| Literature DB >> 33424195 |
Nilesh Kumar Thakur1, Smriti Chandra Srivastava1, Archana Ojha1.
Abstract
In this paper, we analyze the complexity of an eco-epidemiological model for phytoplankton-zooplankton system in presence of toxicity and time delay. Holling type II function response is incorporated to address the predation rate as well as toxic substance distribution in zooplankton. It is also presumed that infected phytoplankton does recover from the viral infection. In the absence of time delay, stability and Hopf-bifurcation conditions are investigated to explore the system dynamics around all the possible equilibrium points. Further, in the presence of time delay, conditions for local stability are derived around the interior equilibria and the properties of the periodic solution are obtained by applying normal form theory and central manifold arguments. Computational simulation is performed to illustrate our theoretical findings. It is explored that system dynamics is very sensitive corresponding to carrying capacity and toxin liberation rate and able to generate chaos. Further, it is observed that time delay in the viral infection process can destabilize the phytoplankton density whereas zooplankton density remains in its old state. Incorporation of time delay also gives the scenario of double Hopf-bifurcation. Some control parameters are discussed to stabilize system dynamics. The effect of time delay on (i) growth rate of susceptible phytoplankton shows the extinction and double Hopf-bifurcation in the zooplankton population, (ii) a sufficiently large value of carrying capacity stabilizes the chaotic dynamics or makes the whole system chaotic with further increment. © Shiraz University 2021.Entities:
Keywords: Chaos; Hopf-bifurcation; Local stability; Plankton; Time delay; Toxicity
Year: 2021 PMID: 33424195 PMCID: PMC7781835 DOI: 10.1007/s40995-020-01042-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Sci Technol Trans A Sci ISSN: 1028-6276 Impact factor: 1.194
Brief description of the notation used for parameters with their units
| Parameters | Units | Description |
|---|---|---|
| h | Intrinsic growth rate of susceptible phytoplankton population | |
| l | Carrying capacity of phytoplankton population | |
| lh | Rate of infection | |
| lh | Maximum predation rate of susceptible phytoplankton population | |
| l | Rate at which infected phytoplankton become susceptible population | |
| lh | Maximum predation rate of infected phytoplankton population | |
| lh | Total death rate of infected phytoplankton population due to disease | |
| lh | Growth rate of zooplankton due to predation of susceptible phytoplankton population | |
| lh | Growth rate of zooplankton due to predation of infected phytoplankton | |
| lh | Total death rate of zooplankton population | |
| h | The rate of toxin liberation by the toxin producing phytoplankton population | |
| l | Half saturation constant for the toxin producing phytoplankton | |
| Represent the half saturation constant measures the extent to which the environment | ||
| provides protection to susceptible and infected phytoplankton population |
Fig. 1Time evolution and phase space of model system (2.1) for susceptible phytoplankton, infected phytoplankton and zooplankton at a , b , c , d
Fig. 2Bifurcation diagram of model system (2.1) for K versus a Max(S), b Max(I), c Max(Z)
Fig. 3a–c Bifurcation diagram of model system (2.1) for r versus a Max(S), b Max(I), c Max(Z)
Fig. 4Time evolution and phase space of model system (2.1) for susceptible phytoplankton, infected phytoplankton and zooplankton at a , b , c , d
Fig. 5Bifurcation diagram of model system (2.1) for versus a Max(S), b Max(I), c Max(Z)
Fig. 6Bifurcation diagram of model system (2.1) for C versus a Max(S), b Max(I), c Max(Z)
Fig. 7Bifurcation diagram of model system (2.1) for versus a Max(S), b Max(I), c Max(Z)
Fig. 8Time evolution of model system (4.1) for susceptible phytoplankton, infected phytoplankton and zooplankton with at a , c , e , bifurcation diagram of model system (4.1) for versus population density S(t), I(t), Z(t) at b , d , f
Fig. 9Bifurcation diagram of model system (4.1) for versus a Max(S), b Max(I), c Max(Z) at