-
QPot: An R Package for Stochastic Differential Equation Quasi-Potential Analysis
Authors:
Christopher M. Moore,
Christopher R. Stieha,
Ben C. Nolting,
Maria K. Cameron,
Karen C. Abbott
Abstract:
QPot is an R package for analyzing two-dimensional systems of stochastic differential equations. It provides users with a wide range of tools to simulate, analyze, and visualize the dynamics of these systems. One of QPot's key features is the computation of the quasi-potential, an important tool for studying stochastic systems. Quasi-potentials are particularly useful for comparing the relative st…
▽ More
QPot is an R package for analyzing two-dimensional systems of stochastic differential equations. It provides users with a wide range of tools to simulate, analyze, and visualize the dynamics of these systems. One of QPot's key features is the computation of the quasi-potential, an important tool for studying stochastic systems. Quasi-potentials are particularly useful for comparing the relative stabilities of equilibria in systems with alternative stable states. This paper describes QPot's primary functions, and explains how quasi-potentials can yield insights about the dynamics of stochastic systems. Three worked examples guide users through the application of QPot's functions.
△ Less
Submitted 27 October, 2015;
originally announced October 2015.
-
Balls, cups, and quasi-potentials: quantifying stability in stochastic systems
Authors:
Ben C. Nolting,
Karen C. Abbott
Abstract:
When a system has more than one stable state, how can the stability of these states be compared? This deceptively simple question has important consequences for ecosystems, because systems with alternative stable states can undergo dramatic regime shifts. The probability, frequency, duration, and dynamics of these shifts will all depend on the relative stability of the stable states. Unfortunately…
▽ More
When a system has more than one stable state, how can the stability of these states be compared? This deceptively simple question has important consequences for ecosystems, because systems with alternative stable states can undergo dramatic regime shifts. The probability, frequency, duration, and dynamics of these shifts will all depend on the relative stability of the stable states. Unfortunately, the concept of stability in ecology has suffered from substantial confusion and this is particularly problematic for systems where stochastic perturbations can cause shifts between coexisting alternative stable states. A useful way to visualize stable states in stochastic systems is with a ball-in-cup diagram, in which the state of the system is represented as the position of a ball rolling on a surface, and the random perturbations can push the ball from one basin of attraction to another. The surface is determined by a potential function, which provides a natural stability metric. However, systems amenable to this representation, called gradient systems, are quite rare. As a result, the potential function is not widely used and other approaches based on linear stability analysis have become standard. Linear stability analysis is designed for local analysis of deterministic systems and, as we show, can produce a highly misleading picture of how the system will behave under continual, stochastic perturbations. In this paper, we show how the potential function can be generalized so that it can be applied broadly, employing a concept from stochastic analysis called the quasi-potential. Using three classic ecological models, we demonstrate that the quasi-potential provides a useful way to quantify stability in stochastic systems.
△ Less
Submitted 23 October, 2015; v1 submitted 9 August, 2015;
originally announced August 2015.
-
Composite random search strategies based on non-directional sensory cues
Authors:
Ben C. Nolting,
Travis M. Hinkelman,
Chad E. Brassil,
Brigitte Tenhumberg
Abstract:
Many foraging animals find food using composite random search strategies, which consist of intensive and extensive search modes. Models of composite search can generate predictions about how optimal foragers should behave in each search mode, and how they should determine when to switch between search modes. Most of these models assume that foragers use resource encounters to decide when to switch…
▽ More
Many foraging animals find food using composite random search strategies, which consist of intensive and extensive search modes. Models of composite search can generate predictions about how optimal foragers should behave in each search mode, and how they should determine when to switch between search modes. Most of these models assume that foragers use resource encounters to decide when to switch between search modes. Empirical observations indicate that a variety of organisms use non-directional sensory cues to identify areas that warrant intensive search. These cues are not precise enough to allow a forager to directly orient itself to a resource, but can be used as a criterion to determine the appropriate search mode. As a potential example, a forager might use olfactory information, which could help it determine if an area is worth searching carefully. We developed a model of composite search based on non-directional sensory cues. With simulations, we compared the search efficiencies of composite foragers that use resource encounters as their mode-switching criterion with those that use non-directional sensory cues. We identified optimal search patterns and mode-switching criteria on a variety of resource distributions, characterized by different levels of resource aggregation and density. On all resource distributions, foraging strategies based on the non-directional sensory criterion were more efficient than those based on the resource encounter criterion. Strategies based on the non-directional sensory criterion were also more robust to changes in resource distribution. Our results suggest that current assumptions about the role of resource encounters in models of optimal composite search should be re-examined. The search strategies predicted by our model can help bridge the gap between random search theory and traditional patch-use foraging theory.
△ Less
Submitted 27 February, 2015; v1 submitted 21 June, 2013;
originally announced June 2013.
