EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Sciengine logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 21 (2026) Math. Model. Nat. Phenom., 21 (2026) 21 References
Open Access
Issue
Math. Model. Nat. Phenom.
Volume 21, 2026
Article Number 21
Number of page(s) 38
Section Population dynamics and epidemiology
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/mmnp/2026013
Published online 16 July 2026
  1. A.B. Medvinsky, et al., Spatiotemporal complexity of plankton and fish dynamics. SIAM Rev. 44 (2002) 311–370. [Google Scholar]
  2. D.M. Anderson, Turning back the harmful red tide. Nature 388 (1997) 513–514. [Google Scholar]
  3. A. Oaten and W.W. Murdoch, Switching, functional response, and stability in predator–prey systems. Am. Naturalist 109 (1975) 299–318. [Google Scholar]
  4. A. Mitra and K.J. Flynn, Accounting for variation in prey selectivity by Zooplankton. Ecol. Model. 199 (2006) 82–92. [Google Scholar]
  5. S. Gaucel and D. Pontier, How predator food preference can change the destiny of native prey in predator–prey systems. Biol. Invasions 7 (2005) 795–806. [Google Scholar]
  6. K.G. Porter, Selective grazing and differential digestion of algae by Zooplankton. Nature 244 (1973) 179–180. [Google Scholar]
  7. B.W. Frost, Effects of size and concentration of food particles on the feeding behavior of the marine planktonic copepod Calanus pacificus. Limnol. Oceanogr. 17 (1972) 805–815. [Google Scholar]
  8. T. Kiørboe, Foraging mode and prey size spectra of suspension-feeding copepods and other Zooplankton. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 558 (2016) 15–20. [Google Scholar]
  9. Q. Zhao, et al., Dynamic behavior analysis of phytoplankton–zooplankton system with cell size and time delay. Chaos Solitons Fractals 113 (2018) 160–168. [Google Scholar]
  10. M.G. Danielsdottir, et al., Phytoplankton food quality control of planktonic food web processes. Hydrobiologia 589 (2007) 29–41. [Google Scholar]
  11. X. Liu, et al., Microzooplankton grazing and selective feeding during bloom periods in the Tolo Harbour area as revealed by HPLC pigment analysis. J. Sea Res. 90 (2014) 83–94. [Google Scholar]
  12. W.R. Demott, Optimal foraging theory as a predictor of chemically mediated food selection by suspension-feeding copepods. Limnol. Oceanogr. 34 (1989) 140–154. [Google Scholar]
  13. M. Schultz and T. Kiørboe, Active prey selection in two pelagic copepods feeding on potentially toxic and non-toxic dinoflagellates. J. Plankton Res. 31 (2009) 553–561. [Google Scholar]
  14. N.D. Lewis, et al., Role of infochemical mediated Zooplankton grazing in a phytoplankton competition model. Ecol. Complex. 16 (2013) 41–50. [Google Scholar]
  15. S.-i. Uye and K. Takamatsu, Feeding interactions between planktonic copepods and red-tide flagellates from Japanese coastal waters. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 59 (1990) 97–107. [Google Scholar]
  16. S.F. Sailley, et al., Impact of zooplankton food selectivity on plankton dynamics and nutrient cycling. J. Plankton Res. 37 (2015) 519–529. [Google Scholar]
  17. K. Agnihotri and H. Kaur, Optimal control of harvesting effort in a phytoplankton-zooplankton model with infected zooplankton under the influence of toxicity. Math. Comput. Simul. 190 (2021) 946–964. [Google Scholar]
  18. J. Sole, et al., The role of selective predation in harmful algal blooms. J. Mar. Syst. 62 (2006) 46–54. [Google Scholar]
  19. C.J. Gobler, Climate change and harmful algal blooms: insights and perspective. Harmful Algae 91 (2020) 101731. [Google Scholar]
  20. Y. Zheng, et al., Selective grazing of zooplankton on phytoplankton defines rapid algal succession and blooms in oceans. Ecol. Model. 468 (2022) 109947. [Google Scholar]
  21. M.L. Rosenzweig, Paradox of enrichment: destabilization of exploitation ecosystems in ecological time. Science 171 (1971) 385–387. [Google Scholar]
  22. X. Meng and L. Zhang, Evolutionary dynamics in a Lotka–Volterra competition model with impulsive periodic disturbance. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 39 (2016) 177–188. [Google Scholar]
  23. T. Zhang, et al., Global dynamics of a model for treating microorganisms in sewage by periodically adding microbial flocculants. Math. Biosci. Eng. 171 (2019) 179–201. [Google Scholar]
  24. N.K. Thakur, et al., Diffusive three species plankton model in the presence of toxic prey: application to Sundarban mangrove wetland. J. Biol. Syst. 25 (2017) 185–206. [Google Scholar]
  25. S. Roy, et al., Competing effects of toxin-producing phytoplankton on overall plankton populations in the Bay of Bengal. Bull. Math. Biol. 68 (2006) 2303–2320. [Google Scholar]
  26. S. Chakraborty, et al. , The role of avoidance by zooplankton for survival and dominance of toxic phytoplankton. Ecol. Complex. 11 (2012) 144–153. [Google Scholar]
  27. T. Vrede and K. Vrede, Contrasting "top-down" effects of crustacean zooplankton grazing on bacteria and phytoflagellates. Aquat. Ecol. 39 (2005) 283–293. [Google Scholar]
  28. R. Rani and S. Gakkhar, The impact of provision of additional food to predator in predator–prey model with combined harvesting in the presence of toxicity. J. Appl. Math. Comput. 60 (2019) 673–701. [Google Scholar]
  29. L.R. Fox, Cannibalism in natural populations. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 6 (1975) 87–106. [Google Scholar]
  30. P. Mishra, et al., On a cannibalistic predator–prey model with prey defense and diffusion. Appl. Math. Model. 90 (2021) 165–190. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. F. Courchamp, et al., Allee effects in ecology and conservation. J. Mammal. 91 (2008) 1530–1532. [Google Scholar]
  32. R. Han, et al.. Spatio-temporal pattern selection in a prey–predator model with hunting cooperation and allee effect in prey. SSRN Electr. J. 171 (2023) 113441. [Google Scholar]
  33. S.O. Lehtinen, Ecological and evolutionary consequences of predator–prey role reversal: allee effect and catastrophic predator extinction. J. Theoret. Biol. 23 (2020) 110542. [Google Scholar]
  34. Y. Yang and M. Fan, Impact of selective grazing on the dynamics of a diffusive plankton model with component Allee effect and additional food. Chaos Solitons Fractals 175 (2023) 114004. [Google Scholar]
  35. R.M. Hillary and M. Bees, Plankton lattices and the role of chaos in plankton patchiness. Phys. Rev. E Statist. Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys. 69 (2004) 031913. [Google Scholar]
  36. N.M. Macdonald, Time lags in biological models. Lect. Notes Biomath. 27 (1978) 96–125. [Google Scholar]
  37. Y. Xia, et al., Global analysis and optimal harvesting for a hybrid stochastic phytoplankton–zooplankton–fish model with distributed delays. Math. Biosci. Eng. 17 (2020) 6149–6180. [Google Scholar]
  38. Z. Jiang, et al., Bifurcation and control of a planktonic ecological system with double delays by delayed feedback control. J. Franklin Inst. 358 (2021) 3609–3632. [Google Scholar]
  39. K. Das and S. Ray, Effect of delay on nutrient cycling in phytoplankton–zooplankton interactions in estuarine system. Ecol. Model. 215 (2008) 69–76. [Google Scholar]
  40. S.R.-J. Jang and J. Baglama, Nutrient-plankton models with nutrient recycling. Comput. Math. Appl. 49 (2005) 375–387. [Google Scholar]
  41. Y. Chen, et al., Equivariant Hopf bifurcation in a class of partial functional differential equations on a circular domain. Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos Appl. Sci. Eng. 34 (2023) 2450079:1–2450079:19. [Google Scholar]
  42. Y. Chen, et al. , Equivariant Hopf bifurcation arising in circular-distributed predator–prey interaction with taxis. Nonlinear Dyn. 112 (2024) 12667–12675. [Google Scholar]
  43. S. Gakkhar and R.K. Naji, Chaos in three species ratio dependent food chain. Chaos Solitons Fractals 14 (2002) 771–778. [Google Scholar]
  44. A. Sharma, et al., Complex dynamic of plankton–fish interaction with quadratic harvesting and time delay. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2 (2016) 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  45. N.K. Thakur, et al. , Harmful algal blooms in fresh and marine water systems: the role of toxin producing phytoplankton. Int. J. Biomath. 9 (2016) 1650043. [Google Scholar]
  46. T.R. Mohanty, et al. , Diel variation of plankton in the highly impacted freshwater zone of Hooghly estuary in relation to ecological alteration. Environ. Monitor. Assessment 196 (2024) 154. [Google Scholar]
  47. A. Mandal, et al., Seasonal refuge patterns of phytoplankton trigger irregular bloom events in a contaminated environment. Sci. Rep. 14 (2024) 25248. [Google Scholar]
  48. A.B. Medvinsky, et al., Direct input of monitoring data into a mechanistic ecological model as a way to identify the phytoplankton growth-rate response to temperature variations. Sci. Rep. 13 (2023) 10124. [Google Scholar]
  49. H. Amann, Dynamic theory of quasilinear parabolic equations. II. Reaction–diffusion systems. Differ. Integral Equ. 3 (1990) 13–75. [Google Scholar]
  50. H. Amann, Nonhomogeneous linear and quasilinear elliptic and parabolic boundary value problems. Funct. Spaces Differ. Oper. Nonlinear Anal. 133 (1993) 9–126. [Google Scholar]
  51. D. Horstmann and M. Winkler, Boundedness vs. blow-up in a chemotaxis system. J. Differ. Equ. 215 (2005) 52–107. [Google Scholar]
  52. M. Winkler, Aggregation vs. global diffusive behavior in the higher-dimensional Keller–Segel model. J. Differ. Equ. 248 (2010) 2889–2905. [Google Scholar]
  53. A. Friedman, Partial differential equations of parabolic type. Operator Theory Adv. Appl. 148 (1983) 77–113. [Google Scholar]
  54. M. Winkler and K. Djie, Boundedness and finite-time collapse in a chemotaxis system with volume-filling effect. Nonlinear Anal. Theory Methods Appl. 72 (2010) 1044–1064. [Google Scholar]
  55. D. Geng, et al., Double-Hopf bifurcation and pattern formation of a Gause–Kolmogorov-type system with indirect prey-taxis and direct predator-taxis. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 128 (2023) 107647. [Google Scholar]
  56. J. Wang and X. Guo, Dynamics and pattern formations in a three-species predator–prey model with two prey-taxis. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 475 (2019) 1054–1072. [Google Scholar]
  57. N.K. Thakur, et al., Dynamical study of harmful algal bloom in Sundarban mangrove wetland with spatial interaction and competing effects. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 8 (2021) 555–577. [Google Scholar]
  58. S. Mondal and G. Samanta, Dynamics of an additional food provided predator–prey system with prey refuge dependent on both species and constant harvest in predator. Physica A Statist. Mech. Appl. 534 (2019) 122301. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.