Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 81, Issue 5, pp 1352–1368 | Cite as

Dynamics of a Producer–Grazer Model Incorporating the Effects of Phosphorus Loading on Grazer’s Growth

  • Lale AsikEmail author
  • Angela Peace


Phosphorus is an essential element for all life forms, and it is also a limiting nutrient in many aquatic ecosystems. To keep track of the mismatch between the grazer’s phosphorus requirement and producer phosphorus content, stoichiometric models have been developed to explicitly incorporate food quality and food quantity. Most stoichiometric models have suggested that the grazer dynamics heavily depends on the producer phosphorus content when the producer has insufficient nutrient content [low phosphorus (P):carbon (C) ratio]. However, recent laboratory experiments have shown that the grazer dynamics are also affected by excess producer nutrient content (extremely high P:C ratio). This phenomenon is known as the “stoichiometric knife edge.” While the Peace et al. (Bull Math Biol 76(9):2175–2197, 2014) model has captured this phenomenon, it does not explicitly track P loading of the aquatic environment. Here, we extend the Peace et al. (2014) model by mechanistically deriving and tracking P loading in order to investigate the growth response of the grazer to the producer of varying P:C ratios. We analyze the dynamics of the system such as boundedness and positivity of the solutions, existence and stability conditions of boundary equilibria. Bifurcation diagram and simulations show that our model behaves qualitatively similar to the Peace et al. (2014) model. The model shows that the fate of the grazer population can be very sensitive to P loading. Furthermore, the structure of our model can easily be extended to incorporate seasonal P loading.


Ecological stoichiometry Predator–prey model Stoichiometric knife edge Phosphorus 



  1. Andersen T (1997) Pelagic nutrient cycles: herbivores as sources and sinks. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen T, Elser JJ, Hessen DO (2004) Stoichiometry and population dynamics. Ecol Lett 7(9):884–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger SA, Diehl S, Kunz TJ, Albrecht D, Oucible AM, Ritzer S (2006) Light supply, plankton biomass, and seston stoichiometry in a gradient of lake mixing depths. Limnol Oceanogr 51(4):1898–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boersma M, Elser JJ (2006) Too much of a good thing: on stoichiometrically balanced diets and maximal growth. Ecology 87(5):1325–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diehl S (2007) Paradoxes of enrichment: effects of increased light versus nutrient supply on pelagic producer–grazer systems. Am Nat 169(6):E173–E191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elser JJ, Hayakawa K, Urabe J (2001) Nutrient limitation reduces food quality for zooplankton: Daphnia response to seston phosphorus enrichment. Ecology 82(3):898–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elser JJ, Watts J, Schampel JH, Farmer J (2006) Early Cambrian food webs on a trophic knife-edge? A hypothesis and preliminary data from a modern stromatolite-based ecosystem. Ecol Lett 9(3):295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elser JJ, Loladze I, Peace AL, Kuang Y (2012) Lotka re-loaded: modeling trophic interactions under stoichiometric constraints. Ecol Model. 245:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kot M, Sayler GS, Schultz TW (1992) Complex dynamics in a model microbial system. Bull Math Biol 54(4):619–648CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Loladze I, Kuang Y, Elser J (2000) Stoichiometry in producer–grazer systems: linking energy flow with element cycling. Bull Math Biol 62:1137–1162CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Matsumura T, Sakawa Y (1980) Non-linear analysis of nitrogen cycle in aquatic ecosystems. Int J Syst Sci 11(7):803–816CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Moe SJ, Stelzer RS, Forman MR, Harpole WS, Daufresne T, Yoshida T (2005) Recent advances in ecological stoichiometry: insights for population and community ecology. Oikos 109(1):29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Peace A, Zhao Y, Loladze I, Elser JJ, Kuang Y (2013) A stoichiometric producer–grazer model incorporating the effects of excess food-nutrient content on consumer dynamics. Math Biosci 244(2):107–115MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Peace A, Wang H, Kuang Y (2014) Dynamics of a producer–grazer model incorporating the effects of excess food nutrient content on grazers growth. Bull Math Biol 76(9):2175–2197MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  16. Urabe J, Sterner RW (1996) Regulation of herbivore growth by the balance of light and nutrients. Proc Natl Acad Sci 93(16):8465–8469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang H, Kuang Y, Loladze I (2008) Dynamics of a mechanistically derived stoichiometric producer–grazer model. J Biol Dyn 2(3):286–296MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Yang XE, Wu X, Hao HL, He ZL (2008) Mechanisms and assessment of water eutrophication. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 9(3):197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations