American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

May  2017, 22(3): 947-976. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2017048

A two patch prey-predator model with multiple foraging strategies in predator: Applications to insects

 1 Simon A. Levin Mathematical and Computational Modeling Sciences Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA 2 Sciences and Mathematics Faculty, College of Integrative Sciences and Arts, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ 85212, USA

* Corresponding author: Yun Kang

Received  September 2015 Revised  April 2016 Published  January 2017

Fund Project: K.S.M is partially supported by the Department of Education GAANN (P200A120192). This research of Y.K. is partially supported by NSF-DMS (1313312); NSF-IOS/DMS (1558127) and The James S. McDonnell Foundation 21st Century Science Initiative in Studying Complex Systems Scholar Award (UHC Scholar Award 220020472).

We propose and study a two patch Rosenzweig-MacArthur prey-predator model with immobile prey and predator using two dispersal strategies. The first dispersal strategy is driven by the prey-predator interaction strength, and the second dispersal is prompted by the local population density of predators which is referred as the passive dispersal. The dispersal strategies using by predator are measured by the proportion of the predator population using the passive dispersal strategy which is a parameter ranging from 0 to 1. We focus on how the dispersal strategies and the related dispersal strengths affect population dynamics of prey and predator, hence generate different spatial dynamical patterns in heterogeneous environment. We provide local and global dynamics of the proposed model. Based on our analytical and numerical analysis, interesting findings could be summarized as follow: (1) If there is no prey in one patch, then the large value of dispersal strength and the large predator population using the passive dispersal in the other patch could drive predator extinct at least locally. However, the intermediate predator population using the passive dispersal could lead to multiple interior equilibria and potentially stabilize the dynamics; (2) The large dispersal strength in one patch may stabilize the boundary equilibrium and lead to the extinction of predator in two patches locally when predators use two dispersal strategies; (3) For symmetric patches (i.e., all the life history parameters are the same except the dispersal strengths), the large predator population using the passive dispersal can generate multiple interior attractors; (4) The dispersal strategies can stabilize the system, or destabilize the system through generating multiple interior equilibria that lead to multiple attractors; and (5) The large predator population using the passive dispersal could lead to no interior equilibrium but both prey and predator can coexist through fluctuating dynamics for almost all initial conditions.

Citation: Komi Messan, Yun Kang. A two patch prey-predator model with multiple foraging strategies in predator: Applications to insects. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2017, 22 (3) : 947-976. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2017048
References:

show all references

References:
describes the number of interior equilibria $(\hat{x}_1^*, \hat{y}_1^*, \hat{y}_2^*)$ when $x_2 = 0$ in Model (3) and their stability with respect to variation in $s$. Figure 1(b) and 1(c) describe the number of interior equilibria $(y_1^*, x_2^*, y_2^*)$ of the submodel $x_2 = 0$ of Model (3) and their stability when $s$ varies from $0$ to $1$. Blue represents the sink and green represents the saddle.">Figure 1.  One parameter bifurcation diagrams of Model (4) with $y$-axis representing the population size of predator at Patch 1 and $x$-axis represent the proportion of predator using the passive dispersal. Figure 1(a) describes the number of interior equilibria $(\hat{x}_1^*, \hat{y}_1^*, \hat{y}_2^*)$ when $x_2 = 0$ in Model (3) and their stability with respect to variation in $s$. Figure 1(b) and 1(c) describe the number of interior equilibria $(y_1^*, x_2^*, y_2^*)$ of the submodel $x_2 = 0$ of Model (3) and their stability when $s$ varies from $0$ to $1$. Blue represents the sink and green represents the saddle.
and 2(b) are the cases when $s = 0.65$, $r_1=1$, $r_2=0.54$, $d_1=0.45$, $d_2=0.105$, $K_1=10$, $K_2=8$, $a_1=0.6$, $a_2=0.35$, $\rho_1 = 1.75$, and $\rho_2=1.2$. The solid lines are $f_1(x_1)$ and $f_2(x_2)$ while the dashed lines are $K_1$ and $K_2$ which illustrates the existence of boundary equilibria when $K_1> x_{1\ell}^* \mbox{ or } K_2> \hat{x}_{2\ell}^*, ~\ell=1, 2$. The black dots represent real positive $x_{1\ell}^*$ and $\hat{x}_{2\ell}^*$ that satisfy existence of boundary equilibria, respectively.">Figure 2.  Boundary equilibria $E_{1\ell}^b = (x_{1\ell}^*, y_{1\ell}^*, 0, y_{2\ell}^*)$ and $E_{2\ell}^b = (0, \hat{y}_{1\ell}^*, \hat{x}_{2\ell}^*, \hat{y}_{2\ell}^*)$. Figure 2(a) and 2(b) are the cases when $s = 0.65$, $r_1=1$, $r_2=0.54$, $d_1=0.45$, $d_2=0.105$, $K_1=10$, $K_2=8$, $a_1=0.6$, $a_2=0.35$, $\rho_1 = 1.75$, and $\rho_2=1.2$. The solid lines are $f_1(x_1)$ and $f_2(x_2)$ while the dashed lines are $K_1$ and $K_2$ which illustrates the existence of boundary equilibria when $K_1> x_{1\ell}^* \mbox{ or } K_2> \hat{x}_{2\ell}^*, ~\ell=1, 2$. The black dots represent real positive $x_{1\ell}^*$ and $\hat{x}_{2\ell}^*$ that satisfy existence of boundary equilibria, respectively.
describes the number of boundary equilibria $E_{1\ell}^b = (x_{1\ell}^*, y_{1\ell}^*, 0, y_{2\ell}^*), \ell=1, 2$ from Model (3) and their stability with respect to variation in $s$ when $d_1 = 0.85, ~a_1=1$. Figure 3(b) and 3(c) describes the number of boundary equilibria $E_{2\ell}^b = (0, \hat{y}_{1\ell}^*, \hat{x}_{2\ell}^*, \hat{y}_{2\ell}^*), \ell =1, 2$ from Model (3) and their change in stability when $s$ varies from $0$ to $1$ with $d_1 = 0.85, ~a_1=1$ and $d_1 = 2, ~a_1=2.1$ respectively. Blue represents the sink and green represents the saddle.">Figure 3.  One parameter bifurcation diagrams of Model (3) with $y$-axis representing the population size of predator at Patch 1 and $x$-axis represent the proportion of predator using the passive dispersal. Figure 3(a) describes the number of boundary equilibria $E_{1\ell}^b = (x_{1\ell}^*, y_{1\ell}^*, 0, y_{2\ell}^*), \ell=1, 2$ from Model (3) and their stability with respect to variation in $s$ when $d_1 = 0.85, ~a_1=1$. Figure 3(b) and 3(c) describes the number of boundary equilibria $E_{2\ell}^b = (0, \hat{y}_{1\ell}^*, \hat{x}_{2\ell}^*, \hat{y}_{2\ell}^*), \ell =1, 2$ from Model (3) and their change in stability when $s$ varies from $0$ to $1$ with $d_1 = 0.85, ~a_1=1$ and $d_1 = 2, ~a_1=2.1$ respectively. Blue represents the sink and green represents the saddle.
. We used the following parameters $r=1$, $d=5$, $K=10$, and $a=6$. Figure 4(a) describes the number of interior equilibria and their change in stability when $s$ varies from $0$ to $1$. Blue line represents sink and green line represents saddle in Figure 4(a). Figure 4(b) describes how the number of interior equilibria change for different values of dispersal strategy $s$ and dispersal rate $\rho_1$. Black region have three interior equilibria; red regions have two interior equilibria; and blue regions have one interior equilibrium in Figure 4(b)">Figure 4.  One and two parameter bifurcation diagrams of symmetric Model (3) with $y$-axis representing the population size of predator at Patch 1 in figure 4(a). We used the following parameters $r=1$, $d=5$, $K=10$, and $a=6$. Figure 4(a) describes the number of interior equilibria and their change in stability when $s$ varies from $0$ to $1$. Blue line represents sink and green line represents saddle in Figure 4(a). Figure 4(b) describes how the number of interior equilibria change for different values of dispersal strategy $s$ and dispersal rate $\rho_1$. Black region have three interior equilibria; red regions have two interior equilibria; and blue regions have one interior equilibrium in Figure 4(b)
. The following parameters are used: $r=1.8$, $d_2=0.35$, $K_1=10$, $K_2=7$, and $a_2=1.4$. Figure 5(a) describes the number of interior equilibria and their change in stability when $s$ varies from $0$ to $1$. Blue line represents sink, green line represents saddle, and red line represents source in Figure 5(a). Figure 5(b) describes how the number of interior equilibria change for different values of $s$ and dispersal rate $\rho_1$. Black region have three interior equilibria; red regions have two interior equilibria; blue regions have one interior equilibrium, and white regions have no interior equilibria in Figure 5(b).">Figure 5.  One and two parameter bifurcation diagrams of Model (3) with $y$-axis representing the population size of predator at Patch 1 in Figure 5(a). The following parameters are used: $r=1.8$, $d_2=0.35$, $K_1=10$, $K_2=7$, and $a_2=1.4$. Figure 5(a) describes the number of interior equilibria and their change in stability when $s$ varies from $0$ to $1$. Blue line represents sink, green line represents saddle, and red line represents source in Figure 5(a). Figure 5(b) describes how the number of interior equilibria change for different values of $s$ and dispersal rate $\rho_1$. Black region have three interior equilibria; red regions have two interior equilibria; blue regions have one interior equilibrium, and white regions have no interior equilibria in Figure 5(b).
. We used the following parameters $r=1.8$, $d_2=0.35$, $K_1=10$, $K_2=7$, and $a_2=1.4$. Figure 6(a) describes the number of interior equilibria and their change in stability when $s$ varies from $0$ to $1$ under the parameters $d_1 =2$ and $a_1=2.1$. Blue represents sink, green represents saddle, and red represents source. Figure 6(b) describes how the number of interior equilibria change for different values of dispersal strategy $s$ and dispersal rate $\rho_1$. Black region have three interior equilibria; red regions have two interior equilibria; blue regions have one interior equilibrium, and white regions have no interior equilibria">Figure 6.  One and two parameter bifurcation diagrams of Model (3) with $y$-axis representing the population size of predator at Patch 1 in figure 6(a). We used the following parameters $r=1.8$, $d_2=0.35$, $K_1=10$, $K_2=7$, and $a_2=1.4$. Figure 6(a) describes the number of interior equilibria and their change in stability when $s$ varies from $0$ to $1$ under the parameters $d_1 =2$ and $a_1=2.1$. Blue represents sink, green represents saddle, and red represents source. Figure 6(b) describes how the number of interior equilibria change for different values of dispersal strategy $s$ and dispersal rate $\rho_1$. Black region have three interior equilibria; red regions have two interior equilibria; blue regions have one interior equilibrium, and white regions have no interior equilibria
and 7(b) describes how the number of interior equilibria change for different values of dispersal strategy $s$ and dispersal rate $\rho_2$ where the parameters $d_1 =0.85, ~a_1=1$ are used for the left figure 7(a) while $d_1 =2, ~a_1=2.1$ are used for the right figure 7(b) in addition to the fixed parameters. Black region have three interior equilibria; red regions have two interior equilibria; blue regions have one interior equilibrium, and white regions have no interior equilibria in Figures 7(a) and 7(b)">Figure 7.  Two parameters bifurcation diagrams of Model (3) with $y$-axis representing the relative dispersal rate $\rho_2$ and $x$-axis represent the strength of dispersal mode $s$. The following parameters are used: $r=1.8$, $d_2=0.35$, $K_1=10$, $K_2=7$, $a_2=1.4$, and $\rho_1 = 1$. Both figures 7(a) and 7(b) describes how the number of interior equilibria change for different values of dispersal strategy $s$ and dispersal rate $\rho_2$ where the parameters $d_1 =0.85, ~a_1=1$ are used for the left figure 7(a) while $d_1 =2, ~a_1=2.1$ are used for the right figure 7(b) in addition to the fixed parameters. Black region have three interior equilibria; red regions have two interior equilibria; blue regions have one interior equilibrium, and white regions have no interior equilibria in Figures 7(a) and 7(b)
and 8(b) illustrate the coexistence of prey and predator through fluctuating dynamics while Model 3 has no interior equilibria. The blue dashed lines represent the prey population in patch 1, the dashed red lines represent the predator population in patch 1, the blue solid lines is the the prey population in patch 2, and the red solid lines represent predator population in patch 2">Figure 8.  Time series of Model 3 when $r=1.8$, $d_2=0.35$, $K_1=10$, $K_2=7$, and $a_2=1.4$. Figures 8(a) and 8(b) illustrate the coexistence of prey and predator through fluctuating dynamics while Model 3 has no interior equilibria. The blue dashed lines represent the prey population in patch 1, the dashed red lines represent the predator population in patch 1, the blue solid lines is the the prey population in patch 2, and the red solid lines represent predator population in patch 2
and 9(b) represent the dynamical pattern generated by two interior saddles, one boundary sink and one boundary saddle. The blue dashed lines represent the prey population in patch 1, the dashed red lines represent the predator population in patch 1, the blue solid lines is the the prey population in patch 2, and the red solid lines represent predator population in patch 2.">Figure 9.  Time series of Model 3 when $r=1.8$, $d_2=0.35$, $K_1=10$, $K_2=7$, $a_2=1.4$, $\rho_1 = 1$, and $\rho_2 = 2.5$. Figures 9(a) and 9(b) represent the dynamical pattern generated by two interior saddles, one boundary sink and one boundary saddle. The blue dashed lines represent the prey population in patch 1, the dashed red lines represent the predator population in patch 1, the blue solid lines is the the prey population in patch 2, and the red solid lines represent predator population in patch 2.
and 10(b) describe the dynamical pattern generated by two interior saddles and one interior that is locally stable. The blue dashed lines represent the prey population in patch 1, the dashed red lines represent the predator population in patch 1, the blue solid lines is the the prey population in patch 2, and the red solid lines represent predator population in patch 2">Figure 10.  Time series of Model 3 when $r=1.8$, $d_2=0.35$, $K_1=10$, $K_2=7$, $a_2=1.4$, $\rho_1 = 1$, and $\rho_2 = 2.5$. Figures 10(a) and 10(b) describe the dynamical pattern generated by two interior saddles and one interior that is locally stable. The blue dashed lines represent the prey population in patch 1, the dashed red lines represent the predator population in patch 1, the blue solid lines is the the prey population in patch 2, and the red solid lines represent predator population in patch 2
Summary of the effect of the proportion of predators using the passive dispersal on Model (4) From Figures 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c). LAS refers to local asymptotical stability and ✗ implies the equilibrium does not exist
 Scenarios $\mathbf{a_1= 1 \mbox{ and } d_1 =0.85 }$ $\mathbf{a_1= 2.1 \mbox{ and } d_1 = 2 }$ $\mathbf{E_{x_1y_1y_2}^{1} }$ $\mathbf{E_{x_1y_1y_2}^{2} }$ $\mathbf{ E_{y_1x_2y_2}^{1}}$ $\mathbf{E_{y_1x_2y_2}^{2} }$ $\mathbf{E_{x_1y_1y_2}^{1, 2} }$ $\mathbf{ E_{y_1x_2y_2}^{1}}$ $\mathbf{E_{y_1x_2y_2}^{2} }$ $s\leq0.1$ LAS ✗ Saddle ✗ ✗ Saddle ✗ $0.15 \leq s \leq 0.45$ LAS Saddle Saddle ✗ ✗ Saddle ✗ $0.55 \leq s \leq 0.62$ ✗ ✗ Saddle ✗ ✗ LAS Saddle $0.68 < s < 0.82$ ✗ ✗ LAS Saddle ✗ ✗ ✗ $s \geq 0.82$ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗
 Scenarios $\mathbf{a_1= 1 \mbox{ and } d_1 =0.85 }$ $\mathbf{a_1= 2.1 \mbox{ and } d_1 = 2 }$ $\mathbf{E_{x_1y_1y_2}^{1} }$ $\mathbf{E_{x_1y_1y_2}^{2} }$ $\mathbf{ E_{y_1x_2y_2}^{1}}$ $\mathbf{E_{y_1x_2y_2}^{2} }$ $\mathbf{E_{x_1y_1y_2}^{1, 2} }$ $\mathbf{ E_{y_1x_2y_2}^{1}}$ $\mathbf{E_{y_1x_2y_2}^{2} }$ $s\leq0.1$ LAS ✗ Saddle ✗ ✗ Saddle ✗ $0.15 \leq s \leq 0.45$ LAS Saddle Saddle ✗ ✗ Saddle ✗ $0.55 \leq s \leq 0.62$ ✗ ✗ Saddle ✗ ✗ LAS Saddle $0.68 < s < 0.82$ ✗ ✗ LAS Saddle ✗ ✗ ✗ $s \geq 0.82$ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗
Summary of the effect of the proportion of predators using the passive dispersal on Model (4) From Figures 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c). LAS refers to local asymptotical stability and ✗ implies the equilibrium does not exist.
 Scenarios $\mathbf{a_1= 1 \mbox{ and } d_1 =0.85 }$ $\mathbf{a_1= 2.1 \mbox{ and } d_1 = 2 }$ E11b E12b E21b E22b E11, 12b E21b E22b s ≤ 0.1 Saddle ✗ Saddle ✗ ✗ Saddle ✗ 0.15 ≤ s ≤ 0.45 Saddle Saddle Saddle ✗ ✗ Saddle ✗ 0.55 ≤ s ≤ 0.62 ✗ ✗ Saddle ✗ ✗ Saddle Saddle 0.68 < s < 0.82 ✗ ✗ LAS Saddle ✗ ✗ ✗ s ≥ 0.82 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗
 Scenarios $\mathbf{a_1= 1 \mbox{ and } d_1 =0.85 }$ $\mathbf{a_1= 2.1 \mbox{ and } d_1 = 2 }$ E11b E12b E21b E22b E11, 12b E21b E22b s ≤ 0.1 Saddle ✗ Saddle ✗ ✗ Saddle ✗ 0.15 ≤ s ≤ 0.45 Saddle Saddle Saddle ✗ ✗ Saddle ✗ 0.55 ≤ s ≤ 0.62 ✗ ✗ Saddle ✗ ✗ Saddle Saddle 0.68 < s < 0.82 ✗ ✗ LAS Saddle ✗ ✗ ✗ s ≥ 0.82 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗
Summary of the local and global dynamic of Model (3). LAS refers to the local asymptotical stability, GAS refers to the global stability, and Cond. refers to condition.
 Scenarios Existence condition, Local and Global stability of Model (3) $\mathbf{ s = 0}$ $\mathbf{ s \in (0, 1)}$ $\mathbf{ s = 1}$ $E_{0000}, $$E_{K_1000},$$E_{00K_20}$ Always exist and always saddle Always exist and always saddle Always exist and always saddle $E_{K_10K_20}$ Always exist; LAS and GAS if $\mu_i>K_i$ for both $i=1, 2$ Always exist; GAS if $\mu_i>K_i$ for both $i=1, 2$; while LAS if Equations 8 are satisfied Always exist; GAS if $\mu_i>K_i$ for both $i=1, 2$; LAS if condition (1) is satisfied $E_{1\ell}^b$$x_i=0$$\ell = 1, ~2$$i =1, 2 Do not exist One or two exist if \frac{3\beta_j}{\mu_j+K_j}<\alpha_j<(\mu_j+K_j)^2 with i, j=1, 2, i\not=j; Can be locally asymptotically stable or saddle as shown in Figures 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) Exist if 0<\hat{\mu}_i  Scenarios Existence condition, Local and Global stability of Model (3) \mathbf{ s = 0} \mathbf{ s \in (0, 1)} \mathbf{ s = 1} E_{0000},$$E_{K_1000}, $$E_{00K_20} Always exist and always saddle Always exist and always saddle Always exist and always saddle E_{K_10K_20} Always exist; LAS and GAS if \mu_i>K_i for both i=1, 2 Always exist; GAS if \mu_i>K_i for both i=1, 2; while LAS if Equations 8 are satisfied Always exist; GAS if \mu_i>K_i for both i=1, 2; LAS if condition (1) is satisfied E_{1\ell}^b$$x_i=0$$\ell = 1, ~2$$i =1, 2$ Do not exist One or two exist if $\frac{3\beta_j}{\mu_j+K_j}<\alpha_j<(\mu_j+K_j)^2$ with $i, j=1, 2$, $i\not=j$; Can be locally asymptotically stable or saddle as shown in Figures 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) Exist if $0<\hat{\mu}_i Summary of the effect of the proportion of predators using the passive dispersal on the interior equilibria of Model (3) From Figures 5(a), and 6(a). LAS refers to local asymptotical stability, ✗ implies the equilibrium does not exist, and$E_{x_1y_1x_2y_2}^{i}, i=1, 2, 3$are the three possible interior equilibria of Model (3)  Scenarios$\mathbf{a_1= 1 \mbox{ and } d_1 =0.85 }\mathbf{a_1= 2.1 \mbox{ and } d_1 = 2 }{\bf{E}}_{{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{x}}_2}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{2}}}}^{\bf{1}}{\bf{E}}_{{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{x}}_2}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{2}}}}^2{\bf{E}}_{{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{x}}_2}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{2}}}}^3{\bf{E}}_{{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{x}}_2}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{2}}}}^{\bf{1}}{\bf{E}}_{{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{x}}_2}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{2}}}}^2{\bf{E}}_{{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{x}}_2}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{2}}}}^3$s ≤ 0.07 Source ✗ ✗ Saddle Source LAS 0.9 ≤ s ≤ 0.15 Source ✗ ✗ Saddle Saddle LAS 0.2 ≤ s ≤ 0.43 Saddle ✗ ✗ LAS Saddle Saddle 0.68 < s < 0.82 ✗ ✗ LAS ✗ ✗ ✗ s ≥ 0.82 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 0.83 ≤ s ≤ 0.84 Saddle Saddle LAS Saddle ✗ ✗ s ≥ 0.84 Saddle Saddle Saddle Saddle ✗ ✗  Scenarios$\mathbf{a_1= 1 \mbox{ and } d_1 =0.85 }\mathbf{a_1= 2.1 \mbox{ and } d_1 = 2 }{\bf{E}}_{{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{x}}_2}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{2}}}}^{\bf{1}}{\bf{E}}_{{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{x}}_2}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{2}}}}^2{\bf{E}}_{{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{x}}_2}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{2}}}}^3{\bf{E}}_{{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{x}}_2}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{2}}}}^{\bf{1}}{\bf{E}}_{{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{x}}_2}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{2}}}}^2{\bf{E}}_{{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{1}}}{{\bf{x}}_2}{{\bf{y}}_{\bf{2}}}}^3\$ s ≤ 0.07 Source ✗ ✗ Saddle Source LAS 0.9 ≤ s ≤ 0.15 Source ✗ ✗ Saddle Saddle LAS 0.2 ≤ s ≤ 0.43 Saddle ✗ ✗ LAS Saddle Saddle 0.68 < s < 0.82 ✗ ✗ LAS ✗ ✗ ✗ s ≥ 0.82 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 0.83 ≤ s ≤ 0.84 Saddle Saddle LAS Saddle ✗ ✗ s ≥ 0.84 Saddle Saddle Saddle Saddle ✗ ✗
 [1] Yun Kang, Sourav Kumar Sasmal, Komi Messan. A two-patch prey-predator model with predator dispersal driven by the predation strength. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2017, 14 (4) : 843-880. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017046 [2] Jinfeng Wang, Hongxia Fan. Dynamics in a Rosenzweig-Macarthur predator-prey system with quiescence. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2016, 21 (3) : 909-918. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2016.21.909 [3] Wei Feng, Nicole Rocco, Michael Freeze, Xin Lu. Mathematical analysis on an extended Rosenzweig-MacArthur model of tri-trophic food chain. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2014, 7 (6) : 1215-1230. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2014.7.1215 [4] Yaying Dong, Shanbing Li, Yanling Li. Effects of dispersal for a predator-prey model in a heterogeneous environment. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2019, 18 (5) : 2511-2528. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2019114 [5] Yu-Xia Hao, Wan-Tong Li, Fei-Ying Yang. Traveling waves in a nonlocal dispersal predator-prey model. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (9) : 3113-3139. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020340 [6] Pankaj Kumar, Shiv Raj. Modelling and analysis of prey-predator model involving predation of mature prey using delay differential equations. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/naco.2021035 [7] Susmita Halder, Joydeb Bhattacharyya, Samares Pal. Predator-prey interactions under fear effect and multiple foraging strategies. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2021206 [8] Feiying Yang, Wantong Li, Renhu Wang. Invasion waves for a nonlocal dispersal predator-prey model with two predators and one prey. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2021, 20 (12) : 4083-4105. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2021146 [9] Chiu-Yen Kao, Yuan Lou, Wenxian Shen. Random dispersal vs. non-local dispersal. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2010, 26 (2) : 551-596. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2010.26.551 [10] Isam Al-Darabsah, Xianhua Tang, Yuan Yuan. A prey-predator model with migrations and delays. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2016, 21 (3) : 737-761. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2016.21.737 [11] R. P. Gupta, Peeyush Chandra, Malay Banerjee. Dynamical complexity of a prey-predator model with nonlinear predator harvesting. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2015, 20 (2) : 423-443. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2015.20.423 [12] Malay Banerjee, Nayana Mukherjee, Vitaly Volpert. Prey-predator model with nonlocal and global consumption in the prey dynamics. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020, 13 (8) : 2109-2120. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020180 [13] Sampurna Sengupta, Pritha Das, Debasis Mukherjee. Stochastic non-autonomous Holling type-Ⅲ prey-predator model with predator's intra-specific competition. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2018, 23 (8) : 3275-3296. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2018244 [14] Guirong Jiang, Qishao Lu. The dynamics of a Prey-Predator model with impulsive state feedback control. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2006, 6 (6) : 1301-1320. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2006.6.1301 [15] Xinfu Chen, Yuanwei Qi, Mingxin Wang. Steady states of a strongly coupled prey-predator model. Conference Publications, 2005, 2005 (Special) : 173-180. doi: 10.3934/proc.2005.2005.173 [16] Kousuke Kuto, Yoshio Yamada. Coexistence states for a prey-predator model with cross-diffusion. Conference Publications, 2005, 2005 (Special) : 536-545. doi: 10.3934/proc.2005.2005.536 [17] Mingxin Wang, Peter Y. H. Pang. Qualitative analysis of a diffusive variable-territory prey-predator model. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2009, 23 (3) : 1061-1072. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2009.23.1061 [18] Shuxia Pan. Asymptotic spreading in a delayed dispersal predator-prey system without comparison principle. Electronic Research Archive, 2019, 27: 89-99. doi: 10.3934/era.2019011 [19] J. Gani, R. J. Swift. Prey-predator models with infected prey and predators. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2013, 33 (11&12) : 5059-5066. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2013.33.5059 [20] Wenjie Ni, Mingxin Wang. Dynamical properties of a Leslie-Gower prey-predator model with strong Allee effect in prey. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2017, 22 (9) : 3409-3420. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2017172

2020 Impact Factor: 1.327