Ito versus Stratonovich calculus in random population growth

被引:43
作者
Braumann, Carlos A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Evora, Dept Math, PT-7000671 Evora, Portugal
关键词
population growth; Ito calculus; Stratonovich calculus; random environments; stochastic differential equations;
D O I
10.1016/j.mbs.2004.09.002
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
The context is the general stochastic differential equation (SDE) model dN/dt = N(g(N) + delta epsilon(t)) for population growth in a randomly fluctuating environment. Here, N = N(t) is the population size at time t, g(N) is the 'average' per capita growth rate (we work with a general almost arbitrary function g), and delta epsilon d(t) is the effect of environmental fluctuations (sigma > 0, epsilon(t) standard white noise). There are two main stochastic calculus used to interpret the SIDE, Ito calculus and Stratonovich calculus. They yield different solutions and even qualitatively different predictions (on extinction, for example). So, there is a controversy on which calculus one should use. We will resolve the controversy and show that the real issue is merely semantic. It is due to the informal interpretation of g(x) as being an (unspecified) 'average' per capita growth rate (when population size is x). The implicit assumption usually made in the literature is that the 'average' growth rate is the same for both calculi, when indeed this rate should be defined in terms of the observed process. We prove that, when using Ito calculus, g(N) is indeed the arithmetic average growth rate R(a)(x) and, when using Stratonovich calculus, g(N) is indeed the geometric average growth rate R(g)(x). Writing the solutions of the SDE in terms of a well-defined average, R(a)(X) or R(g)(x), instead of an undefined 'average' g(x), we prove that the two calculi yield exactly the same solution. The apparent difference was due to the semantic confusion of taking the informal term 'average growth rate' as meaning the same average. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:81 / 107
页数:27
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]   On the option interpretation of rational harvesting planning [J].
Alvarez, LHR .
JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL BIOLOGY, 2000, 40 (05) :383-405
[2]   Optimal harvesting of stochastically fluctuating populations [J].
Alvarez, LHR ;
Shepp, LA .
JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL BIOLOGY, 1998, 37 (02) :155-177
[3]  
Arnold L., 1974, STOCHASTIC DIFFERENT, DOI DOI 10.1002/ZAMM.19770570413
[4]   HARVESTING NATURAL-POPULATIONS IN A RANDOMLY FLUCTUATING ENVIRONMENT [J].
BEDDINGTON, JR ;
MAY, RM .
SCIENCE, 1977, 197 (4302) :463-465
[5]  
Braumann C, 1999, P 9 INT C DIFF EQ VS, P47
[6]  
Braumann C.A., 1985, MATH BIOL MED, P201
[7]  
BRAUMANN CA, 1983, B MATH BIOL, V45, P635
[8]   Variable effort harvesting models in random environments: generalization to density-dependent noise intensities [J].
Braumann, CA .
MATHEMATICAL BIOSCIENCES, 2002, 177 :229-245
[9]   Variable effort fishing models in random environments [J].
Braumann, CA .
MATHEMATICAL BIOSCIENCES, 1999, 156 (1-2) :1-19
[10]  
BRAUMANN CA, 1993, MATH APPL BIOL MED, P155