3.9 Article

Holling-Tanner prey-predator model with Beddington-DeAngelis functional response including delay

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/02286203.2020.1839168

关键词

Holling-Tanner model; Beddington-DeAngelis functional response; Hopf bifurcation; center manifold theory; bionomic equilibrium

资金

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, India [09/599(0070)/2017-EMR-I]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a combined bioeconomic harvesting model that integrates the Holling-Tanner prey-predator competition model with Beddington-DeAngelis functional response and two different delays. The steady state points and their existence in the proposed model are discussed, along with the conditions for local stability and Hopf bifurcation. The study also employs center manifold theory to determine the stability and direction of bifurcating periodic solutions. Numerical simulations and graphical representations are provided to demonstrate the effects of various parameters. The paper concludes with a summary of findings and suggestions for future research.
This paper is designed based on the combined bioeconomic harvesting of Holling-Tanner prey-predator competition model with Beddington-DeAngelis functional response with two different delays. The situation and existence of the steady state points for proposed model are discussed. The conditions for local stability of the interior steady state points together with the existence of Hopf bifurcation at the interior steady state point are addressed. The situations for stability and the direction of bifurcating periodic solutions are obtained by using center manifold theory. Also total revenue is calculated using bionomic equilibrium, and it is maximized by using Pontryagin's maximum principle. Some numerical simulations together with pictorial representations are placed in the paper for showing the effects of various parameters in the considered model. Conclusions with the future study are described at last.

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

3.9
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