Diffusion-driven stability analysis of a prey-predator system with Holling Type-IV functional response

Systems Analysis Modelling Simulation

Volumn 43, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 1085-1093

  Bhattacharyya, Rakhi ^a   Mukhopadhyay, Banibrata ^a   Bandyopadhyay, Malay ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA   (India)

Author keywords

Diffusive instability; Group defence; Hopf bifurcation; Type IV functional response

Indexed keywords

BIFURCATION (MATHEMATICS); DIFFUSION; ECOSYSTEMS; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

DIFFUSIVE INSTABILITY; GROUP DEFENSE; HOPF-BIFURCATION; TYPE-IV FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE;

BIODIVERSITY;

EID: 33746369719     PISSN: 02329298     EISSN: 10294902     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0232929031000150409     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. C.S. Holling (1965). The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation, Mem. Entomol. Soc. Can., 45, 3-60.
2. M.L. Rosenzweig (1971). Paradox of enrichment: destabilization of exploitation ecosys terns in ecological time. Science, 171, 385-387.
3. R.M. May (1972). Limit cycles in predator-prey communities. Science, 177, 900-902.
4. J.F. Riebesell (1974). Paradox of enrichment in competitive systems. Ecology, 55, 183-187.
5. H.I. Freedman (1976). Graphical stability, enrichment and pest control by a natural enemy. Mathl. Biosci., 31, 207-225.
6. H.I. Freedman (1980). Density-dependent death rates. Bull. Math. Biol., 41, 167-178.
7. M.L. Rosenzweig (1972). Reply to McAllister et al. Science, 175, 564-565.
8. M.L. Rosenzweig (1972). Reply to Gilpin. Science, 177, 904.
9. C.B. Huffaker et al. (1963). Experimental studies on predator: complex dispersion and levels of food in an acarine predator-prey interaction. Hilgardia, 34, 305-329.
10. L.S. Luckinbill (1973). Coexistence in laboratory populations of Paramecium Aurelia and its predator Didinium Nasutum. Ecology, 54, 1320-1327.
11. M.L. Rosenzweig and W.M. Schaffer (1978). Homage to the Red Qucen-II. Coevolutionary response to enrichment of exploitation ecosystems. Theor. Pop. Biol., 14, 158-163.
12. J.S. Tener (1965). Muskoxen. Queen's Printer, Ottawa.
13. J.C. Holmes and W.M. Bethel (1972). Modification of intermediate host behaviour by parasites. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. Suppl. 1, 51, 123-149.
14. J.F. Andrews (1968). A Mathematical model for the continuous culture of micro-organisms utilizing inhibitory substrates. Biotecknol. Bioengng., 10, 707-723.
15. R. Aris and A.E. Humphrey (1977). Dynamics of a chemostat in which two organisms compete for a common substrate. Biotechnol. Bioengng., 10, 1375-1368.
16. B. Boon and H. Landelout (1962). Kinetics of nitrite oxidation by nitrobacter winogradski. Biochem. J., 85, 440-447.
17. A.W. Bush and A.E. Cook (1976). The effect of time delay and growth rate inhibition in the bacterial treatment of wastewater. J. Theor. Biol., 63, 385-395.
18. H.I. Freedman and G.S.K. Wolkowicz (1986). Predator-prey systems with group defence: the paradox of enrichment revisited. Bull. Math. Biol., 48, 493-508.
19. J.B.S. Haldane (1930). Enzymes. Longman, London.
20. T. Yano (1969). Dynamic behaviour of the chemostat subject to substrate inhibition. Biotechnol. Bioengng., 11, 139-153.