A comparative approach to stabilizing mechanisms between discrete- and continuous-time consumer-resource models

Abhyudai Singh

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265825

Abstract

There is rich literature on using continuous-time and discrete-time models for studying population dynamics of consumer-resource interactions. A key focus of this contribution is to systematically compare between the two modeling formalisms the stabilizing/destabilizing impacts of diverse ecological processes that result in a density-dependent consumer attack rate. Inspired by the Nicholson-Bailey/Lotka-Volterra models in discrete-time/continuous-time, respectively, we consider host-parasitoid interactions with an arbitrary parasitoid attack rate that is a function of both the host/parasitoid population densities. Our analysis shows that a Type II functional response is stabilizing in both modeling frameworks only when combined with other mechanisms, such as mutual interference between parasitoids. A Type III functional response is by itself stabilizing, but the extent of attack-rate acceleration needed is much higher in the discrete-time framework, and its stability regime expands with increasing host reproduction. Finally, our results show that while mutual parasitoid interference can stabilize population dynamics, cooperation between parasitoids to handle hosts is destabilizing in both frameworks. In summary, our comparative analysis systematically characterizes diverse ecological processes driving stable population dynamics in discrete-time and continuous-time consumer-resource models.

Citation: Singh A (2022) A comparative approach to stabilizing mechanisms between discrete- and continuous-time consumer-resource models. PLoS ONE 17(4): e0265825. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265825

Editor: Lucas D. B. Faria, Universidade Federal de Lavras, BRAZIL

Received: September 6, 2021; Accepted: March 8, 2022; Published: April 12, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Abhyudai Singh. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

I. Introduction

Interaction between a resource (such as, a prey or host) and a consumer (such as, a predator or parasitoid) forms a core motif in ecological networks. Population dynamics of consumer-resource interactions has been extensively studied using two different approaches: continuous-time and discrete-time models. The continuous-time framework is generally used to model populations with overlapping generations and all year-round reproduction. In contrast, discrete-time models are more suited for populations with non-overlapping generations that reproduce in a discrete pulse determined by season. Perhaps, the classical example of this in continuous time is the Lotka-Volterra model (1a) (1b) [1–10]. Here h(t) and p(t) denote the population densities of the host and the parasitoid at time t, respectively. Parasitoids attack hosts with rate c with each parasitized host developing into a new parasitoid. Finally, 1/γ is the average lifespan of an individual parasitoid. It is well-known that the steady-state equilibrium of the Lotka-Volterra model is neutrally stable resulting in cycling population densities with a period of [1].

The analogous counterpart of the Lotka-Volterra model in discrete-time is the Nicholson-Bailey model (2a) (2b) where we now use capital letters H_t and P_t to denote the adult host, and the adult parasitoid densities, respectively, in year t [4, 11–16]. The model reflects the synchronized annual life cycles of these insects living in the temperate regions of the world [17–20]. More specifically, if R > 1 denotes the number of viable eggs produced per adult host, then RH_t is the host larval density that becomes exposed to parasitoid attacks. Parasitoids attack and parasitize hosts at a constant rate c, resulting in the fraction exp(−cP_t) that escapes parasitism to become the adult hosts for the next year. Similarly, the fraction 1 − exp(−cP_t) of parasitized larvae give rise to adult parasitoids in the next generation. The Nicholson-Bailey model is characterized by diverging oscillations in population densities resulting in an unstable population dynamics [11].

The neutrally stable Lokta-Volterra equilibrium and the unstable Nicholson-Bailey equilibrium catalyzed rich theoretical work in understanding how individual ecological mechanisms (such as a Type II functional response, interference between parasitoid in attacking hosts, etc.) promote stability of host-parasitoid interactions, especially in the context of biological control of pest species [1, 21–24]. A key contribution of this work is to study the combined effect of different forms of density-dependence in the parasitoid attack rate and quantify their overall stabilizing effect in a single stability criterion. This gives us a holistic picture of how a mixture of processes impact population dynamics. For example, while a Type II functional response is destabilizing in both the continuous- and discrete-time frameworks, combining it with some form of parasitoid interference can lead to stable population dynamics. Another novelty of this work is the comparison of stability regimes between the modeling formalisms, and how these stability regimes change with relevant ecological parameters, such as the extent of host reproduction. This comparison is specifically important to elucidate the general forms of density-dependence in the parasitoid attack rate that stabilizes population dynamics irrespective of the modeling framework, and hence are robust to model choice. Such general features are particularly relevant for actual populations that may not exactly follow the idealistic modeling assumption of either Lotka-Volterra or Nicholson-Bailey formalisms and may be best described by an intermediate hybrid modeling framework.

The manuscript is organized as follows: in Section II we formulate the generalized Lotka-Volterra model and derive criteria for stable population dynamics. The same process is repeated in Section III for an analogously formulated Nicholson-Bailey model. We compare stability regions in Section IV summarizing the findings in Fig 1, and put these results in the context of known literature and highlight new insights arising from this study.

Download:

Fig 1. The stability region (grey shaded area) as determined by (5) and (10) in continuous time (right) and discrete-time (left), respectively, is plotted as function of f_h (attack-rate sensitivity to the host density) and f_p (attack-rate sensitivity to the parasitoid density).

The origin f_h = f_p = 0 represents the classical Lotka-Volterra and Nicholson-Bailey models. While the former model in continuous time is on the edge of stability indicating a neutrally-stable equilibrium, the Nicholson-Bailey model in discrete time is outside the grey shaded area indicating an unstable equilibrium. The stability regions are plotted for two different levels of host reproduction—R = 2 (top) and R = 20 (bottom) with r = log R and γ = 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265825.g001

II. Stability condition for a generalized Lotka-Volterra model

Consider a generalized Lotka-Volterra model (3a) (3b) with an attack rate f(h, p) that is an arbitrary continuously-differentiable function of both the host and parasitoid population densities. Such an attack rate captures diverse ecological processes:

Function f decreasing with host density corresponds to a Type II functional response. In contrast, f varies non-monotonically with host density for a Type III response with the attack rate increasing (accelerating) with host density at low densities and then decreasing at high host densities. This non-monotonicity results in the classical sigmoidal shape of net attack rate f(h, p)h(t) per parasitoid [25–35].
Function f decreasing (increasing) with parasitoid density corresponds to mutual interference (cooperation) between parasitoids [36–41].

We assume that model (3) has a unique non-trivial equilibrium given as the solution to (4) where h* and p* represent the equilibrium host and parasitoid densities, respectively. Note that the model also has a trivial equilibrium h* = p* = 0, but we are primarily interested in the properties of the non-trivial equilibrium. In Appendix A, we provide explicit conditions for a wide range of attack rates f that result in a unique non-trivial equilibrium.

Our analysis in Appendix B shows that this equilibrium is asymptotically stable, if and only if, (5) where f_p and f_h (6a) (6b) are the dimensionless log sensitivities of the attack rate to the host and parasitoid densities, respectively. It is reasonable to have the net attack rate per host f(h, p)p be a non-decreasing function of the parasitoid density that constrains f_p ≥ −1. Similarly, we constrain f_h ≥ −1 that ensures the net attack rate per parasitoid f(h, p)h be a non-decreasing function of the host density. If any one of the inequalities in (5) does not hold, then the equilibrium is locally unstable and this instability often manifests in a stable limit cycle [42, 43].

III. Stability conditions for a generalized Nicholson-Bailey model

We next consider a potential discrete-time counterpart of the generalized Lotka-Volterra model. One phenomenological approach to obtain this model is to simply substitute c in (2) with f(H_t, P_t) yielding (7a) (7b) [44]. Note that during the time window when hosts are vulnerable to parasitoid attacks, the density of unparasitized host continuously decreases. To capture such effects of continuously changing populations, a semi-discrete or hybrid formalism has been proposed to mechanistically formulate the corresponding discrete-time model [45–51]. Briefly, an ordinary-differential equation model describing population interaction during the attack time window is solved to derive the update functions of the discrete-time model. Importantly, this mechanistic approach can yield contrasting results from the phenomenological approach—a Type III functional response is stabilizing in the semi-discrete approach [48, 52], but always destabilizing if one considers (7) with an analogous attack rate [48].

Referring the reader to Appendix C for details, the semi-discrete approach yields the following model in the discrete-time formalism that is analogous to the continuous-time counterpart (3) (8a) (8b)

Recall from (6) that f_h and f_p are the log sensitivities of the parasitoid attack rate to the host and parasitoid densities, respectively. This model has a unique non-trivial equilibrium (9) which is asymptotically stable, if and only if, (10)

Note that the second inequality is the same as in (5), and hence 1 + f_h + f_p > 0 is a necessary condition for stability in both modeling frameworks. One can consider small and large values of R for which the stability condition reduces to (11a) (11b) respectively.

IV. Comparison of stability regimes

To understand the stabilizing/destabilizing effects of diverse ecological processes we plot the stability regions as predicted by inequalities (5) and (10) in Fig 1. For an analogous comparison, the hosts growth rate r in the continuous-time framework is related to R in the discrete-time framework by r = log(R). In Fig 1, f_h = f_p = 0 represents the classical Lotka-Volterra/Nicholson-Bailey models and

Going right along the positive x-axis (f_h > 0) corresponds to an attack rate that accelerates with increasing host density as in a Type III functional response.
Going left along the negative x-axis (f_h < 0) corresponds to an attack rate that decreases with increasing host density as in a Type II functional response.
Going up along the positive y-axis (f_p > 0) corresponds to an attack rate that increases with parasitoid density capturing cooperation between parasitoids to handle hosts.
Going down along the negative y-axis (f_p < 0) corresponds to an attack rate that decreases with increasing parasitoid density corresponding to mutual interference between parasitoid, or aggregation of parasitoid attacks to a subpopulation of high-risk hosts [22, 48, 53–60].

A straightforward observation from Fig 1 is that the region of stability is larger in continuous time as compared with discrete time, but in some limits, they turn out to be identical.

A. Comparison of stability conditions with respect to host reproduction

An important result that emerges from the inequalities (5) and (10) is that for low levels of host reproduction (i.e., R → 1 and r → 0), both modeling frameworks have exactly the same stability criterion (12) showing that an attack rate decreasing with increasing parasitoid density is a necessary condition for stability. For high levels of host reproduction (i.e., R → ∞ and r → ∞), f_h > 0 becomes the necessary and sufficient condition for stability in the Lotka-Volterra framework. In the Nicholson-Bailey framework, the stability condition for R → ∞ is given by (11b) that corresponds to the two lines meeting at f_h = 0 and f_p = −1. This implies that f_h > 0 is only a necessary condition for stability in the discrete-time framework for large values of R and one further requires f_p < f_h − 1 for stability. It is important to point that the limit R → ∞ is less ecologically relevant, as for most natural systems R is expected to be less than 10 [1].

B. Impact of functional responses

We first consider the effect of a Type II functional response (13) where c₁ is the attack rate at low-host density and T_h is the parasitoid handling time. In this case, the dimensionless log sensitivities of the attack rate to the host density (14) is negative, and f_h approaches −1 as handling times becomes longer and longer. In the context of Fig 1, this corresponds to the neutrally stable Lotka-Volterra equilibrium moving left on the negative x-axis, and this destabilizing effect of handling times is consistent with known literature [61].

Interestingly, a Type II functional response (f_h < 0) can provide stability if combined with other mechanisms, such as, interference in parasitoid attack where f_p < 0 (grey-shaded area in the third quadrant). Note that this grey-shaded area decreases in size with increasing reproduction, suggesting that the stability arising from the mixture of handling times and parasitoid interference is more likely to operate at low host proliferation. The meeting point of two lines in the third quadrant gives the necessary condition for stability (15a) (15b) that reduces to f_h > −1 in the limit R → 1 & r → 0. These limits on f_h have important implications suggesting that long handling times that cause f_h → −1 can drive instability even in the presence of parasitoid interference in both modeling frameworks.

A Type III functional response (f_h > 0 and f_p = 0) is stabilizing in both framework but the degree of attack-rate acceleration needed for stability is much higher in the discrete-time framework: f_h > 1 in the discrete-time framework compared to f_h > 0 in the continuous-time framework.

Recall that one of the inequalities needed for stability 1 + f_h + f_p > 0 is the same for both frameworks. The other inequality in the continuous-time framework is anchored at the origin and rotates anticlockwise with increasing R. In contrast, the other inequality in the discrete-time framework is anchored at f_h = 1, f_h = 0 and also rotates anticlockwise with increasing R. This leads to the stability region related to a Type II functional response shrinking with increasing R. However, the stability region related to Type III responses expands with increasing R in the continuous-time framework. The non-origin anchoring in the discrete-time framework leads to the stability region related to Type III responses expanding with increasing R for f_h > 1, but shrinking for 0 < f_h < 1.

C. Impact of a parasitoid-dependent attack rate

For a parasitoid-dependent attack rate (f_h = 0) one can see that f_p > 0 (i.e., cooperation between parasitoids) is not stabilizing in both frameworks. In contrast, mutual interference between parasitoids is stabilizing with the stability criterion reducing to (16a) (16b)

An interesting observation from the fourth-quadrant of the discrete-time stability region is that while values of (17) and (18) are by themselves not stabilizing, their combination can lead to stability. Thus, moderate levels of parasitoid interference together with attack-rate acceleration to host density can stabilize population dynamics in the Nicholson-Bailey formulation of host-parasitoid population dynamics. Finally, we point out that the stability resulting from a combination of cooperation between parasitoids and a Type III functional response (grey-shaded region in the first quadrant), but increasing parasitoid cooperation also requires a higher degree of attack-rate acceleration to keep the system dynamics stable.

V. Conclusion

In summary, this contribution combined the stabilizing effects of diverse ecological processes into a single stability criterion in both the Lotka-Volterra ad Nicholson-Bailey modeling formalisms. These results highlight general features that are stabilizing, irrespective of model choice. For example, while destabilizing effects of Type II functional response are well known in the literature, combining it with parasitoid interference can lead to stability (the third quadrant in Fig 1), and stability arising from this mixture is more likely to be prevalent for low values of R and r. Eq (16) quantifies the limits to such a strategy and suggests that long handling times cannot be stabilized irrespective of parasitoid interference.

Recent fieldwork has documented cooperation between parasitoids, where groups of female Sclerodermus harmandi wasps are shown to be more successful in exploiting large-sized host individuals as compared to individual wasps [40]. Our analysis shows that such cooperation between parasitoids can have a destabilizing effect, but this can be countered by the stabilizing effect of a Type III functional response. Indeed, given cooperation between parasitoids, a Type III response is necessary for stability. For high values of R and r, stability is much more likely to arise from a Type III response with either parasitoid interference or cooperation.

It is perhaps intuitive that the overall stability regime is larger in the continuous-time framework, but interestingly, our analysis reveals that the stability region is identical in the limit of low host reproduction. An important restriction of this work is that there is no limit to host growth in the absence of the parasitoid, and these results could be further generalized to consider a host carrying capacity, which can be stabilizing in both frameworks [1, 46]. Another interesting direction of future work would be to expand these stability criteria in the context of two parasitoid species attacking the same host, or two different host species attacked by a common parasitoid providing a holistic impact of diverse mechanisms on the stability of complex consumer-resource models.

Appendix A: Uniqueness of non-trivial equilibrium in the generalized Lotka-Volterra model

A functional response in the parasitoid attack rate can be modeled using a function f that only depends on the host density (19) with parameter c₁ > 0, T_h is the parasitoid handling time, q = 0 corresponds to a Type II functional response, and q > 0 captures a Type III functional response. The non-trivial equilibrium is given as the solution to (4), which can be rewritten as (20)

Substituting (19) in (20), h* is the solution to (21)

Assuming the parasitoid handling time is smaller that the average parasitoid lifespan (i.e., T_h < 1/γ), (21) will have a unique solution as the left-hand-side of (21) is a monotonically increasing function that starts at zero and saturates at 1/T_h > γ, and hence, h* f(h*) will intersect with γ only once. Having obtained the unique h*, the corresponding parasitoid density is given by .

Let us consider a parasitoid-dependent attack rate (22) where c₁ > 0 and −1 < α < 1, with negative (positive) values of α denoting parasitoid interference (cooperation). In this case the unique non-trivial equilibrium will be (23)

Appendix B: Stability criterion for the generalized Lotka-Volterra model

Linearizing the right-hand-side of (3) around the equilibrium yields the following Jacobian matrix (24) and stability requires a Hurwitz matrix whose eigenvalues have negative real parts [62, 63]. For a two-dimensional system, the equilibrium is asymptotically stable, if and only if, the determinant of the A matrix is positive and its trace is negative [62, 63]. This implies that the equilibrium obtained as the solution to (4) is asymptotically stable, if and only if, both inequalities in (5) hold.

Appendix C: Stability criterion for the generalized Nicholson-Bailey model

The semi-discrete approach models the host-parasitoid interaction during the host’s vulnerable stage as an ordinary differential equation. Let τ denote the time within the host vulnerable stage that varies from 0 to T corresponding to the start and end of the vulnerable stage. The densities of parasitoids, un-parasitized and parasitized host larvae at time τ within the vulnerable stage of year t are represented by P(τ, t), L(τ, t), I(τ, t), respectively. These densities evolve as per the dynamical system (25a) (25b) (25c) where c represents the parasitoid’s attack rate per host, and γ_P, γ_L, γ_I are the death rates of the respective species. Assuming P_t parasitoids, RH_t host larvae, and no parasitized larvae at the start of the vulnerable period (τ = 0), solving the above differential equations with initial conditions (26) predicts the parasitized and unparasitized larval populations at the end of the season (τ = T). This leads to a more general discrete-time model (27a) (27b) where update functions are obtained by setting (28a) (28b)

Solving (25) for a constant attack rate c with no mortalities (γ_P = γ_L = γ_I = 0), and assuming T = 1 without loss of any generality, yields the Nicholson-Bailey model (2).

To capture a generalized parasitoid attack with log sensitivities f_h (with respect to the host) and f_p (with respect to the parasitoid), we replace c in (25) with the monomial . In the absence of any mortalities (γ_P = γ_L = γ_I = 0) and again assuming T = 1, the above semi-discrete approach results in the model (8). Linearizing the right-hand-side of (8) around the equilibrium (9) results in the Jacobian matrix (29) and stability in the discrete-time formalism requires all eigenvalues of A to have an absolute value less than one [63, 64]. For a 2 × 2 matrix, the stability criterion can be written in terms of the determinant and the trace of A—the equilibrium (9) is stable, if and only if, (30) (31) (32)

It turns out that the last inequality always holds, and the first two inequalities yield the stability conditions (10).

References

1. Murdoch W. W., Briggs C. J., and Nisbet R. M., Consumer-Resouse Dynamics. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003.
2. Lotka A. J., Elements of physical biology. Williams & Wilkins, 1925.
3. V. Volterra, Variations and fluctuations in the number of individuals in cohabiting animal species. C. Ferrari, 1927.
4. Edelstein-Keshet L., Mathematical models in biology. SIAM, 2005.
5. May R., McLean A. R., et al., Theoretical ecology: principles and applications. Oxford University Press on Demand, 2007.
6. Begon M. and Townsend C. R., Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems. John Wiley & Sons, 2020.
7. Bartlett M. S., “On theoretical models for competitive and predatory biological systems,” Biometrika, vol. 44, no. 1/2, pp. 27–42, 1957.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Arditi R. and Ginzburg L. R., How species interact: altering the standard view on trophic ecology. Oxford University Press, 2012.
9. Singh A., “Stochastic dynamics of predator-prey interactions,” Plos one, vol. 16, p. e0255880, 2021. pmid:34383811
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Murdoch W., Nisbet R., Blythe S., Gurney W., and Reeve J., “An invulnerable age class and stability in delay-differential parasitoid-host models,” The American Naturalist, vol. 129, no. 2, pp. 263–282, 1987.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Nicholson A. and Bailey V. A., “The balance of animal populations. part 1.” Proc. of Zoological Society of London, vol. 3, pp. 551–598, 1935.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. May R. M. and Hassell M. P., “The dynamics of multiparasitoid-host interactions,” The American Naturalist, vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 234–261, 1981.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Hackett-Jones E., Cobbold C., and White A., “Coexistence of multiple parasitoids on a single host due to differences in parasitoid phenology,” Theoretical Ecology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 19–31, 2009.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. van Velzen E., Pérez-Vila S., and Etienne R. S., “The role of within-host competition for coexistence in multiparasitoid-host systems,” The American Naturalist, vol. 187, no. 1, pp. 48–59, 2016. pmid:27277402
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Singh A. and Emerick B., “Generalized stability conditions for host–parasitoid population dynamics: Implications for biological control,” Ecological Modelling, vol. 456, p. 109656, 2021.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Ives A. R., “Continuous-time models of host-parasitoid interactions,” The American Naturalist, vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 1–29, 1992. pmid:19426063
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Hajek A. E., Insect parasitoids: attack by aliens. Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 145169.
18. Godfray H. C. J., Parasitoids; Behavioral and Evolutionary Ecology. 41 William St, Princeton, NJ 08540: Princeton University Press, 1994.
19. Waage J. and Greathead D., Insect Parasitoids. Academic Press, 1986.
20. Hochberg M. E. and Ives A. R., Parasitoid population biology. Princeton University Press, 2000.
21. M. P. Hassell. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
22. Singh A., Murdoch W. W., and Nisbet R. M., “Skewed attacks, stability, and host suppression,” Ecology, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 1679–1686, 2009.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Jervis M. A., Hawkin B. A., and Kidd N. A. C., “The usefulness of destructive host-feeding parasitoids in classical biological control: theory and observation conflict,” Ecological Entomology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 41–46, 1996.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Kakehashi N., Suzuki Y., and Iwasa Y., “Niche overlap of parasitoids in host-parasitoid systems: its consequence to single versus multiple introduction controversy in biological control,” Journal of Applied Ecology, pp. 115–131, 1984.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Rogers D. J., “Random searching and incest population models,” J. of Animal Ecology, vol. 41, pp. 369–383, 1972.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. Holling C. S., “The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation,” The Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, vol. 97, no. S45, pp. 5–60, 1965.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. Barraquand F., “Functional responses and predator–prey models: a critique of ratio dependence,” Theoretical ecology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 3–20, 2014.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Mills N. and Lacan I., “Ratio dependence in the functional response of insect parasitoids: evidence from trichogramma minutum foraging for eggs in small host patches,” Ecological Entomology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 208–216, 2004.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Chen X., Wong S. W., and Stansly P. A., “Functional response of tamarixia radiata (hymenoptera: Eulophidae) to densities of its host, diaphorina citri (hemiptera: Psylloidea),” Annals of the Entomological Society of America, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 432–437, 2016.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
30. Kaçar G., Wang X.-G., Biondi A., and Daane K. M., “Linear functional response by two pupal drosophila parasitoids foraging within single or multiple patch environments,” PLoS One, vol. 12, no. 8, p. e0183525, 2017. pmid:28829796
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Ebrahimifar J., Jamshidnia A., and Allahyari H., “Functional response of eretmocerus delhiensis on trialeurodes vaporariorum by parasitism and host feeding,” Journal of Insect Science, vol. 17, no. 2, p. 56, 2017.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Collins M., Ward S., and Dixon A., “Handling time and the functional response of aphelinus thomsoni, a predator and parasite of the aphid drepanosiphum platanoidis,” The Journal of Animal Ecology, pp. 479–487, 1981.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Hassell M., Lawton J., and Beddington J., “Sigmoid functional responses by invertebrate predators and parasitoids,” The Journal of Animal Ecology, pp. 249–262, 1977.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Fernández-arhex V. and Corley J. C., “The functional response of parasitoids and its implications for biological control,” Biocontrol Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 403–413, 2003.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Leeuwen E. v., Jansen V., and Bright P., “How population dynamics shape the functional response in a one-predator–two-prey system,” Ecology, vol. 88, no. 6, pp. 1571–1581, 2007.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Beddington J. R., “Mutual interference between parasites or predators and its effect on searching efficiency,” The Journal of Animal Ecology, pp. 331–340, 1975.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Bernstein C., “Density dependence and the stability of host-parasitoid systems,” Oikos, pp. 176–180, 1986.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Free C., Beddington J., and Lawton J., “On the inadequacy of simple models of mutual interference for parasitism and predation,” The Journal of Animal Ecology, pp. 543–554, 1977.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Rogers D. and Hassell M., “General models for insect parasite and predator searching behaviour: interference,” The Journal of Animal Ecology, pp. 239–253, 1974.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Tang X., Meng L., Kapranas A., Xu F., Hardy I. C., and Li B., “Mutually beneficial host exploitation and ultra-biased sex ratios in quasisocial parasitoids,” Nature Communications, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2014.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Hassell M. and Varley G., “New inductive population model for insect parasites and its bearing on biological control,” Nature, vol. 223, no. 5211, pp. 1133–1137, 1969.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. May R. M., “Limit cycles in predator-prey communities,” Science, vol. 177, no. 4052, pp. 900–902, 1972.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
43. Brauer F., “Boundedness of solutions of predator-prey systems,” Theoretical Population Biology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 268–273, 1979.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
44. Hassell M. P. and Comins H. N., “Sigmoid functional responses and population stability,” Theor Popul Biol, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 62–66, 1978.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. Singh A., “Attack by a common parasitoid stabilizes population dynamics of multi-host communities,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 531, p. 110897, 2021.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Singh A. and Nisbet R. M., “Variation in risk in single-species discrete-time models,” Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, vol. 5, pp. 859–875, 2008.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
47. Emerick B. K. and Singh A., “The effects of host-feeding on stability of discrete-time host-parasitoid population dynamic models.” Mathematical Biosciences, vol. 272, pp. 54–63, 2016. pmid:26686008
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Singh A. and Nisbet R. M., “Semi-discrete host-parasitoid models,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 247, no. 4, pp. 733–742, 2007.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
49. Pachepsky E., Nisbet R. M., and Murdoch W. W., “Between discrete and continuous: Consumer-resource dynamics with synchronized reproduction,” Ecology, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 280–288, 2007.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
50. Emerick B. K. and Singh A., “Global redistribution and local migration in semi-discrete host-parasitoid population dynamic models.” Mathematical Biosciences, vol. 327, p. 108409, 2020. pmid:32615211
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Singh A. and Emerick B., “Hybrid systems framework for modeling host-parasitoid population dynamics,” in 2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 4628–4633.
52. Singh A., “Stochasticity in host-parasitoid models informs mechanisms regulating population dynamics,” Scientific Reports, vol. 11, pp. 1–9, 2021.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
53. Reeve J. D., Cronin J. T., and Strong D. R., “Parasitoid aggregation and the stabilization of a salt marsh host– parasitoid system,” Ecology, vol. 75, pp. 288–295, 1994.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
54. Rohani P., Godfray H. C. J., and Hassell M. P., “Aggregation and the dynamics of host-parasitoid systems: A discrete-generation model with within-generation redistribution,” The American Naturalist, vol. 144, no. 3, pp. 491–509, 1994.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. May R. M., “Host–parasitoid systems in patchy environments: a phenomenological model,” Journal of Animal Ecology, vol. 47, pp. 833–844, 1978.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
56. Taylor A. D., “Heterogeneity in host-parasitoid interactions:’aggregation of risk’ and the’cv² > 1 rule.’,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 8, pp. 400–405, 1993.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
57. Hassell M. P., May R. M., Pacala S. W., and Chesson P. L., “The persistence of host–parasitoid associations in patchy environments. I. a general criterion.” American Naturalist, vol. 138, pp. 568–583, 1991.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
58. Pacala S. W. and Hassell M. P., “The persistence of host– parasitoid associations in patchy environments. II. evaluation of field data.” American Naturalist, vol. 138, pp. 584–605, 1991.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
59. Singh A., “Generalized conditions for coexistence of competing parasitoids on a shared host,” bioRxiv, 2020.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
60. Okuyama T., “Dilution effects enhance variation in parasitism risk among hosts and stabilize host–parasitoid population dynamics,” Ecological Modelling, vol. 441, p. 109425, 2021.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
61. Oaten A. and Murdoch W. W., “Functional response and stability in predator-prey systems,” The American Naturalist, vol. 109, no. 967, pp. 289–298, 1975.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
62. Gurney W. S. C. and Nisbet R. M., Ecological Dynamics. Oxford University Press, 1998.
63. Ledder G., Mathematics for the life sciences: calculus, modeling, probability, and dynamical systems. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
64. Elaydi S., An Introduction to Difference Equations. Newyork: Springer, 1996.

[ref1] 1. Murdoch W. W., Briggs C. J., and Nisbet R. M., Consumer-Resouse Dynamics. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003.

[ref2] 2. Lotka A. J., Elements of physical biology. Williams & Wilkins, 1925.

[ref3] 3. V. Volterra, Variations and fluctuations in the number of individuals in cohabiting animal species. C. Ferrari, 1927.

[ref4] 4. Edelstein-Keshet L., Mathematical models in biology. SIAM, 2005.

[ref5] 5. May R., McLean A. R., et al., Theoretical ecology: principles and applications. Oxford University Press on Demand, 2007.

[ref6] 6. Begon M. and Townsend C. R., Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems. John Wiley & Sons, 2020.

[ref7] 7. Bartlett M. S., “On theoretical models for competitive and predatory biological systems,” Biometrika, vol. 44, no. 1/2, pp. 27–42, 1957.
View Article
Google Scholar

[8] View Article

[9] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Arditi R. and Ginzburg L. R., How species interact: altering the standard view on trophic ecology. Oxford University Press, 2012.

[ref9] 9. Singh A., “Stochastic dynamics of predator-prey interactions,” Plos one, vol. 16, p. e0255880, 2021. pmid:34383811
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[12] View Article

[13] PubMed/NCBI

[14] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Murdoch W., Nisbet R., Blythe S., Gurney W., and Reeve J., “An invulnerable age class and stability in delay-differential parasitoid-host models,” The American Naturalist, vol. 129, no. 2, pp. 263–282, 1987.
View Article
Google Scholar

[16] View Article

[17] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Nicholson A. and Bailey V. A., “The balance of animal populations. part 1.” Proc. of Zoological Society of London, vol. 3, pp. 551–598, 1935.
View Article
Google Scholar

[19] View Article

[20] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. May R. M. and Hassell M. P., “The dynamics of multiparasitoid-host interactions,” The American Naturalist, vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 234–261, 1981.
View Article
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Hackett-Jones E., Cobbold C., and White A., “Coexistence of multiple parasitoids on a single host due to differences in parasitoid phenology,” Theoretical Ecology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 19–31, 2009.
View Article
Google Scholar

[25] View Article

[26] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. van Velzen E., Pérez-Vila S., and Etienne R. S., “The role of within-host competition for coexistence in multiparasitoid-host systems,” The American Naturalist, vol. 187, no. 1, pp. 48–59, 2016. pmid:27277402
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] PubMed/NCBI

[30] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Singh A. and Emerick B., “Generalized stability conditions for host–parasitoid population dynamics: Implications for biological control,” Ecological Modelling, vol. 456, p. 109656, 2021.
View Article
Google Scholar

[32] View Article

[33] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Ives A. R., “Continuous-time models of host-parasitoid interactions,” The American Naturalist, vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 1–29, 1992. pmid:19426063
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] PubMed/NCBI

[37] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Hajek A. E., Insect parasitoids: attack by aliens. Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 145169.

[ref18] 18. Godfray H. C. J., Parasitoids; Behavioral and Evolutionary Ecology. 41 William St, Princeton, NJ 08540: Princeton University Press, 1994.

[ref19] 19. Waage J. and Greathead D., Insect Parasitoids. Academic Press, 1986.

[ref20] 20. Hochberg M. E. and Ives A. R., Parasitoid population biology. Princeton University Press, 2000.

[ref21] 21. M. P. Hassell. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

[ref22] 22. Singh A., Murdoch W. W., and Nisbet R. M., “Skewed attacks, stability, and host suppression,” Ecology, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 1679–1686, 2009.
View Article
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Jervis M. A., Hawkin B. A., and Kidd N. A. C., “The usefulness of destructive host-feeding parasitoids in classical biological control: theory and observation conflict,” Ecological Entomology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 41–46, 1996.
View Article
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Kakehashi N., Suzuki Y., and Iwasa Y., “Niche overlap of parasitoids in host-parasitoid systems: its consequence to single versus multiple introduction controversy in biological control,” Journal of Applied Ecology, pp. 115–131, 1984.
View Article
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Rogers D. J., “Random searching and incest population models,” J. of Animal Ecology, vol. 41, pp. 369–383, 1972.
View Article
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Holling C. S., “The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation,” The Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, vol. 97, no. S45, pp. 5–60, 1965.
View Article
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Barraquand F., “Functional responses and predator–prey models: a critique of ratio dependence,” Theoretical ecology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 3–20, 2014.
View Article
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Mills N. and Lacan I., “Ratio dependence in the functional response of insect parasitoids: evidence from trichogramma minutum foraging for eggs in small host patches,” Ecological Entomology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 208–216, 2004.
View Article
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Chen X., Wong S. W., and Stansly P. A., “Functional response of tamarixia radiata (hymenoptera: Eulophidae) to densities of its host, diaphorina citri (hemiptera: Psylloidea),” Annals of the Entomological Society of America, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 432–437, 2016.
View Article
Google Scholar

[65] View Article

[66] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Kaçar G., Wang X.-G., Biondi A., and Daane K. M., “Linear functional response by two pupal drosophila parasitoids foraging within single or multiple patch environments,” PLoS One, vol. 12, no. 8, p. e0183525, 2017. pmid:28829796
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[68] View Article

[69] PubMed/NCBI

[70] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Ebrahimifar J., Jamshidnia A., and Allahyari H., “Functional response of eretmocerus delhiensis on trialeurodes vaporariorum by parasitism and host feeding,” Journal of Insect Science, vol. 17, no. 2, p. 56, 2017.
View Article
Google Scholar

[72] View Article

[73] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Collins M., Ward S., and Dixon A., “Handling time and the functional response of aphelinus thomsoni, a predator and parasite of the aphid drepanosiphum platanoidis,” The Journal of Animal Ecology, pp. 479–487, 1981.
View Article
Google Scholar

[75] View Article

[76] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Hassell M., Lawton J., and Beddington J., “Sigmoid functional responses by invertebrate predators and parasitoids,” The Journal of Animal Ecology, pp. 249–262, 1977.
View Article
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Fernández-arhex V. and Corley J. C., “The functional response of parasitoids and its implications for biological control,” Biocontrol Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 403–413, 2003.
View Article
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Leeuwen E. v., Jansen V., and Bright P., “How population dynamics shape the functional response in a one-predator–two-prey system,” Ecology, vol. 88, no. 6, pp. 1571–1581, 2007.
View Article
Google Scholar

[84] View Article

[85] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Beddington J. R., “Mutual interference between parasites or predators and its effect on searching efficiency,” The Journal of Animal Ecology, pp. 331–340, 1975.
View Article
Google Scholar

[87] View Article

[88] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Bernstein C., “Density dependence and the stability of host-parasitoid systems,” Oikos, pp. 176–180, 1986.
View Article
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Free C., Beddington J., and Lawton J., “On the inadequacy of simple models of mutual interference for parasitism and predation,” The Journal of Animal Ecology, pp. 543–554, 1977.
View Article
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Rogers D. and Hassell M., “General models for insect parasite and predator searching behaviour: interference,” The Journal of Animal Ecology, pp. 239–253, 1974.
View Article
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Tang X., Meng L., Kapranas A., Xu F., Hardy I. C., and Li B., “Mutually beneficial host exploitation and ultra-biased sex ratios in quasisocial parasitoids,” Nature Communications, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2014.
View Article
Google Scholar

[99] View Article

[100] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Hassell M. and Varley G., “New inductive population model for insect parasites and its bearing on biological control,” Nature, vol. 223, no. 5211, pp. 1133–1137, 1969.
View Article
Google Scholar

[102] View Article

[103] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. May R. M., “Limit cycles in predator-prey communities,” Science, vol. 177, no. 4052, pp. 900–902, 1972.
View Article
Google Scholar

[105] View Article

[106] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Brauer F., “Boundedness of solutions of predator-prey systems,” Theoretical Population Biology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 268–273, 1979.
View Article
Google Scholar

[108] View Article

[109] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Hassell M. P. and Comins H. N., “Sigmoid functional responses and population stability,” Theor Popul Biol, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 62–66, 1978.
View Article
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Singh A., “Attack by a common parasitoid stabilizes population dynamics of multi-host communities,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 531, p. 110897, 2021.
View Article
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Singh A. and Nisbet R. M., “Variation in risk in single-species discrete-time models,” Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, vol. 5, pp. 859–875, 2008.
View Article
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Emerick B. K. and Singh A., “The effects of host-feeding on stability of discrete-time host-parasitoid population dynamic models.” Mathematical Biosciences, vol. 272, pp. 54–63, 2016. pmid:26686008
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[120] View Article

[121] PubMed/NCBI

[122] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Singh A. and Nisbet R. M., “Semi-discrete host-parasitoid models,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 247, no. 4, pp. 733–742, 2007.
View Article
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Pachepsky E., Nisbet R. M., and Murdoch W. W., “Between discrete and continuous: Consumer-resource dynamics with synchronized reproduction,” Ecology, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 280–288, 2007.
View Article
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Emerick B. K. and Singh A., “Global redistribution and local migration in semi-discrete host-parasitoid population dynamic models.” Mathematical Biosciences, vol. 327, p. 108409, 2020. pmid:32615211
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] PubMed/NCBI

[132] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Singh A. and Emerick B., “Hybrid systems framework for modeling host-parasitoid population dynamics,” in 2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 4628–4633.

[ref52] 52. Singh A., “Stochasticity in host-parasitoid models informs mechanisms regulating population dynamics,” Scientific Reports, vol. 11, pp. 1–9, 2021.
View Article
Google Scholar

[135] View Article

[136] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Reeve J. D., Cronin J. T., and Strong D. R., “Parasitoid aggregation and the stabilization of a salt marsh host– parasitoid system,” Ecology, vol. 75, pp. 288–295, 1994.
View Article
Google Scholar

[138] View Article

[139] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Rohani P., Godfray H. C. J., and Hassell M. P., “Aggregation and the dynamics of host-parasitoid systems: A discrete-generation model with within-generation redistribution,” The American Naturalist, vol. 144, no. 3, pp. 491–509, 1994.
View Article
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. May R. M., “Host–parasitoid systems in patchy environments: a phenomenological model,” Journal of Animal Ecology, vol. 47, pp. 833–844, 1978.
View Article
Google Scholar

[144] View Article

[145] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Taylor A. D., “Heterogeneity in host-parasitoid interactions:’aggregation of risk’ and the’cv² > 1 rule.’,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 8, pp. 400–405, 1993.
View Article
Google Scholar

[147] View Article

[148] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Hassell M. P., May R. M., Pacala S. W., and Chesson P. L., “The persistence of host–parasitoid associations in patchy environments. I. a general criterion.” American Naturalist, vol. 138, pp. 568–583, 1991.
View Article
Google Scholar

[150] View Article

[151] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Pacala S. W. and Hassell M. P., “The persistence of host– parasitoid associations in patchy environments. II. evaluation of field data.” American Naturalist, vol. 138, pp. 584–605, 1991.
View Article
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Singh A., “Generalized conditions for coexistence of competing parasitoids on a shared host,” bioRxiv, 2020.
View Article
Google Scholar

[156] View Article

[157] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Okuyama T., “Dilution effects enhance variation in parasitism risk among hosts and stabilize host–parasitoid population dynamics,” Ecological Modelling, vol. 441, p. 109425, 2021.
View Article
Google Scholar

[159] View Article

[160] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Oaten A. and Murdoch W. W., “Functional response and stability in predator-prey systems,” The American Naturalist, vol. 109, no. 967, pp. 289–298, 1975.
View Article
Google Scholar

[162] View Article

[163] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Gurney W. S. C. and Nisbet R. M., Ecological Dynamics. Oxford University Press, 1998.

[ref63] 63. Ledder G., Mathematics for the life sciences: calculus, modeling, probability, and dynamical systems. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.

[ref64] 64. Elaydi S., An Introduction to Difference Equations. Newyork: Springer, 1996.

Figures