4.7 Article

Continuum Modeling of Discrete Plant Communities: Why Does It Work and Why Is It Advantageous?

期刊

MATHEMATICS
卷 7, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/math7100987

关键词

continuum models; partial differential equations; individual based models; plant populations; phenotypic plasticity; vegetation pattern formation; desertification; homoclinic snaking; front instabilities

资金

  1. Israel Science Foundation [1053/17]
  2. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [641762]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding ecosystem response to drier climates calls for modeling the dynamics of dryland plant populations, which are crucial determinants of ecosystem function, as they constitute the basal level of whole food webs. Two modeling approaches are widely used in population dynamics, individual (agent)-based models and continuum partial-differential-equation (PDE) models. The latter are advantageous in lending themselves to powerful methodologies of mathematical analysis, but the question of whether they are suitable to describe small discrete plant populations, as is often found in dryland ecosystems, has remained largely unaddressed. In this paper, we first draw attention to two aspects of plants that distinguish them from most other organisms-high phenotypic plasticity and dispersal of stress-tolerant seeds-and argue in favor of PDE modeling, where the state variables that describe population sizes are not discrete number densities, but rather continuous biomass densities. We then discuss a few examples that demonstrate the utility of PDE models in providing deep insights into landscape-scale behaviors, such as the onset of pattern forming instabilities, multiplicity of stable ecosystem states, regular and irregular, and the possible roles of front instabilities in reversing desertification. We briefly mention a few additional examples, and conclude by outlining the nature of the information we should and should not expect to gain from PDE model studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据