Quiescence stabilizes predator–prey relations

Journal of Biological Dynamics

Volumn 3, Issue 2-3, 2009, Pages 196-208

  Bilinsky, L ^a   Hadeler, K P ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Predator prey system; Quiescent phase; Stability domain

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; PHYSIOLOGY; PREDATION;

ANIMALS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR;

EID: 78651317375     PISSN: 17513758     EISSN: 17513766     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17513750802590707     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Brill, A., and Noether, M., “ Die Entwicklung der Theorie der algebraischen Funktionen in aelterer und neuerer Zeit ”. 1892–93. Reimer, Berlin:Jahresber. der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung III, 1894.
2. Cheng, K.-S., 1981. Uniqueness of a limit cycle for a predator-prey system. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 12:541–548.
3. Gantmacher, F. R., 1959. The Theory of Matrices, Vol. 1, 2, New York:Chelsea Publishing Co.
4. Gyllenberg, M., and Webb, G. F., 1989. Quiescence as an explanation of Gompertzian tumor growth. Growth Develop. and Aging, 53:25–33.
5. Hadeler, K. P., 2007. Quiescent phases and stability. Lin. Alg. Appl., 428:1620–1627.
6. Hadeler, K. P., and Lewis, M. A., 2002. Spatial dynamics of the diffusive logistic equation with a sedentary compartment. Can. Appl. Math. Quart., 10:473–499.
7. Hadeler, K. P., and Hillen, T., 2007. “ Coupled dynamics and quiescent states ”. In Math Everywhere, 7–23. Berlin:Springer.
8. Hillen, T., 2003. Transport equations with resting phases. Eur. J. Appl. Math., 14:613–636.
9. Hillen, H., and Hadeler, K. P., 2005. “ Hyperbolic systems and transport equations in Mathematical Biology ”. In Analysis and Numerics for Conservation Laws, Edited by:Warnecke, G., 257–279. Springer.
10. Holling, C. S., 1965. The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. Mem. Ent. Soc. Can., 45:65
11. Jäger, W., Krömker, S., and Tang, B., 1994. Quiescence and transient growth dynamics in chemostat models. Math. Biosci., 119:225–239.
12. Kolmogorov, A. N., 1936. Sulla teoria di Volterra della lotta per la esistenza. Giorn. Ist. Ital. Attuar., 7:74–80.
13. Lewis, M. A., and Schmitz, G., 1996. Biological invasion of an organism with separate mobile and stationary states:modeling and analysis. Forma, 11:1–25.
14. Malik, T., and Smith, H. L., 2006. A resource-based model of microbial quiescence. J. Math. Biol., 53:231–252.
15. Neubert, M. G., Klepac, P., and van den Driessche, P., 2002. Stabilizing dispersal delays in predator-prey metapopulation models. Theor. Popul. Biol., 61:339–347.
16. Pachepsky, E., Lutscher, F., Nisbet, R. M., and Lewis, M. A., 2005. Persistence, spread and the drift paradox. Theor. Popul. Biol., 67:61–73.
17. Plücker, J., 1835. “ System der analytischen Geometrie, auf neue Betrachtungsweisen gegründet, und insbesondere eine ausführliche Theorie der Curven dritter Ordnung ”. Berlin:Duncker und Humblot.
18. Rosenzweig, M. L., 1971. Paradox of enrichment:destabilization of exploitation ecosystems in ecological time. Science, 171:385–387.
19. Rosenzweig, M. L., and MacArthur, R. H., 1963. Graphical representation and stability conditions of predator-prey interactions. Amer. Nat., 97:209–223.
20. Satnoianu, R. A., and van den Driessche, P., 2005. Some remarks on matrix stability with applications to Turing instability. Lin. Alg. Appl., 398:69–74.