Journal of Biological Dynamics

ISSN: 1751-3758 (Print) 1751-3766 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjbd20

Depletion of forestry resource biomass due to

industrialization pressure: a ratio-dependent
mathematical model

Manju Agarwal , Tazeen Fatima & H. I. Freedman

To cite this article: Manju Agarwal , Tazeen Fatima & H. I. Freedman (2010) Depletion of
forestry resource biomass due to industrialization pressure: a ratio-dependent mathematical
model, Journal of Biological Dynamics, 4:4, 381-396

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17513750903326639

Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Published online: 15 Oct 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 285

View related articles

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjbd20

Download by: [Debub University] Date: 02 January 2016, At: 01:25

 Journal of Biological Dynamics
Vol. 4, No. 4, July 2010, 381396

Depletion of forestry resource biomass due to industrialization

pressure: a ratio-dependent mathematical model
Manju Agarwala *, Tazeen Fatimaa and H.I. Freedmanb
a Department of Mathematics & Astronomy, Lucknow University, Lucknow 226007, India; b Department
of Mathematical and Statistical Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016

(Received 29 May 2008; final version received 7 September 2009 )

A model for interactions between forestry biomass, wildlife population and industrialization pressure is
proposed and analysed. Here, the functional responses are assumed to be ratio-dependent type. The effect
of forestry biomass depletion in a forested habitat caused by industrialization pressure on the survival of
the forestry biomass dependent wildlife species is studied. The behaviours of the system near all ecological
feasible equilibria are analysed.

Keywords: forestry; industrialization; wildlife; ratio-dependent; stability; simulation

1. Introduction

As is well known, forests perform irreplaceable ecological services as an integral part of our
biosphere. They assist in the global cycling of water, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen, as well as
forming the habitat for many wildlife species. In relation to human needs, forests supply wood
that is made into housing, paper and furniture etc [3].
Unfortunately, we tend to overexploit forests. Cutting of trees without regeneration can change
a forest into a desert. Such is a threat to the Doon Valley in Uttaranchal, India, where industrial-
ization has put a tremendous pressure on its forests (see [14] and the references therein). Some of
the root causes of this threat are human immigration together with their livestock as well as lime-
stone quarries and wood-based industries. These have caused a lowering of the water table level,
pollution (limestone dust settling on leaves etc.) and removal of biomass without replacement.
As a consequence, we propose a model for the interactions of forests, a wildlife population
and industrialization. We view the wildlife as being wholly dependent on the forest, and industry
as acting as a predator on the forest. Our model is motivated by the work in [13], where the
authors have considered the interactions of wildlife species, resource biomass of forest and indus-
trialization pressure with linear functional responses. In our model, we consider ratio-dependent
interactions which in some cases seem better qualified to represent reality. There has been much

*Corresponding author. Email: manjuak@yahoo.com

ISSN 1751-3758 print/ISSN 1751-3766 online

2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17513750903326639
http://www.informaworld.com
 382 M. Agarwal et al.

work with models containing ratio dependence recently [1,5,7,16]. Since our paper deals with
work that follows the laws of ratio-dependent theory, we would first like to present a brief synopsis
of ratio-dependent responses. Ratio dependence is a particular type of predator dependence in
which the response only depends on the ratio of prey population density to the predator popula-
tion density, not on the density of either species. Many biological processes can produce predator
dependence:
(i) group hunting by the predator; (ii) facultative and costly antipredator defence by the prey; (iii)
density dependent and time-consuming social interactions among the predators; (iv) aggressive
interactions between searching predators that encounter each other [15]. In our context, depleting
forests cause industries to vigorously compete for forestry biomass and constantly reach for new
sources of supply, leading to ratio dependence.
In this paper, we use stability theory [2,8,11] to show how increasing industrialization may
cause extinction of the forest.
Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016

The organization of the paper is as follows. In the next section we develop our model. In
Section 3, we derive criteria for the existence of equilibria. Equilibria stabilities are discussed in
Section 4 with trajectories near the origin discussed in Section 5. In Section 6, we give a numerical
example to illustrate our results. A brief discussion takes place in the final section.

2. The model

We take as our model the system of differential equations:

dB r0 B 2 I B N B
= r(I )B , B(0) = B0 > 0, (1a)
dt K(I ) B + aI B + bN
dN NB
= sN + , N (0) = N0 > 0, (1b)
dt B + bN
dI wI 2 I B
= wI + , I (0) = I0 > 0, (1c)
dt L(B) B + aI
where B(t), N(t) and I(t) are the concentrations of forestry biomass, the wildlife population and
an industrialization measure, respectively. We make the following assumptions to reflect the roles
of the functions in model (1).
(H1) We assume that all functions are sufficiently smooth so that all solutions to initial value
problems exist uniquely. We further assume that densities of forestry biomass and indus-
trialization pressure are generated by logistic type equations [4,6,12]. Next we assume that
wildlife species depend upon the forest density.
(H2) r(I) is the growth rate coefficient of forestry biomass which depends on the industrialization
and decreases as I increases, and hence,

r(0) = r0 > 0, r  (I ) 0 for I 0,

where r 0 is the growth rate coefficient independent of industrialization pressure.

(H3) K(I) is the carrying capacity of forestry biomass which depends on the industrialization
and decreases as I increases, giving

K(0) = K0 > 0, K  (I ) 0 for I 0,

where K 0 is the carrying capacity independent of industrialization pressure.

 Journal of Biological Dynamics 383

(H4) L(B) is the carrying capacity of industrialization which increases as B increases, so that

L(0) = L0 > 0, L (B) 0 for B 0,

and 0 < L(B) < L, where L >0 and upper bound of L(B) and L 0 is the carrying capacity
independent of forestry biomass.
(H5) > 0 is the depletion rate coefficient of forestry biomass density due to industrialization and
> 0 is the growth rate coefficient of industrialization pressure due to the forestry biomass.
In our context, the forests (prey) are generally depleted and industries (predator) are
rapidly increasing in its resource consumption. As a consequence, there is a heavy competi-
tion between the industries to seek out their required raw material (i.e. biomass of the forest)
in the required quality and quantity. This is similar to the case of a predator searching for
its prey. Thus, the functional response may be taken as B/(B + aI), a > 0 is the managing
time of industrialization pressure.
Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016

(H6) The authors of [9,10] study a ratio-dependent system. There the predator does not possess
another natural source of food in addition to the considered prey, i.e. they let ( wI) take the
place of the term w(1 I/L(B))I of the system given by 1(a, b, c) and w > 0 is the growth
rate coefficient of industrialization pressure. In our model, 1(a, b, c) industrialization plays
the role of predator whose prey is the forestry biomass, but in addition to this prey, there
may exist other sources of food (e.g. wood in the case of the furniture industry) as well as
for industrialization.
(H7) > 0 is the depletion rate coefficient of forestry biomass due to the wildlife species and > 0
is the growth rate coefficient of the wildlife species due to the biomass of the forest, s > 0
is the death rate constant for wildlife species. A depleting forest causes wildlife species
to vigorously compete for the forestry biomass, leading to a ratio-dependent functional
response B/(B + bN), b > 0 is the handling time of wildlife species.
We note that for model (1) all axes and coordinate planes are invariant.
We now prove that all solutions of Equation (1) are bounded and estimate the bound.

Theorem 2.1 Assume 0 < L(B) < L. The set A = {(B, N, I):0 < B K, 0 N , 0 I } is
a region of attraction for all solutions initiating in the interior of the positive orthant, where

K = max(B0 , K0 ), = No + K/sb and = max(I0 , (w + )L/w).

Proof By the invariance of all coordinate axes and planes, solutions initiating in the nonnegative
orthant must remain there. From Equation (1a), we get

dB r0 B 2
r0 B .
dt K0
Hence, by the Kamke comparison theorem, B(t) K, since if B0 > K 0 , then B (t) < 0.
From Equation (1b),
dN NB K
sN + sN + .
dt bN b
Hence, by the Kamke comparison theorem, N N 0 est + K/sb . From Equation (1c), we
have
dI w I B w
wI I 2 + = (w + )I I 2 .
dt L B L
Consider
dU wU 2
= (w + )U , U (0) = I0 ,
dt L
 384 M. Agarwal et al.

whose solution is
I0 (w + )e(w+)t
U (t) =
w + (w/L)I 0 + (wI0 /L)e
(w+)t

I0 L(w + )
= .

wI0 + [(w + )L wI0 ]e(w+)t
Then by the Kamke comparison theorem,

I0 L(w + )
I (t) = Im .
wI0 + [(w + )L wI0 ]e(w+)t

Note that if (w + )L < wI0 , then I m I 0 , and if (w + )L wI0 , then Im ((w + )L)/w.

Hence, I(t) , proving the theorem. 
Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016

3. Equilibria

To find the equilibria for system (1), we solve the following system of equations:

r0 B 2 IB NB
r(I )B = 0, (2a)
K(I ) B + aI B + bN
NB
sN + = 0, (2b)
B + bN
wI2 IB
wI + = 0. (2c)
L(B) B + aI

Upon solving these, we see that E 0 (0, 0, 0), E 1 (K 0 , 0, 0), E 2 (0, 0, L 0 ), E 3 (B,
0, I), E 4 (B,
N , 0)

and E5 (B, N, I ) are possible, and E 0 , E 1 , E 2 always exist.
For E 3 to exist, B and I satisfy

r0 B I
r(I) = 0, (3a)
K(I) B + a I
w I B
w = 0. (3b)
L(B) B + a I

From Equation (3b), we get

1
I = w B)
[(waL(B) + {w B waL(B) B)(
2 + 4wa BL( + w)}1/2 ], (4a)
2wa
which we write as I = g(B).

Hence, Equation (3a) can be written as

r(g(B))
r0 B
g(B)
F (B) = 0. (4b)
K(g(B)) B + ag(B)

We note that  
r(g(0))
F (0) = K(g(0)) <0
a
 Journal of Biological Dynamics 385

and  
r(g(K0 )) g(K0 )
F (K0 ) = r0 K0 K(g(K0 )) > 0.
(K0 + ag(K0 ))
This shows that there exists B, 0< B <K0 such that F (B) = 0. Using Equation (4a), we get a
corresponding I . For there to be a unique positive solution, we require I to be real with only one

positive value.
For E 4 (B,
N,
0), B and N satisfy

B N
s N + = 0, (5a)
B + bN
B 2 B N
r0 B r0 = 0. (5b)
K0 B + bN
Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016

From Equation (5a), we get N = ( s)/bs B, giving from Equation (5b) B = K0 [1

( s)/r0 b ]. From this, we see that E4 exists if and only if

> s, r0 b > ( s), (5c)

i.e. the growth rate coefficient of the wildlife species due to the biomass of forest must be greater
than death rate constant for the wildlife species.
N , I), B,
For the existence of interior equilibrium E 5 (B, N and I are given by

B 2 IB NB
r(I)B r0 = 0,
K(I) B + a I B + bN
NB
N s + =0
B + bN
and
w I2 IB
w I + = 0.

L(B) B + a I
From the second equation, we get
( s)
N = B.
bs
From the third equation, we get
I = f (B),

where I is given by Equation (4a) with I replaced by I and B replaced by B.

Now using N = (( s)B)/bs
and I = f (B) in the first equation, we get

r0 B
f (B) ( s)
r(f (B)) = 0.
K(I) B + af (B)
bs

Taking
 

( s)
f (B)
r0 B K(f (B))
F (B)
r(f (B)) = 0,
B + af (B)
bs
we note that  
( s)
F (0) = K(f (0)) r(f (0)) <0
a bs
 386 M. Agarwal et al.

and
 
f (K0 ) ( s)
F (K0 ) = r0 K0 K(f (K0 )) r(f (K0 )) > 0.
K0 + af (K0 ) bs

If the above two inequalities hold, then there exists B in the interval 0 < B < K0 such that
= 0. Now the sufficient condition for B to be unique is F  (B) > 0 at E 5 , where
F (B)
 
K  f (B) ( s)
F  (B) = r0 f (B) r(f (B)) ,
I B + af (B) bs
 
r  {Bf  (B) f (B)}
K(f (B)) f (B) .
I (B + af (B))2
Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016

4. Stability

In this section, we obtain criteria for both local and global stability of the various equilibria. The
origin is a special case which we deal with separately.

4.1. Local stability

If E (B , N , I ) is an equilibrium, then the local stability can be determined from the eigenvalues
of the variational matrix M , whose entries are given by differentiating the right sides of system
(1) with respect to B, N and I and evaluating at B , N and I , i.e.

2r0 B
aI 2 B2  K  (I )
2
r(I ) r (I )B + r0 B
K(I ) (B + aI )2 (B + bN )2 K 2 (I )

bN 2 B 2

(B + bN )2 (B + aI ) 2


M = .
bN 2 B2
s + 0
(B + bN )2 (B + bN )2



aI 2 wI 2 (L (B ) 2wI B 2
+ 0 w +
(B + aI )2 L2 (B )
L(B ) (B + aI ) 2

Utilizing analogous notation at the equilibria (i.e. M 0 is the variational matrix corresponding to
E 0 ; M 1 , the variational matrix corresponding to E 1 ; M 3 , the variational matrix corresponding to
E 3 etc.), we get

r0 r  (0)K0 + r0 K  (0)
M1 = 0 s 0 ,
0 0 w+

r(L0 ) 0 0
a
M2 =

0 s 0 ,


+ wL (0) 0 w
a
 Journal of Biological Dynamics 387

2r B a I2 r 2 K  (I)
B B2
r(I) r (I)B +
0  0


K(I) (B + a I)2 K 2 (I) (B + a I)2


M 3 = 0 s 0 ,


a I2
w I2 L (B) 2wI B 2
+ 0 w +

(B + a I ) 2 2
L (B)
L(B) (B + a I ) 2

2r0 B bN 2
B 2
 r0 B 2 K  (0)
r0 K0 (B + bN )2 (B + bN )2
r (0)B +
K02




M4 = N 2
B 2
s +
0
(B + bN )2 (B + bN )2
0 0 w+
Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016

and M 5 is given by

r0 B IB NB B 2  r0 B 2 K  (I)
Br (I ) +
K(I) (B + a I)2 (B + bN )2 (B + bN )2 K 2 (I)


B 2


(B + a I)2


M 5 = .
bN 2 bN B


0
(B + bN ) 2 (B + bN )2




aI2 w I2 L (B)
w I a B I
+ 0 +
(B + a I)2 L2 (B)
L(B) (B + a I ) 2

From the above, we can see the following. For E 1 , the three eigenvalues of E 1 are r 0 , s and
w + . This implies that E 1 is a saddle point, locally stable in the B direction and locally unstable
in the I direction. As to the N-direction, it is locally stable if < s and unstable if > s (which
is a necessary condition for E 4 to exist).
For E 2 , the eigenvalues of M 2 are r(L 0 ) (/a), s and w. Hence E 2 is stable if r(L 0 ) < /a
and is otherwise a saddle point. Therefore, for our system to persist uniformly, we should have
the condition r(L 0 ) a/ > 1.
With regard to E 3 , the eigenvalues are s, and the solution to 2 + p + q = 0, where

2r0 B 2w I a I2 B 2
p = + + r(I) w,
K(I) L(B) (B + a I)2
  
2r B a I2 2w I 2
B
q = r(I)
0
w +
K(I) (B + a I)2 L(B) (B + a I)2
 
r0 B 2 K  (I) B 2
r  (I)B +
K 2 (I) (B + a I)2
 
a I2 w I2 L (B)
+ .
(B + a I)2 L2 (B)
 388 M. Agarwal et al.

Again we see that if E 5 is to exist, E 3 must be unstable since one of the eigenvalues is s.
As to other eigenvalues, we would need to have specific values of the parameters to determine
whether their real parts are positive or negative.
Similarly for E 4 , we get that w + is an eigenvalue, which implies that E 4 is unstable at least
locally in I direction. The other eigenvalues are given by an equation of the form 2 + p + q = 0,
where
2r0 B bN 2 B 2
p = + + s r0 ,
K0 (B + bN )2
  
2r0 B bN 2 B 2 B 2 N 2
q = r0 s + ,
K0 (B + bN )2 (B + bN )2 (B + bN )4
and the real parts of will once more depend on the parameters.
For E 5 , if the following conditions hold:
Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016


r0 B IB N B
> 0,
K(I) (B + a I)2 (B + bN )2

bN 2 a I2
w I2 L (B) r0 B IB N B
+ + < ,
(B + bN) 2 (B + a I)2 L2 (B) K(I) (B + a I)2 (B + bN )2
 
 B  bN
 
 <
 (B + bN )2  (B + bN )2
and  
 
B 2  w I a B I
  2 K (I )
Br (I ) + r0 B < + ,
 K (I) (B + a I)  L(B)
2 2 (B + a I)2
then by Gershgorins theorem, E 5 is locally stable.

4.2. Global stability

Theorem 4.1 Suppose that in A the following inequalities hold

v12 4u1 u2 < 0, (6a)
v22 4u1 u3 < 0. (6b)

Then E 5 is globally asymptotically stable (and clearly it is then locally stable), where the set A
has been defined in Theorem 2.1.

Proof Any solution initiating outside A, by Theorem 2.1 must enter A in finite time. Hence we
restrict our attention to A. Writing (v) as the sum of two quadratics,
2 + v1 (B B)(N
V = u1 (B B) N ) u2 (N N )2
2 + v2 (B B)(I
u1 (B B) I) u3 (I I)2 ,
since the ui > 0, i = 1, 2, 3, if Equation (9) holds, then each quadratic is negative definite, proving
the theorem. For details, see Appendix 1. 

Note that it is next to impossible to give any interpretations, biological or otherwise, to inequal-
ities (6). It is difficult to check whether the assumptions of Theorem 4.1 are satisfied, which is to
be expected, given the complexity of the system.
 Journal of Biological Dynamics 389

5. Behaviour near E0

Since the Jacobian M is not defined at E 0 , we cannot use linearization to determine the stability
of E 0 . Rather, we use a direct method of Liapunov-type to show that E 0 is unstable. In fact, we
show under some mild additional hypotheses that, except for orbits with initial conditions of type
(0, N 0 , 0), N 0 0, no orbit initiating in R+
3
can approach E 0 .

Theorem 5.1 In addition to (H1)(H7), assume

(H8) lim r(I ) = rm > 0, lim K(I ) Km > 0.
I I
3
Then except for orbits lying along the N axis, no orbit initiating in R+ can approach E0 .

Proof Suppose there exists an orbit with initial values B0 , N 0 , I 0 such that B02 + N02 > 0, N 0 0
Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016

and such that limt (B(t), N (t), I (t)) = (0, 0, 0).

Let this solution curve be parameterized by B = (t), N = (t), I = (t). Then there exists T > 0
such that for t T, 0 (t) 1 , 0 (t) 2 , 0 (t) 3 , for arbitrary small 1 , 2 , 3 that we
choose. Of course, T depends on i , i = 1, 2, 3.
Consider

W (B, N, I ) = B + N + I.

Of course, limt W ((t), (t), (t)) = 0. From system (1), we get
r0 B 2 IB NB
W (t) = r(I )B
K(I ) B + aI B + bN
BN wI 2 IB
sN + + WI + ,
B + bN L(B) B + aI
   
r0 B I
= B r(I ) sN + wI 1 .
K(I ) L(B)
Now, for t T along B = (t), N = (t), I = (t),
r0 B r 0 1 I 3
r(I ) rm > 0, 1 1 >0
K(I ) Km L(B) L0
for sufficiently small 1 , 3 .
As to (/ )sN, we write it as

N (1 + s) N.

Let  
r 0 1 w3
= min rm , 1, w .
Km L0
Then
W W (1 + s)N W (1 + s)2 .
(1 + s)2
W (t) W (0)et

lim W (t) = .
t

Therefore, we get a contradiction to limt W (t) = 0, proving the theorem. 

 390 M. Agarwal et al.

6. Numerical example

We choose the following functions in model 1(a, b, c):

r(I ) = r + (r0 r) exp(1 I )

K(I ) = K1 + (K0 K1 ) exp(2 I ) (7)
L(B) = L0 + L1 B

so that r(I) and K(I) remain positive with positive lower limits as I goes to infinity, where r, r 0 ,
K 1 , 1 , 2 , L 0 , L 1 are positive constants.
We also choose the following set of parameters to explain the applicability of our result.

s = 0.45, = 0.9, = 0.8, L0 = 24,

Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016

= 1.3313, = 0.02, 1 = 0.01, 2 = 0.02,

(8)
r0 = 7.3, r = 4.53, w = 1.40, K0 = 30,
K1 = 25.13, L1 = 0.02, a = 0.5, b = 1.2.

We find here using model 1 and the above data that in the absence of industrialization (I = 0),
N , 0) is given by B = 28.360, N = 23.858.
the equilibrium (B,
Now, we show the effect the industrialization on N and B in the following example:

Example 1 Using Equation (7) and set of parameters given in Equation (8), it can be checked
that conditions for the existence of E 5 are satisfied. Thus the interior equilibrium E 5 exists and is
given by
B = 20.652, N = 17.210, I = 24.622.
We note that B and N are less than their respective values in the absence of industrialization.

It can also be checked that the conditions of local stability of E 5 are also satisfied.

Figure 1. Variation of the resource biomass with time for different a.

 Journal of Biological Dynamics 391

To illustrate the feasibility of our result, we take as an example the following system:

dB 7.3B 2 1.3313BI 0.8BN

= (4.53 + 2.78e0.01I )B 0.02I
,
dt 25.13 + 4.87e B + 0.5I B + 1.2N
dN 0.9N
= 0.45N + , (9)
dt B + 1.2N

dI 1.4I 2 0.02BI
= 1.4I + .
dt 24 + 0.02B B + 0.5I
Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016

Figure 2. Variation of the population with time for different a.

Figure 3. Variation of industrialization with time for different a.

 392 M. Agarwal et al.

From above, we obtain that A = {B, N, I:0 B 30, 0 N 25, 0 I 34.64}. The equilibria are
computed as follows:

E0 (0, 0, 0), E1 (30, 0, 0), E2 (0, 0, 24), E 3 (22.112, 0, 24.656), E 4 (28.630, 23.858, 0),

E 5 (20.652, 17.210, 24.622).

We now discuss the stability of E. Using the values of the parameters in Equation (10) and of E,

we compute r(I) = 6.703, r  (I) = 0.0217, K(I) = 28.106, K  (I) = 0.006, L(B) = 24.413,
= 0.02.
L (B)
Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016

Figure 4. Variation of the resource biomass with time for different .

Figure 5. Variation of the population with time for different .

 Journal of Biological Dynamics 393

Substituting into M gives

4.563 0.2 1.598
M 5 = 0.1875 0.225 0
0.279 0 1.419

with characteristic equation (to 2 decimal places) 3 + 6.22 + 5.31 + 1.61 = 0. Since the roots
of this equation are approximately = 4.39; 1.58; 0.23, E 5 is asymptotically stable.
From the condition r(L 0 ) a/ > 1, it can be inferred that the parameters a and are crucial,
therefore, we investigate here the effects of parameters a and on the system through a numerical
simulation using the fourth order Runge-Kutta method keeping other parameters the same.
From Figures 13, we note that as we increase the value of a, the densities of resource biomass
and population increase whereas the industrialization decreases.
Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016

Figure 6. Variation of industrialization with time for different .

Figure 7. Variation of resource biomass with population for different initial starts.
 394 M. Agarwal et al.
Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016

Figure 8. Variation of resource biomass with industrialization for different initial starts.

From Figures 46, it can be depicted that as we increase the value of , the densities of resource
biomass and population decrease whereas the industrialization increases.
Simulation is performed for different initial starts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1, 2, 3, 4 in Figures 7 and 8 to
graphically illustrate the global stability of the interior equilibrium point in the B N and B I
plane, respectively.

7. Discussion

In this paper, we have considered a ratio-dependent model for the interactions between forestry
biomass, a wildlife population and industrialization. We have obtained the conditions for the
existence of various equilibria and discussed their stabilities. It has also been found that for
the system to persist, the condition r(L 0 ) (a/) > 1 should hold. For this inequality to hold, we
must have larger r(L 0 ), a and smaller value of . As r(I) is a decreasing function of I, the value
of L 0 should be small for sustainability of the system. By using stability analysis, it has been
shown that under certain conditions, the forest biomass density decreases due to an increase in
industrialization pressure leading to a decrease in the density of the wildlife species or even its
extinction if the industrialization continues without control.
We found that in the absence of industrialization, the densities of the biomass and the wildlife
species are high and when industrialization comes into play, biomass and wildlife species both
settle down at lower densities. This shows that industrialization affects the biomass of the forest
adversely which in turn may cause harm to the wildlife species (since we have taken the wildlife
species to be wholly dependent on forestry biomass). Therefore, certain cutting and harvesting
regulations have to be put in place on industries in order to keep and expand sustainability and
for its coexistence with wildlife and forestry.
The model suggests minimum green cover to be maintained with controlled expansion of
industrial development for sustainability of wildlife. This is a similar scenario for the industrial
development in a forest context, e.g. elephants that habitate in Doon Valley consume tree species,
grasses and shrubs and their feeding habits vary with seasons, availability of natural water and
traditional movement. It has also been observed that their feeding habits have been changed due to
industrialization. Rapid industrialization and urbanization have resulted in the loss of forestlands
to townships and subsequently in the loss of elephants.
 Journal of Biological Dynamics 395

Acknowledgements
Manju Agarwal was partially supported by M/S Envirochem Test, Laboratories, Lucknow, India.

References

[1] F.S. Berezorskaya, G. Karev, and R. Arditi, Parametric analysis of the ratio dependent predator prey system, J. Math.
Biol. 43 (2001), pp. 221246.
[2] J. Cronin, Differential Equations: Introduction and Qualitative Theory, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1980.
[3] E.P. Eckholm, Down to Earth: Environment and Human Needs, Norton, New York, 1982.
[4] H.I. Freedman, Deterministic Mathematical Models in Population Ecology, HIFR Consulting Ltd., Edmonton, 1987.
[5] H.I. Freedman and R.M. Mathsen, Persistence in predator-prey systems with ratio-dependent predator influence,
Bull. Math. Biol. 55 (1993), pp. 817827.
[6] E.J. Kormondy, Concept of Ecology, Prentice Hall, London, 1986.
[7] Y. Kuang and E. Beretta, Global qualitative analysis of a ratio-dependent predator-prey system, J. Math. Biol. 35
Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016

(1998), pp. 389406.

[8] P. Lancaster and M. Tismenetsky, The Theory of Matrices, Academic Press, Orlando, 1985.
[9] P.Y.H. Peng and M.X. Wang, Qualitative analysis of a ratio dependent predator prey system with diffusion, Proc.
Roy. Soc. Edinb. A 133(4) (2003), pp. 919942.
[10] R. Peng and M.X. Wang, Note on a ratio dependent predator prey system with diffusion, Nonlin. Anal. 7(1) (2006),
pp. 111.
[11] N. Rouche, P. Habets, and M. Laloy, Stability Theory by Lyapunovs Direct Method, Springer Verlag, New York,
1977.
[12] J.B. Shukla and B. Dubey, Modeling and depletion and conservation of forestry resources: Effects of population
and pollution, J. Math. Biol. 36 (1997), pp. 7194.
[13] J.B. Shukla, B. Dubey, and H.I. Freedman, Effect of changing habitat on survival of species, Ecol. Model. 87 (1996),
pp. 205216.
[14] J.B. Shukla, H.I. Freedman, V.N. Pal, O.P. Misra, M. Agarwal, and A. Shukla, Degradation and subsequent
regeneration of forestry resource: A mathematical model, Ecol. Model. 44 (1989), pp. 219229.
[15] P. Turchin, Complex Population Dynamics: A Theoretical/Empirical Synthesis, (MPB-35) (Monographs in Population
Biology) Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 2003.
[16] D. Xiao and S. Ruan, Global dynamics of a ratio dependent predator-prey system, J. Math. Biol. 43 (2001),
pp. 268290.

Appendix 1

we utilize a Liapunov function of the form

To obtain criteria for the global stability of E,
V (B, N, I ) = V1 (B) + V2 (N ) + V3 (I ),
where
B
V1 (B) = B B Bn
, (A1)
B
N
V2 (N ) = N N N n , (A2)
N
I
V3 (I ) = I I In . (A3)
I
Clearly, V i , i = 1, 2, 3 is a positive definite function about the respective equilibrial values. Computing the derivatives
along solutions, we get
   
B r(I ) r0 B I N
V1 (B) = 1 B = (B B) ,
B K(I ) B + aI B + bN
   
N B
V2 (N ) = 1 N = (N N ) s + , (A4)
N B + bN
   
I wI B
V3 (I ) = 1 I = (I I) w + .
I L(B) B + aI
 396 M. Agarwal et al.

Then using the fact that B > 0, N > 0, I > 0 satisfies Equation (2), we get that
 
r0 B I N
r(I ) = r(I ) r(I) + r(I) = r(I ) r(I) + + + ,
K(I) B + a I B + bN

B
s= ,
B + bN
w I B
w= .
L(B) B + a I

Substituting into Equation (A4) gives

  
B B
V (B, N, I ) = (B B) r(I ) r(I) r0
K(I ) K(I)
   
I N
Downloaded by [Debub University] at 01:25 02 January 2016

1 N

B + aI B + a I B + bN B + bN
 
B B
+ (N N )
B + bN B + bN

    
1 I B B
+ (I I) w + .
L(B) L(B) B + aI B + a I

After some additional manipulation of which an example is

N N N N N N
= +
B + bN B + bN B + bN B + bN B + bN B + bN
= (N N )(B, N, B,
N ) + (B B)(B,
N )
B,

and > 0, we get

V (B, N, I ) = (B B) I) 2 (B, I, B,
2 [r0 1 (B, I, B, I) 3 (B, N, B,
N )]

(N N )2 4 (B, N, B,
N )

I, I)w + 6 (B, I, B,
(I I)2 [5 (B, B, I)]

N, N ) + 2 (B, N, B,
+ [1 (B, B, N )](B B)(N
N )

+ [3 (I, I) 4 (B, B,
I, I) w5 (B, B,
I, I)

I, I)](B B)(I
+ 6 (B, B, I).

This is of the form

V (B, N, I ) = 2u1 (B B)
2 + v1 (B B)(N
N ) u2 (N N )2

+ v2 (B B)(I I) u3 (I I)2 , (A5)

where ui > 0, i = 1, 2, 3 are functions of the variables and parameters and v i , i = 1, 2 are functions of the variables and
parameters.