 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Qualitative analysis of a harvested predatorprey system with Holling type III functional response
Advances in Difference Equations volume 2013, Article number: 249 (2013)
Abstract
A harvested predatorprey system with Holling type III functional response is considered. By applying qualitative theory of differential equations, we show the instability and global stability properties of the equilibria and the existence and uniqueness of limit cycles for the model. The possibility of existence of a bionomic equilibrium is discussed. The optimal harvesting policy is studied from the view point of control theory. Numerical simulations are carried out to illustrate the validity of our results.
1 Introduction
The dynamical relationship between predators and their preys is one of the dominant subjects in ecology and mathematical ecology due to its universal importance, see [1].
Harvesting generally has a strong impact on the population dynamics of a harvested species. The severity of this impact depends on the harvesting strategy implemented which in turn may range from rapid depletion to complete preservation of the population. Problems related to the exploitation of multispecies systems are interesting and difficult both theoretically and practically. The problem of interspecific competition between two species which obey the law of logistic growth was considered by Gause [2]. But he did not study the effect of harvesting. Clark [3] considered harvesting of a single species in a twospecies ecologically competing population model. Modifying Clark’s model, Chaudhuri [4, 5] studied combined harvesting and considered the perspectives of bioeconomics and dynamic optimization of a twospecies fishery. Matsuda [6] showed that the total yield and lowest stock levels of harvested resources increase if fishers may focus their effort on a temporally abundant stock. Matsuda [7] showed that the maximum sustainable yield from the multispecies systems does not guarantee persistence of all resources. Dai [8] analyzed the global behavior of a predatorprey system with some functional response in the presence of constant harvesting. Xiao [9] studied BogdanovTakens bifurcations in a predatorprey system with constant rate harvesting.
Kar [10] studied global dynamics and controllability of a harvested preypredator system with Holling type III functional response:
The aim of this paper is to consider the instability and global stability properties of the equilibria and the optimal harvesting policy, the existence and uniqueness of limit cycles of a harvested predatorprey system with Holling type III functional response:
where x, y denote prey and predator population respectively at any time t; α, β, {\beta}_{1}, r, {E}_{1} and {E}_{2} are positive constants. Here α, β, {\beta}_{1} and r are the same with system (1.1), {E}_{1} and {E}_{2} denote the harvesting efforts for the prey and predator respectively, the term \beta {x}^{2}/(1+{x}^{2}) denotes the functional response of the predator, which is known as Holling type III response function [11].
This work is motivated by the paper by Kar and Matsuda. They studied the above system (1.1) and showed the local stability of equilibria and uniqueness of limit cycle, but they did not discuss the global stability of the positive equilibrium, the possibility of existence of a bionomic equilibrium, and the optimal harvesting policy. This paper gives the complete qualitative analysis for model (1.2) and the results improve and extend the corresponding results of the above system (1.1).
This paper is organized as follows. Basic properties such as the boundedness, existence, stability and instability of the equilibria of the model are given in Section 2. In Section 3, sufficient conditions for the global stability of the unique positive equilibrium are obtained. In Section 4, we derive the existence and uniqueness of limit cycle. In Section 5, we study a bionomic equilibrium. In Section 6, we study optimal harvest policy. In Section 7, we give numerical stimulations of system (1.2).
2 Basic properties of the model
Let \overline{{R}_{2}^{+}}=\{(x,y)\mid x\ge 0,y\ge 0\}. For practical biological meaning, we simply study system (1.2) in \overline{{R}_{2}^{+}}.
Lemma 2.1 All the solutions (x(t),y(t)) of system (1.2) with the initial values x(0)>0, y(0)>0 are uniformly bounded.
Proof Let us consider the function
Differentiating w with respect to τ and using (1.2), we get
Now we have
Applying the theory of differential inequality [9], we obtain
which, upon letting t\to \mathrm{\infty}, yields 0<w<(L/r). So, we have that all the solutions of system (1.2) that start in {R}_{2}^{+} are confined to the region B, where
This completes the proof. □
Now we find all the equilibria admitted by the system and study their stability properties. The equilibria of (1.2) are the intersection points of the prey isocline on which \dot{x}=0 and the predator isocline on which \dot{y}=0. Obviously, {P}_{0}(0,0) is the trivial equilibrium and {P}_{1}(\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0) is the only axial equilibrium of system (1.2). The third and the most interesting equilibrium point is {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}), where {x}^{\ast} and {y}^{\ast} are given by
Thus the existence condition for the positive interior equilibrium point {P}_{2} depends upon the restrictions
and
namely
We assume that the system parameters are such that they satisfy conditions (2.2) and (2.3). From the expressions for {x}^{\ast} and {y}^{\ast}, we observe that {x}^{\ast} increases with {E}_{2} and {y}^{\ast} decreases with {E}_{1}. This is natural because an increase in {E}_{2} decreases the predator population and hence enhances the survival rate of the prey; on the other hand, an increase in {E}_{1} results in the loss of food for the predator.
Lemma 2.2 (1) {P}_{0}(0,0) is a saddle point;

(2)
If {E}_{2}>\frac{{\beta}_{1}{\alpha}^{2}}{{(1+{E}_{1})}^{2}+{\alpha}^{2}}r holds, {P}_{1}(\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0) is a stable focus or a stable node. If {E}_{2}<\frac{{\beta}_{1}{\alpha}^{2}}{{(1+{E}_{1})}^{2}+{\alpha}^{2}}r holds, then {P}_{1}(\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0) is a saddle point; {P}_{1}(\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0) is a stable node point for {E}_{2}=\frac{{\beta}_{1}{\alpha}^{2}}{{(1+{E}_{1})}^{2}+{\alpha}^{2}}r; {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) is a stable focus or a stable node for \alpha <\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}; {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) is an unstable focus or an unstable node for \alpha >\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}; {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) is a center or a focus for \alpha =\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}.
Proof The Jacobian matrix of system (1.2) is given by

(1)
Since detJ(0,0)=\alpha (r+{E}_{2})<0, we derive that {P}_{0}(0,0) is a saddle point;

(2)
The Jacobian matrix of system (1.2) for the equilibrium point {P}_{1}(\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0) is given by
J(\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \frac{\beta {\alpha}^{2}}{{(1+{E}_{1})}^{2}+{\alpha}^{2}}\\ 0& \frac{{\beta}_{1}{\alpha}^{2}}{{(1+{E}_{1})}^{2}+{\alpha}^{2}}r{E}_{2}\end{array}\right).
If \frac{{\beta}_{1}{x}^{2}}{1+{x}^{2}}r{E}_{2}<0 holds, namely {E}_{2}>\frac{{\beta}_{1}{\alpha}^{2}}{{(1+{E}_{1})}^{2}+{\alpha}^{2}}r, then detJ(\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0)>0, p=trJ(\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0)>0, we can derive that {P}_{1}(\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0) is a stable focus or a stable node. If \frac{{\beta}_{1}{x}^{2}}{1+{x}^{2}}r{E}_{2}>0 holds, namely {E}_{2}<\frac{{\beta}_{1}{\alpha}^{2}}{{(1+{E}_{1})}^{2}+{\alpha}^{2}}r, then detJ(\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0)<0, we can derive that {P}_{1}(\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0) is a saddle point. If {E}_{2}=\frac{{\beta}_{1}{\alpha}^{2}}{{(1+{E}_{1})}^{2}+{\alpha}^{2}}r, then detJ(\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0)=0, {P}_{1}(\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0) is a higherorder singular point. At this time, point {P}_{1}(\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0) and point {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) are the same point. So, we can derive that {P}_{1}(\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0) is a stable node point.
The Jacobian matrix of system (1.2) for the equilibrium point {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) is given by
As detJ({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast})=\frac{2\beta {\beta}_{1}{x}^{\ast 3}{y}^{\ast}}{{(1+{x}^{\ast 2})}^{3}},
we know that if \alpha +\alpha {x}^{\ast 2}2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}>0, namely \alpha <\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}, we derive that P>0, {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) is a stable focus or a stable node. If \alpha +\alpha {x}^{\ast 2}2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}<0, namely \alpha >\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}, we derive that P<0, {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) is an unstable focus or an unstable node. If \alpha +\alpha {x}^{\ast 2}2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}=0, namely \alpha =\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}, {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) is a center or a focus. The proof is completed. □
We make the following transformation:
Substituting this into system (1.2), then replacing τ with t gives
From Lemma 2.2 we know that if P=\frac{\alpha +\alpha {x}^{\ast 2}2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{1+{x}^{\ast 2}}=0 holds, namely \alpha =\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}, {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) is a center focus. We can make further conclusions as follows.
Lemma 2.3

(1)
If {C}_{0}>0 holds, namely \alpha =\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}>\frac{[3A\beta +11(1+{E}_{1})]{x}^{\ast}}{3}, {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) is a stable fine focus with order one;

(2)
If {C}_{0}<0 holds, namely \alpha =\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}<\frac{[3A\beta +11(1+{E}_{1})]{x}^{\ast}}{3}, {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) is an unstable fine focus with order one,
where {C}_{0}=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi}({\beta}_{1}r{E}_{2}){y}^{\ast}[3A\beta {x}^{\ast}11(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast}+3\alpha ]}{2{A}^{3}{\beta}^{2}{x}^{\ast 3}}.
Proof First use the coordinate translation, that is, translate the origin of coordinates into the point {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}). Then we make the following substitutions for model (2.5):
Replacing \overline{x}, \overline{y}, \overline{t} with x, y, t respectively, we have
We denote A=\sqrt{\frac{2({\beta}_{1}r{E}_{2}){y}^{\ast}}{\beta {x}^{\ast}}}>0 and make the following transformations: u=x, v=\frac{1}{A}y, d\tau =A\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}dt. Replacing u, v, τ with x, y, t, respectively, gives
where D=\frac{2}{{x}^{\ast}}, E=\frac{1}{A\beta {x}^{\ast 2}}[3\alpha {x}^{\ast}(1+{E}_{1})6(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 2}\beta {y}^{\ast}], N=\frac{1}{{x}^{\ast 2}}, F=\frac{1}{A\beta {x}^{\ast 2}}[\alpha 4(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast}], L=\frac{1+{E}_{1}}{A\beta {x}^{\ast 2}}, G=\frac{({\beta}_{1}r{E}_{2}){y}^{\ast}}{{A}^{2}\beta {x}^{\ast 2}}, H=\frac{2({\beta}_{1}r{E}_{2})}{A\beta {x}^{\ast}}, I=\frac{{\beta}_{1}r{E}_{2}}{A\beta {x}^{\ast 2}}.
It is obvious that {D}^{2}=4N, and HD=4I. Then we make use of the Poincare method to calculate the focus value.
Construct a form progression F(x,y)={x}^{2}+{y}^{2}+{\sum}_{k=3}^{\mathrm{\infty}}{F}_{k}(x,y), where {F}_{k}(x,y) is the k th homogeneous multinomial with x and y. Considering \frac{dF}{dt}{}_{(\text{2.7})}=\frac{\partial F}{\partial t}\cdot \stackrel{\u02c6}{P}(x,y)+\frac{\partial F}{\partial t}\stackrel{\u02c6}{Q}(x,y)=0, we can obtain that three multinomials and four multinomials of F(x,y) are equal to zero separately. Noting that 2x{P}_{2}(x,y)+2y{Q}_{2}(x,y)={H}_{3}(x,y), we can obtain
Let
then we can obtain the following form:
From y\frac{\partial {F}_{3}}{\partial x}x\frac{\partial {F}_{3}}{\partial y}={H}_{3}, we can derive that
By the comparison method of correlates, we can obtain that
then {F}_{3}(x,y)=\frac{2G2D}{3}{x}^{3}2E{x}^{2}y\frac{2H+4E}{3}{y}^{3} and
Let x=rcos\theta, y=rsin\theta, then we can derive that
Hence the point O(0,0) of system (2.5) is an unstable fine focus with order one when {C}_{0}>0, namely \alpha =\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}>\frac{[3A\beta +11(1+{E}_{1})]{x}^{\ast}}{3}. But considering the time change d\tau =A\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}dt, {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) is a stable fine focus with order one. And {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) is an unstable fine focus with order one when {C}_{0}<0, namely \alpha =\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}<\frac{[3A\beta +11(1+{E}_{1})]{x}^{\ast}}{3}. The proof is completed. □
3 Global stability of the unique positive equilibrium
Theorem 3.1 Suppose that \alpha <3\sqrt{3}(1+{E}_{1}) holds, there is no close orbit around system (2.5) in the first quadrant. And if {x}^{\ast}<3\sqrt{3} holds, the positive equilibrium {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) of system (2.5) is globally asymptotically stable for {x}^{\ast}(1+{E}_{1})<\alpha <min\{\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1},3\sqrt{3}(1+{E}_{1})\}.
Proof By Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2, the solution (x(t),y(t)) of system (1.2) with the initial values x(0)>0, y(0)>0 is unanimous bounded for all t\ge 0, and the point {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) is globally asymptotically stable under conditions of Theorem 3.1. We should prove that system (2.5) does not have limit cycle if \alpha <3\sqrt{3}(1+{E}_{1}) holds.
Define a Dulac function B(x,y)={x}^{2}{y}^{1}, then along system (2.5), we have
Let f(x)=\alpha {x}^{2}\alpha 2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{3}, then {f}^{\prime}(x)=2\alpha x6(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{2}, we can derive that the roots of {f}^{\prime}(x)=0 are {x}_{1}=0, and {x}_{2}=\frac{\alpha}{3(1+{E}_{1})}.
As f(0)=\alpha <0, we know that f(x) reaches the maximum value \alpha +\frac{{\alpha}^{3}}{27{(1+{E}_{1})}^{2}} at {x}_{2}.
Hence if \alpha <3\sqrt{3}(1+{E}_{1}) holds, W<0 for all x\ge 0, then system (2.5) does not have any close orbit. Then we can obtain that if {x}^{\ast}<3\sqrt{3} holds, the positive equilibrium {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) exists and is globally asymptotically stable for {x}^{\ast}(1+{E}_{1})<\alpha <min\{\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1},3\sqrt{3}(1+{E}_{1})\}. This completes the proof. □
4 Existence and uniqueness of limit cycle
Theorem 4.1 Suppose that \alpha >\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}, then system (2.5) has at least one limit cycle in the first quadrant.
Proof We see that \frac{dx}{dt}{}_{x=\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}}}=\frac{\beta {x}^{2}y}{1+{x}^{2}}<0 with y>0, so we have x=\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}} is an untangent line of the system. And the positive trajectory of system (1.2) goes through from its right side to its left side when it meets the line x=\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}}.
Construct a Dulac function w(x,y)=y+\frac{{\beta}_{1}}{\beta}xl, computing w=0 along the trajectories of system (1.2), we have
If l>0 is large enough, we have \frac{dw}{dt}<0, where 0<x<\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}}. So, the line y+\frac{{\beta}_{1}}{\beta}x=l goes through upper to lower part in the region \{(x,y)\mid 0<x<\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}},0<y<l\frac{{\beta}_{1}}{\beta}\}. For system (1.2), construct a Bendixson ring \stackrel{\u02c6}{OABC} including {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}). Define \overline{OA}, \overline{AB}, \overline{BC} as the lengths of line {L}_{1}=y=0, {L}_{2}=x\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}}=0, {L}_{3}=y+\frac{{\beta}_{1}}{\beta}xl separately. The outer boundary line of Bendixson ring \stackrel{\u02c6}{OABC} is J. Due to Lemma 2.1, we know that there exists a unique unstable singular point {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) in the Bendixson ring \stackrel{\u02c6}{OABC}. By the PoincareBendixson theorem, system (2.5) has at least one limit cycle in the first quadrant. This completes the proof. □
Note \alpha =\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}={\alpha}^{\ast}. From the proof of Lemma 2.2, we know that
Hence by the Hopf bifurcation theorem [12], the system enters into a Hopftype small amplitude periodic solution at the parametric value \alpha ={\alpha}^{\ast} near the positive interior equilibrium point {P}_{2}.
Now we consider the problem of uniqueness of the limit cycle arising from Hopf bifurcation at the parametric value \alpha ={\alpha}^{\ast}. There are different techniques for studying the uniqueness of limit cycles. Kuang [13] gave the following result on the uniqueness of limit cycles for the system:
where v>0; all the functions are sufficiently smooth on [0,\mathrm{\infty}] and satisfy
Theorem 4.2 Assume that (4.3) holds. If there exist constants ξ and η with 0<\xi <\eta such that
Then system (4.2) has exactly one limit cycle which is globally asymptotically stable [13].
Theorem 4.3 If conditions (2.2), (2.3) and \alpha >\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}>\frac{[3A\beta +11(1+{E}_{1})]{x}^{\ast}}{3} hold, then system (1.2) has a unique limit cycle.
Proof We can rewrite system (1.2) as system (4.2) with \rho (x)=\alpha (1+{E}_{1})x,
It is clear that \varphi (x) and \phi (x) satisfy assumption (4.3). Let \xi ={x}^{\ast}=\sqrt{\frac{r+{E}_{2}}{{\beta}_{1}r{E}_{2}}}, and \eta =\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}}. Then by (2.3) we see that \xi <\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}}. Assumption (4.4) is satisfied. In fact, we have \phi (\xi )=r+{E}_{2}; \rho (x)>0 if 0<x<\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}} and \rho (x)<0 if x>\frac{\alpha}{1+{E}_{1}}. For the sake of convenience, let
and
Since
we get \frac{d}{dx}{(\frac{x\rho (x)}{\varphi (x)})}_{x={x}^{\ast}}=\frac{\alpha +\alpha {x}^{\ast 2}2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{\beta {x}^{\ast 2}}>0. Hence, assumption (4.5) is satisfied.
Now
Differentiating this equality and using the fact that r+{E}_{2}=({\beta}_{1}r{E}_{2}){x}^{\ast 2}, we obtain
Taking \alpha >\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1} into account, we have
Hence
where U(x)={x}^{3}3{({x}^{\ast})}^{2}x+2{x}^{\ast 3}.
Since {U}^{\prime}(x)=3({x}^{2}{x}^{\ast 2}), U(x) has a minimum value at x={x}^{\ast}.
Therefore, {T}^{\prime}(x)\ge 0. Thus assumption (4.6) is satisfied.
Thus we observe that whenever the nontrivial equilibrium of system (1.2) is unstable, then all the solutions of the system, initiating in the interior of the positive quadrant of the (x,y) plane, except at the equilibrium, approach a unique limit cycle eventually. But by Lemma 2.3, we know that when \alpha =\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}>\frac{[3A\beta +11(1+{E}_{1})]{x}^{\ast}}{3}, {P}_{2}({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) is a stable fine focus with order one. So, when and only when \alpha >\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}>\frac{[3A\beta +11(1+{E}_{1})]{x}^{\ast}}{3}, system (1.2) has a unique limit cycle. The proof is completed. □
Remark 1 System (1.2) has no limit cycle whenever the harvesting efforts {E}_{1} and {E}_{2} satisfy the condition \alpha <\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}. So, local stability of the equilibrium point ({x}^{\ast},{y}^{\ast}) implies global asymptotic stability. From the point of view of ecological managers, it may be desirable to have a unique positive equilibrium which is globally asymptotically stable in order to plan harvesting and maintain sustainable development of an ecosystem.
Remark 2 If we wish, we can prevent the cycles in the system considered. Let ({\stackrel{\u02c6}{E}}_{1},{\stackrel{\u02c6}{E}}_{2}) be the harvesting efforts for which system (1.2) admits a limit cycle. Then these efforts must satisfy the condition \alpha >\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}>\frac{[3A\beta +11(1+{E}_{1})]{x}^{\ast}}{3}. Now let (\tilde{x},\tilde{y}) be the required limiting value for the solutions of the system. Let ({E}_{1}^{\ast},{E}_{2}^{\ast}) be such that ({x}^{\ast}({E}_{1}^{\ast}),{y}^{\ast}({E}_{2}^{\ast}))=(\tilde{x},\tilde{y}). Hence (\tilde{x},\tilde{y}) will be asymptotically stable only if the harvesting efforts ({E}_{1}^{\ast},{E}_{2}^{\ast}) satisfy the condition \alpha <\frac{2(1+{E}_{1}){x}^{\ast 3}}{{x}^{\ast 2}1}. Therefore, by choosing the effort functions ({E}_{1}(t),{E}_{2}(t)) as ({E}_{1}(0),{E}_{2}(0))=({\stackrel{\u02c6}{E}}_{1},{\stackrel{\u02c6}{E}}_{2}) and ({E}_{1}(\mathrm{\infty}),{E}_{2}(\mathrm{\infty}))=({E}_{1}^{\ast},{E}_{2}^{\ast}), it is possible to prevent cycles and drive to the steady state (\tilde{x},\tilde{y}).
5 Bionomic equilibrium
Motivated by the paper by Kar [14], we consider the bionomic equilibrium and optimal harvest policy of system (1.2). Let {q}_{1} be the constant prey species cost per unit effort. Let {q}_{2} be the constant predator species cost per unit effort, let {p}_{1} be the constant price per unit biomass of the prey species, and let {p}_{2} be the constant price per unit biomass of the predator species.
The economic rent (net revenue) at any time is given by
where {N}_{1}=({p}_{1}{x}^{2}{q}_{1}){E}_{1} and {N}_{2}=({p}_{2}y{q}_{2}){E}_{2}, they denote the economic rent of the prey species and the predator species separately.
The bionomic equilibrium of the predatorprey system implies both a biological equilibrium and an economic equilibrium. The biological equilibrium occurs when \frac{dx}{dt}=\frac{dy}{dt}=0, and the economic equilibrium is defined to be achieved when the economic rent is completely dissipated (i.e., when N=0).
Hence we can derive the bionomic equilibrium from the following system:
Now the following cases may arise.
Case 1: If x\le \sqrt{\frac{{q}_{1}}{{p}_{1}}} and y>\frac{{q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}}, then {N}_{1}\le 0 and {N}_{2}>0. In this case, we should stop harvesting the prey species, but we can harvest the predator species. Hence we can derive that {E}_{1\mathrm{\infty}}=0, and from N=({p}_{1}{x}^{2}{q}_{1}){E}_{1}+({p}_{2}y{q}_{2}){E}_{2}=0, we have {y}_{\mathrm{\infty}}=\frac{{q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}}. We substitute {E}_{1\mathrm{\infty}}=0 and {y}_{\mathrm{\infty}}=\frac{{q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}} into x(\alpha x)\frac{\beta {x}^{2}y}{1+{x}^{2}}{E}_{1}{x}^{2}=0, then we have
Let f(x)={x}^{3}\alpha {x}^{2}+(1+\frac{\beta {q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}})\alpha =({x}^{2}1)(x\alpha )+\frac{\beta {q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}}, we know that f(0)=\alpha <0, f(\alpha )=\frac{\beta {q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}}\alpha >0. So, f(x)=0 has at least one positive root in (0,\alpha ).
Now we discuss the roots of f(x)=0 as follows.
For {f}^{\prime}(x)=3{x}^{2}2\alpha x+(1+\frac{\beta {q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}}), we can derive that {f}^{\prime}(x)>0 when x\ge \alpha, and f(\alpha )=\frac{\beta {q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}}\alpha >0, then f(x)=0 does not have any roots in [\alpha ,+\mathrm{\infty}). Hence we discuss the roots of f(x)=0 only in (0,\alpha ).

(1)
If {\alpha}^{2}\le 3(1+\frac{\beta {q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}}), we have {f}^{\prime}(x)\ge 0, then f(x)=0 has only one positive root in (0,\alpha ).

(2)
If {\alpha}^{2}>3(1+\frac{\beta {q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}}), we can derive that {x}_{1}=\frac{\alpha \sqrt{{\alpha}^{2}3(1+\frac{\beta {q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}})}}{3} and {x}_{2}=\frac{\alpha +\sqrt{{\alpha}^{2}3(1+\frac{\beta {q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}})}}{3} are the roots of {f}^{\prime}(x)=0. It is obvious that 0<{x}_{1}<{x}_{2}<\frac{2\alpha}{3}<\alpha, f({x}_{i})=(2{{x}_{i}}^{3}\alpha {{x}_{i}}^{2}+\alpha ). We can further obtain that:

(i)
If f({x}_{1})>0 and f({x}_{2})<0, then f(x)=0 has three positive roots in (0,\alpha ).

(ii)
If f({x}_{1})=0 or f({x}_{2})=0, then f(x)=0 has two positive roots in (0,\alpha ).

(iii)
If f({x}_{1})<0 or f({x}_{2})>0, then f(x)=0 has one positive root in (0,\alpha ).
Let the root of f(x)=0 be {x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}, then we substitute {x}_{\mathrm{\infty}} and {y}_{\mathrm{\infty}} into \frac{{\beta}_{1}{x}^{2}y}{1+{x}^{2}}ry{E}_{2}y=0. We can obtain that {E}_{2\mathrm{\infty}}=\frac{{\beta}_{1}{{x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}}^{2}}{1+{{x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}}^{2}}r. For {E}_{2\mathrm{\infty}}>0, then we must have r<\frac{{\beta}_{1}{{x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}}^{2}}{1+{{x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}}^{2}}. At last, we have the bionomic equilibrium ({x}_{\mathrm{\infty}},{y}_{\mathrm{\infty}},0,{E}_{2\mathrm{\infty}}).
Case 2: If x>\sqrt{\frac{{q}_{1}}{{p}_{1}}} and y\le \frac{{q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}}, then {N}_{1}>0 and {N}_{2}\le 0. In this case, we should stop harvesting the predator species, but we can harvest the prey species. Hence we can derive that {E}_{2\mathrm{\infty}}=0, and from N=({p}_{1}{x}^{2}{q}_{1}){E}_{1}+({p}_{2}y{q}_{2}){E}_{2}=0, we have {x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}=\sqrt{\frac{{q}_{1}}{{p}_{1}}}. Substituting {E}_{2\mathrm{\infty}}=0 and {x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}=\sqrt{\frac{{q}_{1}}{{p}_{1}}} into \frac{{\beta}_{1}{x}^{2}y}{1+{x}^{2}}ry{E}_{2}y=0, we have r=\frac{{\beta}_{1}{p}_{1}}{{p}_{1}+{q}_{1}} and {y}_{\mathrm{\infty}} is any positive number. Then we substitute {x}_{\mathrm{\infty}} and {y}_{\mathrm{\infty}} into x(\alpha x)\frac{\beta {x}^{2}y}{1+{x}^{2}}{E}_{1}{x}^{2}=0, we can obtain that {E}_{1\mathrm{\infty}}=\frac{(\alpha {x}_{\mathrm{\infty}})(1+{{x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}}^{2})\beta {x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}{y}_{\mathrm{\infty}}}{{x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}(1+{{x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}}^{2})}. For {E}_{1\mathrm{\infty}}>0, then we must have {y}_{\mathrm{\infty}}<\frac{(\alpha \sqrt{\frac{{q}_{1}}{{p}_{1}}})(1+\frac{{q}_{1}}{{p}_{1}})}{\beta \sqrt{\frac{{q}_{1}}{{p}_{1}}}}. Hence {y}_{\mathrm{\infty}} is any positive number but it must satisfy {y}_{\mathrm{\infty}}<\frac{(\alpha \sqrt{\frac{{q}_{1}}{{p}_{1}}})(1+\frac{{q}_{1}}{{p}_{1}})}{\beta \sqrt{\frac{{q}_{1}}{{p}_{1}}}}. At last, we have the bionomic equilibrium ({x}_{\mathrm{\infty}},{y}_{\mathrm{\infty}},{E}_{1\mathrm{\infty}},0).
Case 3: If x\le \sqrt{\frac{{q}_{1}}{{p}_{1}}} and y\le \frac{{q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}}, then {N}_{1}\le 0 and {N}_{2}\le 0. In this case, we should stop harvesting the predator species and the prey species. Hence we can derive that {E}_{1\mathrm{\infty}}=0 and {E}_{2\mathrm{\infty}}=0. Then the bionomic equilibrium does not exist.
Case 4: If x>\sqrt{\frac{{q}_{1}}{{p}_{1}}} and y>\frac{{q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}}, then {N}_{1}>0 and {N}_{2}>0. In this case, we can harvest both the predator species and the prey species. Hence, from N=({p}_{1}{x}^{2}{q}_{1}){E}_{1}+({p}_{2}y{q}_{2}){E}_{2}=0, we have {x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}=\sqrt{\frac{{q}_{1}}{{p}_{1}}} and {y}_{\mathrm{\infty}}=\frac{{q}_{2}}{{p}_{2}}. Then we substitute {x}_{\mathrm{\infty}} and {y}_{\mathrm{\infty}} into x(\alpha x)\frac{\beta {x}^{2}y}{1+{x}^{2}}{E}_{1}{x}^{2}=0, \frac{{\beta}_{1}{x}^{2}y}{1+{x}^{2}}ry{E}_{2}y=0. We can obtain that {E}_{1\mathrm{\infty}}=\frac{(\alpha {x}_{\mathrm{\infty}})(1+{{x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}}^{2})\beta {x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}{y}_{\mathrm{\infty}}}{{x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}(1+{{x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}}^{2})} and {E}_{2\mathrm{\infty}}=\frac{{\beta}_{1}{{x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}}^{2}}{1+{{x}_{\mathrm{\infty}}}^{2}}r. For {E}_{1\mathrm{\infty}}>0 and {E}_{2\mathrm{\infty}}>0, then we must have \beta <\frac{({p}_{1}+{q}_{1})(\alpha \sqrt{{p}_{1}}\sqrt{{q}_{1}}){p}_{2}}{{p}_{1}{q}_{2}\sqrt{{q}_{1}}} and {\beta}_{1}>\frac{r({p}_{1}+{q}_{1})}{{q}_{1}}. At last, we have the bionomic equilibrium ({x}_{\mathrm{\infty}},{y}_{\mathrm{\infty}},{E}_{1\mathrm{\infty}},{E}_{2\mathrm{\infty}}).
6 Optimal harvest policy
The fundamental problem in determination of an optimal harvest policy in a commercial predatorprey system is to determine the optimal tradeoff between the current and future harvests. So, for determining an optimal harvesting policy, we consider the present value J of a continuous time stream of revenues given by
where δ denotes the instantaneous annual rate of discount. N is the economic rent (net revenue) at any time t given by N(x,y,{E}_{1},{E}_{2},t)=({p}_{1}{x}^{2}{q}_{1}){E}_{1}+({p}_{2}y{q}_{2}){E}_{2}, where {q}_{1} and {q}_{2} are the cost per unit biomass of the x and y species, separately; {p}_{1} and {p}_{2} are the prices per unit biomass of the x and y species, respectively.
We shall optimize the objective function
subject to the state Eq. (1.2) by using Pontryagin’s maximal principle.
Let us now construct the Hamiltonian function
where {\lambda}_{1}(t) and {\lambda}_{2}(t) are the adjoint variables. {E}_{1} and {E}_{2} are the control variables. Now we wish to find the maximum equilibrium ({x}_{\delta},{y}_{\delta},{E}_{1\delta},{E}_{2\delta}) of the Hamiltonian function {H}^{\ast}. For the control variables {E}_{1} and {E}_{2} are the linear function of {H}^{\ast}, we have that the optimal equilibrium must occur at the extreme point, namely
By the maximal principle, there exist adjoint variables {\lambda}_{1}(t) and {\lambda}_{2}(t) for all t\ge 0 such that
and
Using Eq. (6.3) we can derive that
and
By Eqs. (6.6) and (6.7) we know that {\lambda}_{i}(t){e}^{\delta t} (i=1,2) are invariable by the change of time t.
Using (5.3), Eqs. (6.6) and (6.7), we have that Eqs. (6.4) and (6.5) become
By Eqs. (6.8) and (6.9), we can obtain the positive root ({x}_{\delta},{y}_{\delta}). Then substituting the values of the positive root into (5.2), we get
7 Numerical simulation
Example 1 For simulation let us take \alpha =13, \beta =2, {\beta}_{1}=3, r=0.5.
We verify the limit cycle, global stability and controllability of system (1.2). (See Figures 16.)
To show the controllability of the system, we take examples as follows:

(1)
({E}_{1},{E}_{2})=(3.5,2) (see Figure 3);

(2)
({E}_{1},{E}_{2})=(4.5,2) (see Figure 4);

(3)
({E}_{1},{E}_{2})=(5,2) (see Figure 5);

(4)
({E}_{1},{E}_{2})=(1\text{,}200,2) (see Figure 6).
Figures 36 show the dependence of the dynamic behavior of system (1.2) on the harvesting efforts for the prey {E}_{1}. Figures 36 show that when {E}_{1} is small, both the prey and predator population converge to their equilibrium values respectively, but as {E}_{1} is large, the predator does not have enough food and approaches extermination at last. As {E}_{1} is large enough, both the prey and predator approach extermination at last. Which means that if we change the value of {E}_{1}, it is possible to prevent the cyclic behavior of the predatorprey system and to drive it to a required stable state.
Example 2 For {p}_{1}=0.4, {q}_{1}=0.2, {p}_{2}=0.5, {q}_{2}=0.2, \delta =1.25, and the remaining parameter values being the same as above, then Eqs. (6.8), (6.9) can be simplified as follows:
We can solve roots of Eqs. (7.1) and (7.2) by the tool of Maple. The roots of Eqs. (7.1) and (7.2) are solved as follows:
But only \{x=5.972747749,y=1.364775983\} satisfies
So, we can derive that {x}_{\delta}=5.972747749, {y}_{\delta}=1.364775983. Then, substituting the values of {x}_{\delta} and {y}_{\delta} into (5.2), we get {E}_{1\delta}=1.102124642, {E}_{2\delta}=2.418197544. So, we can derive that an optimal equilibrium solution is (5.972747749,1.364775983,1.102124642,2.418197544).
8 Conclusion
In this paper, qualitative analysis of a harvested predatorprey system with Holling type III functional response is considered. This work presents analysis of the effect of harvesting efforts on the preypredator system. We have proved that exactly one stable limit cycle occurs in the system under certain conditions and have proved the global stability of the positive equilibrium. It was also found that it is possible to control the system in such a way that the system approaches a required state, using the efforts {E}_{1} and {E}_{2} as the control. The results we have obtained may be helpful for the fishery managers wishing to maintain a globally sustainable yield.
References
Berryman AA: The origins and evolutions of predatorprey theory. Ecology 1992, 73: 1530–1535. 10.2307/1940005
Gause GF: La Theorie mathematique de la lutte pour la vie. Hermann, Paris; 1935.
Clark CW: Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Optimal Management of Renewable Resources. 2nd edition. Wiley, New York; 1990.
Chaudhuri KS: A bioeconomic model of harvesting a multispecies fishery. Ecol. Model. 1986, 32: 267–279. 10.1016/03043800(86)900918
Chaudhuri KS: Dynamic optimization of combined harvesting of a two species fishery. Ecol. Model. 1988, 41: 17–25. 10.1016/03043800(88)900415
Matsuda H, Katsukawa T: Fisheries management based on ecosystem dynamics and feedback control. Fish. Oceanogr. 2002, 11(6):366–370. 10.1046/j.13652419.2002.00214.x
Matsuda H, Abrams PA: Maximal yields from multispecies fisheries systems: rules for systems with multiple trophic. Ecol. Appl. 2006, 16(1):225–237. 10.1890/050346
Dai G, Tang M: Coexistence region and global dynamics of a harvested predatorprey system. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 1998, 58(1):193–210. 10.1137/S0036139994275799
Xiao D, Ruan S: BogdanovTakens bifurcations in predatorprey systems with constant rate harvesting. Fields Inst. Commun. 1999, 21: 493–506.
Kar TK, Matsuda H: Global dynamics and controllability of a harvested preypredator system with Holling type III function response. Nonlinear Anal. Hybrid Syst. 2007, 1: 59–67. 10.1016/j.nahs.2006.03.002
Chaudhuri KS: Dynamic optimization of combined harvesting of a two species fishery. Ecol. Model. 1988, 41: 17–25. 10.1016/03043800(88)900415
Hassard BD, Kazarinoff ND, Wan YH: Theory and Application of Hopf Bifurcation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1981.
Kuang Y, Freedman HI: Uniqueness of limit cycles in Gausstype models of predatorprey systems. Math. Biosci. 1988, 88: 67–84. 10.1016/00255564(88)900491
Kar TK, Chaudhuri KS: On nonselective harvesting of a two competing fish species in the presence of toxicity. Ecol. Model. 2003, 161(1–2):125–137. 10.1016/S03043800(02)00323X
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Authors’ original submitted files for images
Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Jiang, Q., Wang, J. Qualitative analysis of a harvested predatorprey system with Holling type III functional response. Adv Differ Equ 2013, 249 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/168718472013249
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/168718472013249