Advertisement

A growth rate control problem of harmful species population and its application to algae bloom

  • Hidekazu YoshiokaEmail author
  • Yuta Yaegashi
Article
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

A mathematical framework for controlling growth rate of harmful species population is established based on the concept of stochastic control. The main problem to be addressed in this paper is to effectively suppress the population growth through manipulating its surrounding environmental conditions. The growth control is achieved through minimization of a performance index that contains the cost of interventions and a metric based on the growth rate. Solving the problem ultimately reduces to finding a solution to the associated Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equation. Its solution behavior is analyzed from a mathematical viewpoint, showing that the optimal control and the optimized growth rate are critically affected by the chosen metrics in the performance index. The present model is then applied to an urgent management problem of the harmful attached algae in a dam downstream river reach, in which the dam discharge is the control variable. The application results clarify environmental dependence of the optimal dam discharge and under what condition it serves as the environmental flow to suppress the algae bloom. Throughout this paper, we demonstrate how mathematical models can be applied to environmental decision-making.

Keywords

Population dynamics Stochastic control Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equation Attached algae 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the support through JSPS Research Grant Nos. 17K15345 and 17J09125 for this research.

References

  1. Bakan HÖ, Yılmaz F, Weber GW (2017) A discrete optimality system for an optimal harvesting problem. CMS 14(4):519–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker CM, Bode M (2016) Placing invasive species management in a spatiotemporal context. Ecol Appl 26(3):712–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker CM, Armsworth PR, Lenhart SM (2017) Handling overheads: optimal multi-method invasive species control. Theor Ecol 10(4):493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbu V, Iannelli M (1999) Optimal control of population dynamics. J Optim Theory Appl 102(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertinelli L, Marchiori L, Tabakovic A, Zou B (2018) The impact of unilateral commitment on transboundary pollution. Environ Model Assess 23(1):25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bian B, Dai M, Jiang L, Zhang Q, Zhong Y (2011) Optimal decision for selling an illiquid stock. J Optim Theory Appl 151(2):402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouguima SM, Hellal M (2017) Marine reserve design with ocean currents and multiple objectives. Environ Model Assess 22(5):397–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chanse V et al (2017) New approaches to facilitate learning from youth: exploring the use of Photovoice in identifying local watershed issues. J Environ Educ 48(2):109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clusa L, Miralles L, Fernández S, García-Vázquez E, Dopico E (2018) Public knowledge of alien species: a case study on aquatic biodiversity in North Iberian rivers. J Nat Conserv 42:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis MH, Guo X, Wu G (2010) Impulse control of multidimensional jump diffusions. SIAM J Control Optim 48(8):5276–5293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Lara M (2018) A mathematical framework for resilience: dynamics, uncertainties, strategies, and recovery regimes. Environ Model Assess 23:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Lara M, Doyen L (2008) Sustainable management of natural resources: mathematical models and methods. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dragicevic AZ (2018) Stochastic shadow pricing of renewable natural resources. Environ Model Assess 24:1–12Google Scholar
  14. Edholm CJ, Tenhumberg B, Guiver C, Jin Y, Townley S, Rebarber R (2018) Management of invasive insect species using optimal control theory. Ecol Model 381:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eiswerth ME, Johnson WS (2002) Managing nonindigenous invasive species: insights from dynamic analysis. Environ Resour Econ 23(3):319–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fabbri G, Gozzi F, Święch A (2017) Stochastic optimal control in infinite dimension: dynamic programming and HJB equations. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleming WH, Soner HM (2006) Controlled Markov processes and viscosity solutions. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Fovet O et al (2010) Modelling periphyton in irrigation canals. Ecol Model 221(8):1153–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fovet G et al (2012) A model for fixed algae management in open channels using flushing flows. River Res Appl 28(7):960–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grigoriu M (2014) Noise-induced transitions for random versions of Verhulst model. Probab Eng Mech 38:136–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hritonenko N, Yatsenko Y (2016) Mitigation vs. adaptation: analytic models for policy assessment. Environ Model Assess 21(5):619–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jäger CG, Borchardt D (2018) Longitudinal patterns and response lengths of algae in riverine ecosystems: a model analysis emphasising benthic–pelagic interactions. J Theor Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.01.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jardine SL, Sanchirico JN (2018) Estimating the cost of invasive species control. J Environ Econ Manag 87:242–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kink P (2018) Some analysis of a stochastic logistic growth model. Stoch Anal Appl 36(2):240–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lande R, Engen S, Saether BE (2003) Stochastic population dynamics in ecology and conservation. Oxford University Press on Demand.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198525257.001.0001
  26. Lázár AN, Wade AJ, Moss B (2016) Modelling primary producer interaction and composition: an example of a UK lowland river. Environ Model Assess 21(1):125–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li W, Wang S (2017) Pricing European options with proportional transaction costs and stochastic volatility using a penalty approach and a finite volume scheme. Comput Math Appl 73(11):2454–2469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Linkov I, Steevens J (2008) Appendix A: multi-criteria decision analysis. In: Hudnell K (ed) Cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms: state of the science and research needs. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu M, Wang K (2013) A note on stability of stochastic logistic equation. Appl Math Lett 26(6):601–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luce JJ, Steele R, Lapointe MF (2010) A physically based statistical model of sand abrasion effects on periphyton biomass. Ecol Model 221(2):353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Luce JJ, Lapointe MF, Roy AG, Ketterling DB (2013) The effects of sand abrasion of a predominantly stable stream bed on periphyton biomass losses. Ecohydrology 6(4):689–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lungu EM, Øksendal B (1997) Optimal harvesting from a population in a stochastic crowded environment. Math Biosci 145(1):47–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lv J, Wang K, Jiao J (2015) Stability of stochastic Richards growth model. Appl Math Model 39(16):4821–4827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mackowiak M, Leifels M, Hamza IA, Jurzik L, Wingender J (2018) Distribution of Escherichia coli, coliphages and enteric viruses in water, epilithic biofilms and sediments of an urban river in Germany. Sci Total Environ 626:650–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martín-Herrán G, Rubio SJ (2018) Optimal environmental policy for a polluting monopoly with abatement costs: taxes versus standards. Environ Model Assess 23:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Obara Dam (in Japanese). https://www.cgr.mlit.go.jp/izumokasen/enjoy-dam/dam-obara/. Accessed 25 June 2018
  37. Niu S, Insley M (2016) An Options pricing approach to ramping rate restrictions at hydro power plants. J Econ Dyn Control 63:25–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Numfor E, Hilker FM, Lenhart S (2017) Optimal culling and biocontrol in a predator–prey model. Bull Math Biol 79(1):88–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Øksendal B (2003) Stochastic differential equations. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Øksendal BK, Sulem A (2005) Applied stochastic control of jump diffusions. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  41. Pang C et al (2017) Multi-criteria decision analysis applied to harmful algal bloom management: a case study. Integr Environ Assess Manag 13:631–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peng S, Zhu X (2006) Necessary and sufficient condition for comparison theorem of 1-dimensional stochastic differential equations. Stoch Process Appl 116(3):370–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pereau JC, Pryet A (2018) Environmental flows in hydro-economic models. Hydrogeol J 26:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pham H (2009) Continuous-time stochastic control and optimization with financial applications. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Richardson S, Wang S (2006) Numerical solution of Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equations by an exponentially fitted finite volume method. Optimization 55(1–2):121–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rinderknecht SL et al (2014) The effect of ambiguous prior knowledge on Bayesian model parameter inference and prediction. Environ Model Softw 62:300–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Runge MC, Johnson FA (2002) The importance of functional form in optimal control solutions of problems in population dynamics. Ecology 83(5):1357–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Somura H et al (2012) Impact of suspended sediment and nutrient loading from land uses against water quality in the Hii River Basin, Japan. J Hydrol 450:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stahn H, Tomini A (2016) On the environmental efficiency of water storage: the case of a conjunctive use of ground and rainwater. Environ Model Assess 21(6):691–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tabayashi Y, Miki K, Godo T, Yamamuro M, Kamiya H (2017) Multi-tracer identification of nutrient origin in the Hii River Watershed, Japan. Landsc Ecol Eng 13(1):119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tharme RE (2003) A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Res Appl 19(5–6):397–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Uehlinger URS, Bührer H, Reichert P (1996) Periphyton dynamics in a floodprone prealpine river: evaluation of significant processes by modelling. Freshw Biol 36(2):249–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yaegashi Y, Yoshioka H (2018) Unique solvability of a singular stochastic control model for population management. Syst Control Lett 116:66–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yaegashi Y, Yoshioka H, Unami K, Fujihara M (2018) A singular stochastic control model for sustainable population management of the fish-eating waterfowl Phalacrocorax carbo. J Environ Manag 219:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yoshioka H (2019) A simplified stochastic optimization model for logistic dynamics with the control-dependent carrying capacity. J Biol Dyn 13:148–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yoshioka H, Unami K (2013) A cell-vertex finite volume scheme for solute transport equations in open channel networks. Probab Eng Mech 31:30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yoshioka H, Yaegashi Y (2018a) Singular stochastic control model for algae growth management in dam downstream. J Biol Dyn 12(1):242–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yoshioka H, Yaegashi Y (2018b) Robust stochastic control modeling of dam discharge to suppress overgrowth of downstream harmful algae. Appl Stoch Models Bus Ind 34(3):338–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yoshioka H, Yaegashi Y (2018c) Finite difference scheme for stochastic differential games with several singular control variables and its environmental application. In: Seventh conference on finite difference methods: theory and applications, 11–16 June 2018, Lozenetz, Bulgaria. Lecture notes in computer science. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  60. Yoshioka H, Yaegashi Y (2018d) Mathematical analysis for management of released fish. Optim Control Appl Methods 39(2):1141–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yoshioka H, Yoshioka Y (2019) Modeling stochastic operation of reservoir under ambiguity with an emphasis on river management. Optim Control Appl Methods  https://doi.org/10.1002/oca.2510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhang Q (2001) Stock trading: an optimal selling rule. SIAM J Control Optim 40(1):64–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhu SP, Chen WT (2011) A predictor–corrector scheme based on the ADI method for pricing American puts with stochastic volatility. Comput Math Appl 62(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhu SP, Ma G (2018) An analytical solution for the HJB equation arising from the Merton problem. Int J Financ Eng 5(01):1850008CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Life and Environmental ScienceShimane UniversityMatsueJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of AgricultureKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  3. 3.Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations