Prey–predator–scavenger model with Monod–Haldane type functional response

  • Prabir PanjaEmail author


In this paper, we have developed a prey, predator and scavenger interaction dynamical model. The positivity, boundedness and stability conditions of our proposed system have been derived. Hopf bifurcation analysis has been done theoretically with respect to half saturation constant in the absence of direct measure of inhibitory effects \((\phi _1)\). Also, we have numerically studied Hopf bifurcation with respect to direct effects of inhibitory effects \((\phi _2)\) related to Monod–Haldane type functional response, carrying capacity of prey \((\gamma )\), death rate of scavenger \((\mu )\), conservation rate of prey \((\alpha )\) and harvesting rate of predator \((\eta )\). It is observed that the intra-species competition can lead our proposed system towards stability. It is also found that the harvesting of predator can control the chaotic dynamics of our proposed system. The increase of death rate of scavenger species can be stabilized our proposed system. Finally, some numerical simulation results have been presented for better understanding the dynamics of our proposed model.


Prey Predator Scavenger Stability Hopf bifurcation 

Mathematics Subject Classification

92B05 37C75 37C25 



  1. 1.
    Lotka, A.J.: Elements of Physical Biology. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore (1924)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Volterra, V.: Fluctuations in the abundance of a species considered mathematically. Nature 118, 558–560 (1926)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holling, C.S.: The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. Mem. Entomol. Soc. Can. 45, 50–60 (1965)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murray, J.D.: Mathematical Biology I: An Introduction. Springer, Berlin (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    May, R.M.: Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1974)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andrews, J.F.: A mathematical model for the continuous culture of microorganisms utilizing inhibitory substrates. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 10, 707–723 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Collings, J.B.: The effects of the functional response on the bifurcation behavior of a mite predator–prey interaction model. J. Math. Biol. 36, 149–168 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jang, S.R.J., Baglama, J., Rick, J.: Nutrient–phytoplankton–zooplankton models with a toxin. Math Comput Model 43, 105–118 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mukkhopadhyay, B., Bhattacharya, R.: Modelling phytoplankton allelopathy in nutrient-plankton model with spetial heterogeneity. Ecol. Model. 198, 163–173 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haldane, J.B.S.: Enzymes. Longmans, Green and Co, London (1930)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sugie, J., Howell, J.A.: Kinetics of phenol oxidation by washed cell. Biotechnol. Bio-eng. 23, 2039–2049 (1980)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tener, J.S.: Muskoxen. Biotechnol Bioeng. Ottawa: Queens Printer (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holmes, J.C., Bethel, W.M.: Modification of intermediate host behavior by parasites. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 51, 123–149 (1972)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feng, X., Song, Y., An, X.: Dynamic behavior analysis of a prey–predator model with ratio-dependent Monod–Haldane functional response. Open Math 16, 623–635 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pal, R., Basu, D., Banerjee, M.: Modelling of phytoplankton allelopathy with Monod–Haldane-type functional response: a mathematical study. BioSystems 95, 243–253 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhuang, K., Zhu, H.: Periodic solutions for a food chain system with Monod–Haldane functional response on time scales. Int. J. Math. Comput. Sci. 7, 487–490 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khajanchi, S.: Dynamic behavior of a Beddington–DeAngelis type stage structured predator–prey model. Appl. Math. Comput. 244, 344–360 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khajanchi, S., Banerjee, S.: Role of constant prey refuge on stage structure predator-prey model with ratio dependent functional response. Appl. Math. Comput. 314, 193–198 (2017)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raw, S.N., Mishra, P., Kumar, R., Thakur, S.: Complex behavior of prey–predator system exhibiting group defense: a mathematical modeling study. Chaos Soliton Fract 100, 74–90 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raw, S.N., Mishra, P.: Modeling and analysis of inhibitory effect in Plankton–Fish model: application to the hypertrophic Swarzedzkie Lake in Western Poland. Nonlinear Anal RWA 46, 465–492 (2019)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Previte, J., Hoffman, K.: Period doubling cascades in a predator–prey model with a scavenger. SIAM Rev 55, 523–546 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chauhan, S., Bhatia, S.K., Gupta, S.: Effect of Holling type-II function on dynamics of discrete prey–predator system with scavenger. IEEE Xplore
  23. 23.
    Gupta, R.P., Chandra, P.: Dynamical properties of a prey–predator–scavenger model with quadratic harvesting. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 49, 202–214 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jansen, J.E., Van Gorder, R.A.: Dynamics from a predator–prey–quarry–resource–scavenger model. Theor. Ecol. 11, 19–38 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rai, V., Sreenivasan, R.: Period-doubling bifurcations leading to chaos in a model food chain. Ecol. Model. 69, 63–77 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clark, C.W.: Mathematical Bioeconomics: Optimal Management of Renewable Resources. Wiley, New York (1976)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clark, C.W.: Bioeconomic Modelling and Fisheries Management. Wiley, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kar, T.K., Chaudhuri, K.S.: Harvesting in a two-prey one predator fishery: a bioeconomic model. J. Anziam. 45, 443–456 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Panja, P., Mondal, S.K., Jana, D.K.: Effects of toxicants on Phytoplankton–Zooplankton–Fish dynamics and harvesting. Chaos Soliton Fract. 104, 389–399 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Panja, P., Poria, S., Mondal, S.K.: Analysis of a harvested tritrophic food chain model in the presence of additional food for top predator. Int. J. Biomath. 11, 1850059 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gupta, R.P., Chandra, P.: Bifurcation analysis of modified Leslie–Gower predator–prey model with Michaelis–Menten type prey harvesting. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 398, 278–295 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Feng, P.: Analysis of a delayed predator–prey model with ratio-dependent functional response and quadratic harvesting. J. Appl. Math. Comput. 44, 251–262 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Birkhoff, G., Rota, G.C.: Ordinary Differential Equations. Ginn, Boston (1982)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Perko, L.: Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems. Springer, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hassard, B.D., Kazarinoff, N.D., Wan, Y.H.: Theory and Application of Hopf Bifurcation, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 41. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1981)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied ScienceHaldia Institute of TechnologyPurba Medinipur, HaldiaIndia

Personalised recommendations