Linking bifurcation analysis of Holling–Tanner model with generalist predator to a changing environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bifurcation theory has been highly popular in the analysis of mathematical models. However, stability and bifurcation analyses are only for asymptotic dynamics while applied scientists care more about transient dynamics. In this paper, we first rigorously analyze Holling–Tanner model with generalist predators who have alternative food sources, and then discuss transient dynamics via a changing environment. For a constant environment, we provide a complete bifurcation analysis with high codimension. It is shown that the highest codimension of a nilpotent cusp is 3, and the model can undergo degenerate Bogdanov–Takens bifurcation of codimension 3. Moreover, by using resultant elimination to solve the semialgebraic varieties of Lyapunov coefficients, we show that a center‐type equilibrium is a weak focus with order at most 2, and the model can exhibit Hopf bifurcation of codimension 2. Our results indicate that generalist predators can cause not only richer dynamics and bifurcations, but also the extinction of prey for some positive initial densities. Numerical simulations, including the coexistence of a limit cycle and a homoclinic cycle, tristability, two limit cycles, are presented to illustrate the theoretical results. In a changing environment, the populations start along one stable state but can track unstable states or oscillations when the system crosses a bifurcation point, and then tend to another stable state or oscillations. This tracking on transient dynamics predicts regime shifts under environmental changes. When environmental conditions vary, the populations can track unstable states in the constant environment. The rate of environmental change determines how long the system tracks an unstable state although finally the solution under environmental change is attracted to a stable steady state or limit cycle. Finally, we focus on a periodic environment and find that the populations converge to a periodic solution or an invariant torus depending on both the initial environmental capacity and the amplitude of periodic fluctuation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".