google Scholar
48Pao, C. V.. Nonlinear Parabolic and Elliptic Equations (New York: Plenum Press, 1992).Google Scholar
49Ruan, W. and Pao, C. V.. Positive steady-stale solutions of a competing reaction-diffusion system (Preprint).Google Scholar
50Schaefer, P. W., ed. Maximum Principles and Eigenvalue Problems in Partial Differential Equations, Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics 175 (Harlow: Longman, 1988).Google Scholar
51Smoller, J.. Shock Waves and Reaction-Diffusion Equations (Berlin1: Springer, 1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52Soulé, M. F.. ed. Viable Populations for Conservation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53Waltman, P.. A brief survey of persistence in dynamical systems. In Delay Differentia! Equations and Dynamical Systems, eds Burenberg, S. and Martelli, M., Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1475, 31–40 (Berlin: Springer. 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54Weinberger, H. F.. Variational Methods for Eigenvalue Approximation (Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55Williams, S. and Chow, P. L.. Nonlinear reaction–diffusion models. J. Math- Anal. Appl. 62 (1978), 157–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56Yodzis, P.. Introduction to Theoretical Ecology (New York: Harper and Row, 1989).Google Scholar
57Zhou, L. and Pao, C. V.. Asymptotic behavior of a competition–diffusion system in population dynamics. Nonlinear Anal. 6 (1982). 1163–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar