Abstract
Resource-based competition between microorganisms species in continuous culture has been studied extensively both experimentally and theoretically, mostly for bacteria through Monod and Contois “constant yield” models, or for phytoplankton through the Droop “variable yield” models. For homogeneous populations of N bacterial species (Monod) or N phytoplanktonic species (Droop), with one limiting substrate and under constant controls, the theoretical studies indicated that competitive exclusion occurs: only one species wins the competition and displaces all the others (Armstrong and McGehee in Am Nat 115:151, 1980; Hsu and Hsu in SIAM J Appl Math 68:1600–1617, 2008). The winning species expected from theory is the one with the lowest “substrate subsistence concentration” \(s^{\star }\), such that its corresponding equilibrium growth rate is equal to the dilution rate \(D\). This theoretical result was validated experimentally with phytoplankton (Tilman and Sterner in Oecologia 61(2):197–200, 1984) and bacteria (Hansen and Hubell in Science 207(4438):1491–1493, 1980), and observed in a lake with microalgae (Tilman in Ecology 58(22):338–348, 1977). On the contrary for aggregating bacterial species described by a Contois model, theory predicts coexistence between several species (Grognard et al. in Discrete Contin Dyn Syst Ser B 8(1):73–93, 2007). In this paper we present a generalization of these results by studying a competition between three different types of microorganisms: planktonic (or free) bacteria (represented by a generalized Monod model), aggregating bacteria (represented by a Contois model) and free phytoplankton (represented by a Droop model). We prove that the outcome of the competition is a coexistence between several aggregating bacterial species with a free species of bacteria or phytoplankton, all the other free species being washed out. This demonstration is based mainly on the study of the substrate concentration’s evolution caused by competition; it converges towards the lowest subsistence concentration \(s^{\star }\), leading to three different types of competition outcomes: (1) the best free bacteria or phytoplankton competitor excludes all other species; (2) only some aggregating bacterial species coexist in the chemostat; (3) A coexistence between the single best free species, with one or several aggregating species.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arditi R, Ginzburg LR, Akcakaya HR (1991) Variation in plankton densities among lakes: a case for ratio-dependent predation models. Am Nat 138(5):1287–1296. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2462524
Arino J, Pilyugin S, Wolkowicz G ((2003) [2005]) Considerations on yield, nutrient uptake, cellular growth, and competition in chemostat models. Can Appl Math Q 11:107–142
Armstrong R, McGehee R (1980) Competitive exclusion. Am Nat 115:151
Bernard O, Gouzé J-L (1995) Transient behavior of biological loop models, with application to the Droop model. Math Biosci 127(1):19–43
Caperon J, Meyer J (1972) Nitrogen-limited growth of marine phytoplankton. I. Changes in population characteristics with steady-state growth rate. Deep-Sea Res 19:601–618
Chisti Y (2007) Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol Adv 25:294–306
Contois D (1959) Kinetics of bacterial growth: relationship between population density and species growth rate of continuous cultures. J Gen Microbiol 21:40–50
Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. John Murray, London
de Leenheer P, Angeli D, Sontag A (2003) A feedback perspective for chemostat models with crowding effects. In: Positive Systems. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Science, vol 294. Springer, Berlin, pp 167–174
de Leenheer P, Li B, Smith H (2003) Competition in the chemostat : some remarks. Can Appl Math Q 11(2):229–247
de Leenheer P, Smith H (2003) Feedback control for the chemostat. J Math Biol 46:48–70
Diekmann O (2003) A beginner’s guide to adaptive dynamics. Banach Cent Publ 63:47–86
Droop M (1968) Vitamin \(b_{12}\) and marine ecology. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 48:689–733
Elton C (1927) Animal ecology. Sidgwick & Jackson, LTD, London
Falkowski PG, Raven JA (2007) Aquatic photosynthesis. Blackwell Science, Oxford
Fredrickson A, Stephanopoulos G (1981) Microbial competition. Science 213:972–979
Freedman H, So J, Waltman P (1989) Coexistence in a model of competition in the chemostat incorporating discrete delays. SIAM J Appl Math 49:859–870
Gause G (1934) The struggle for existence. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore
Gouzé J, Robledo G (2005) Feedback control for nonmonotone competition models in the chemostat. Real World Appl, Nonlinear Anal 6(4):671–690
Grognard F, Mazenc F, Rapaport A (2007) Polytopic Lyapunov functions for persistence analysis of competing species. Discrete Contin Dyn Syst Ser B 8(1):73–93
Haegeman B, Lobry C, Harmand J (2007) Modeling bacteria flocculation as density-dependent growth. AIChE J 53(2):535–539
Hansen S, Hubell S (1980) Single-nutrient microbial competition: qualitative agreement between experimental and theoretically forecast outcomes. Science 207(4438):1491–1493
Hardin G (1960) The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131(3409):1292–1297
Hsu S-B, Hsu T-H (2008) Competitive exclusion of microbial species for a single nutrient with internal storage. SIAM J Appl Math 68:1600–1617
Hsu S, Cheng K, Hubbel S (1981) Exploitative competition of micro-organisms for two complementary nutrients in continuous culture. SIAM J Appl Math 41:422–444
Hutchinson GE (1961) The paradox of the plankton. Am Nat 95:137
Jessup C, Forde S, Bohannan B (2005) Microbial experimental systems in ecology. Adv Ecol Res 37:273–306
Jost C, Arditi R (2000) Identifying predator–prey processes from time-series. Theor Popul Biol 57(4):325–337
Lange K, Oyarzun FJ (1992) The attractiveness of the Droop equations. Math Biosci 111:261–278
Le Chevanton M, Garnier M, Bougaran G, Schreiber N, Lukomska E, Bérard J-B, Fouilland E, Bernard O, Cadoret J-P (2013) Screening and selection of growth-promoting bacteria for Dunaliella cultures. Algal Res 2(3):212–222
Leon J, Tumpson D (1975) Competition between two species of two complementary or substitutable resources. J Theor Biol 50:185–201
Masci P, Bernard O, Grognard F (2008) Continuous selection of the fastest growing species in the chemostat. In: Proceedings of the IFAC conference, Seoul, Korea
Mayali X, Doucette GJ (2002) Microbial community interactions and population dynamics of an algicidal bacterium active against Karenia brevis (Dinophyceae). Harmful Algae 1(3):277–293
Monod J (1942) Reserches sur la croissance des cultures bacteriennes. Herrmann et Cie, Paris
Mylius S, Diekmann O (1995) On evolutionarily stable life histories. Optimization and the need to be specific about density dependence. Oikos 74:218–224
Oyarzun FJ, Lange K (1994) The attractiveness of the Droop equations. II: generic uptake and growth functions. Math Biosci 121:127–139
Pulz O, Gross W (2004) Valuable products from biotechnology of microalgae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 65:635–648. doi:10.1007/s00253-004-1647-x
Rao N, Roxin E (1990) Controlled growth of competing species. J Appl Math 50(3):853–864
Rhee G-Y (1972) Competition between an alga and an aquatic bacterium for phosphate. Limnol Oceanogr 17(4):505–514
Schäfer H, Abbas B, Witte H, Muyzer G (2002) Genetic diversity of satellite bacteria present in cultures of marine diatoms. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 42(1):25–35
Sciandra A, Ramani P (1994) The steady states of continuous cultures with low rates of medium renewal per cell. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 178:1–15
Scriven M (1959) Explanation and prediction in evolutionary theory. Science 130(3374):477–482
Smith H, Waltman P (1994) Competition for a single limiting resource in continuous culture: the variable-yield model. SIAM J Appl Math 54(4):1113–1131. doi:10.1137/S0036139993245344
Smith H, Waltman P (1995) The theory of the chemostat. Dynamics of microbial competition. Cambridge studies in mathematical biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Spolaore P, Joannis-Cassan C, Duran E, Isambert A (2006) Commercial applications of microalgae. J Biosci Bioeng 101(2): 87–96. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389172306705497
Thieme HR (1992) Convergence results and a Poicaré-Bendixson trichotomy for asymptotically autonomous differential equations. J Math Biol 30(7):755–763
Tilman D (1977) Resource competition between plankton algae: an experimental and theoretical approach. Ecology 58(22):338–348
Tilman D, Sterner R (1984) Invasions of equilibria: tests of resource competition using two species of algae. Oecologia 61(2):197–200
Vasseur C, Bougaran G, Garnier M, Hamelin J, Leboulanger C, Chevanton ML, Mostajir B, Sialve B, Steyer J-P, Fouilland E (2012) Carbon conversion efficiency and population dynamics of a marine algae–bacteria consortium growing on simplified synthetic digestate: first step in a bioprocess coupling algal production and anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 119:79–87
Vatcheva I, deJong H, Bernard O, Mars N (2006) Experiment selection for the discrimination of semi-quantitative models of dynamical systems. Artif Intel 170:472–506
Vavilin, V., Rytov, S. and Lokshina, L. (1996). A description of hydrolysis kinetics in anaerobic degradation of particulate organic matter. Bioresour Technol 56:229–237. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/096085249600034X
Verschuere L, Rombaut G, Sorgeloos P, Verstraete W (2000) Probiotic bacteria as biological control agents in aquaculture. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 64(4):655–671
Wijffels RH, Barbosa MJ, Eppink MHM (2010) Microalgae for the production of bulk chemicals and biofuels. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefining 4(3):287–295. doi:10.1002/bbb.215
Wilson JB (1990) Mechanisms of species coexistence: twelve explanations for the hutchinson’s ’paradox of the phytoplankton’: evidence from New Zealand plant communities. N Z J Ecol 137:17–42
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the ANR Facteur 4 (ANR-12-BIME-0004) programm.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 A Step 3: case \(a\): \(L\) attains \(s^{\star }\) in finite time
In this case
-
if \(s^{\star } = s^{z\star }_1\) we consider Fig. 8 where \(L\) attains \(s^{\star }\) after a finite time \(t^L\):
$$\begin{aligned} \forall t \ge t^L, L(t) = s^{\star } \end{aligned}$$
1.1.1 Substep 3a.1: after a finite time larger than \(t^L\), \(q_1\) is repeatedly higher than \(Q_1(s^{\star }) + \theta \)
Since \(\min _i(S^z_k(q_k)) \ge L\), we know that
As \(s\) does not converge to \(s^{\star }\), we also know from Lemma 6 that \(q_1\) does not converge towards \(Q_1(s^{\star })\):
Those two facts imply that the repeated exits of \(q_1(t)\) from the \(\theta \)-interval around \(Q_1(s^{\star })\) take place above \(Q_1(s^{\star })\) for any \(t^q > t^L\), so that, in that case, we have \(q_1(t^q)>Q_1(s^{\star }) + \theta \). In Fig. 8, such \(t^q\) time instants are represented by \(\bullet \).
1.1.2 Substep 3a.2: \(q_1\) is higher than \(Q_1(s^{\star }) + \theta /2\) during non negligible time intervals
Since the \(q_1\)-dynamics are upper bounded with
we know that every time \(q_1\) is higher than \(Q_1(s^{\star }) + \theta \), it has been higher than \(Q_1(s^{\star }) + \theta /2\) during a time interval of minimal duration \(A(\theta ) = \frac{\theta }{2 \rho ^m_1}\). On Fig. 8, \({\dot{q}}_1 = \rho ^m_1\) is represented by the dashed lines.
1.1.3 Substep 3a.3: then \(z_1\) diverges, which is impossible
From time \(t^L\) on, we have that \(q_1\ge Q_1(s^{\star }) \Rightarrow \gamma _1(q_1) \ge D\), so that \(z_1(t)\) is non decreasing. During each of the time interval where \(q_1\) is higher than \(Q_1(s^{\star }) + \theta /2\), the increase of \(z_1\) is lower bounded by
so that every \(t^q\) time we have
As such increases occurs repeatedly, and as \(z_1\) is non decreasing, \(z_1\) diverges. This is a contradiction because \(z_1\) is upper bounded [see (12)].
-
if \(s^{\star } = s^{x\star }_1\) then the non convergence of \(s\) to \(s^{\star }\), and the fact that \(s \ge s^{\star }\) will cause \(s\) to be non negligibly “away” from \(s^{\star }\), so that \(x_1\) will diverge, causing a contradiction with (11). This is exactly the same demonstration as above (in the case \(s^{\star }=s^{z\star }_1\)) without needing the \(q_k\) study.
-
if \(s^{\star } = s^{y\star }\) then \(s+\sum _{j=1}^{N_y} Y_j(s)\) will always be higher than \(s_{in}=s^{y\star }+\sum _{j=1}^{N_y} Y_j(s^{y\star })\) without converging to \(s_{in}\), which is in contradiction with (27).
1.2 B Step 3: Case \(b\): \(L\) never attains \(s^{\star }\)
In this case \(L(t)\) converges towards a value \( {\hat{L}} \in (0,s^{\star }]\), because it is non decreasing and bounded in \([0,s^{\star }]\), so that
We consider the neighborhood of \({\hat{L}}\) in Fig. 9.
1.2.1 Substep 3b.1: after a finite time, \(s\) is repeatedly higher than \({\hat{L}} + \lambda \)
Since, from the beginning of the proof of Lemma 10, we know that \(s\) does not converge to any constant value, hence not to \({\hat{L}}\),
Since \(L\) is increasing and converges to \({\hat{L}}\), it reaches \({\hat{L}} - \lambda \) in finite time \(t^L(\lambda )\). After this finite time, \(s\) is higher than \({\hat{L}} + \lambda \) on every \(t^s\) time instants, which are represented by \(\bullet \) in Fig. 9.
1.2.2 Substep 3b.2: \(s\) is higher than \({\hat{L}} + \lambda /2\) during non negligible time intervals
Because of the boundedness of \({\dot{s}}\)
every time \(s\) is higher than \({\hat{L}} + \lambda \), it has been higher than \({\hat{L}} + \lambda /2\) during a non negligible time interval of minimal duration \(A(\lambda ) = \frac{\lambda }{2 D s_{in}}\). On Fig. 9 the case \({\dot{s}} = D s_{in}\) is represented by dashed lines.
1.2.3 Substep 3b.3: \(L = \min _k(S^z_k(q_k))\) (or \(\min _j(S^y_j(y_j))\)) is increasing non negligibly towards \(s\), so that \(L\) cannot both converge towards \({\hat{L}}\) and stay lower than \({\hat{L}}\) during the whole time interval: there is a contradiction
Like in previous proofs, we are interested in what happens during the \([t^s - A(\lambda ),t^s]\) time-interval, with \(t^s -A(\lambda )>t^L(\epsilon )\) (for some \(\epsilon <\lambda \)). Since, during this time-interval, \(s(t) > {\hat{L}} + \lambda /2\) and \(L < {\hat{L}}\), we know that there exists a \(k\) such that \(L(t^s) = S^z_k(q_k(t^s)) < {\hat{L}}\), or a \(j\) such that \(L(t^s) = S^y_j(y_j(t^s)) < {\hat{L}}\).
For both this step (3b.3) we choose to first only present arguments for the case \(L(t^s) = \min _k(S^z_k(q_k))\); almost similar arguments for the case \(L(t^s) = \min _j(S^y_j(y_j))\) will then be briefly presented.
-
if \(L(t^s) = \min _k(S^z_k(q_k))\), then during the whole considered time-interval, as \(S^z_k(q_k)\) was increasing, we know that
$$\begin{aligned} {\hat{L}} - \epsilon < L \le S^z_k(q_k) \le S^z_k(q_k(t^s)) < {\hat{L}} \end{aligned}$$(29)so that \(Q_k({\hat{L}}-\epsilon ) < q_k(t) < Q_k({\hat{L}})\). For the \(k\) species, the dynamics of \(q_k\) can then be lower bounded:
$$\begin{aligned} {\dot{q}}_k \ge \rho _k({\hat{L}}+\lambda /2) - f_k(Q_k({\hat{L}})) \end{aligned}$$and then
$$\begin{aligned} {\dot{q}}_k \ge \rho _k({\hat{L}}+\lambda /2) - \rho _k({\hat{L}}) = G_k(\lambda ) \end{aligned}$$positive, so that the increase of \(q_k\) during the \([t^s - A(\lambda ),t^s]\) time-interval is also lower bounded:
$$\begin{aligned} q_k(t^s) - q_k(t^s - A(\lambda )) \ge G_k(\lambda ) A(\lambda ) = H_k(\lambda ) \end{aligned}$$Since \(Q_k = S^{z^{-1}}_k\) is locally Lipschitz with constant \(K\) (because \(f'_k > 0\)), we have
$$\begin{aligned} q_k(t^s)-q_k(t^s-A(\lambda ))&= Q_k(S^z_k(q_k(t^s)))-Q_k(S^z_k(q_k(t^s-A(\lambda ))))\\&< K \left[ S^z_k(q_k(t^s)) - S^z_k(q_k(t^s-A(\lambda ))) \right] \end{aligned}$$so that the corresponding increase of \(S^z_k(q_k)\) is lower bounded with
$$\begin{aligned} S^z_k(q_k(t^s)) - S^z_k(q_k(t^s - A(\lambda ))) \ge \frac{1}{K} H_k(\lambda ) \end{aligned}$$and then
$$\begin{aligned} S^z_k(q_k(t^s - A(\lambda ))) < {\hat{L}} - \frac{1}{K} H_k(\lambda ) \end{aligned}$$which implies the same higher bound for \(L\):
$$\begin{aligned} L(t^s - A(\lambda )) < {\hat{L}} - \frac{1}{K} H_k(\lambda ) \end{aligned}$$By choosing \(\epsilon < \frac{1}{K} H_k(\lambda )\), this inequality is contradictory with (29) so that Case 2 is not possible
-
if \(L(t^s) = \min _j(S^y_j(y_j))\), then the same arguments can be developed for the \(j\) species, with a lower bound \(G_j(\lambda )\) on the \(y_j\) dynamics:
$$\begin{aligned} G_j(\lambda ) = \beta _j({\hat{L}}+\lambda /2,Y_j({\hat{L}})) - \beta _j({\hat{L}},Y_j({\hat{L}})) > 0 \end{aligned}$$and then an increase of variable \(y_j\) at least equal to \(H_j(\lambda ) = G_j(\lambda ) A(\lambda )\) followed by a non negligible increase of \(L\)
$$\begin{aligned} L(t^s - A(\lambda )) < {\hat{L}} - \frac{1}{K} H_j(\lambda ) \end{aligned}$$because \(Y_j\) is locally Lipschitz. Finally a contradiction also occurs when \(\epsilon < \frac{1}{K} H_j(\lambda )\):
$$\begin{aligned} L(t^s - A(\lambda )) < {\hat{L}} - \epsilon \end{aligned}$$
1.3 C Computation of system \(\Sigma \) Jacobian Matrix and eigenvalues for all the equilibria
Computation of the Jacobian Matrix of system \(\Sigma \), with \(s=s_{in}-\sum _{i=1}^{N_x} x_i-\sum _{j=1}^{N_y} y_j-\sum _{k=1}^{N_z} q_k z_k\).
where
and
and
and
Fortunately for eigenvalue computations, at equilibria the null biomasses will simplify the matrix:
-
when \(x_i=0\), then the whole \(i^{th}\) line gives eigenvalue \(\alpha _i(s)-D\) (denoted “\(x_i\)-eigenvalue”) and can be deleted, as well as the \(i^{th} column\);
-
when \(y_j=0\) then the whole \(N_x+j^{th}\) line gives eigenvalue \(\beta _j(s,y_j)-D\) (denoted “\(y_j\)-eigenvalue”) and can be deleted, as well as the \(N_x+j^{th}\) corresponding column;
-
when \(z_k=0\) then the whole \(N_x+N_y+k^{th}\) line gives eigenvalue \(\gamma _k(q_k)-D\) (denoted “\(z_k\)-eigenvalue”) and can be deleted, as well as the \(N_x+N_y+k^{th}\) column; in a second step, the whole \(N_x+N_y+N_z+k^{th}\) column can also be deleted and gives eigenvalue \(\frac{-\partial f_k}{\partial q_k}\) (denoted “\(q_k\)-eigenvalue”), as well as the \(N_x+N_y+N_z+k^{th}\) line.
1.3.1 C.1 Complete washout equilibrium
With this in hand, we see that for equilibrium \({\tilde{E}}_0\;(x_i=y_j=z_k=0)\) the Jacobian matrix is triangular, so that the eigenvalues lay on the diagonal. They are:
-
\(\alpha _i(s_{in})-D\)
-
\(\beta _j(s_{in},0)-D\)
-
\(\gamma _k(Q_k(s_{in}))-D\)
-
\(- \frac{\partial f_k}{\partial q_k} \quad \hbox {(negatives)}\)
We denote \(n_x,\; n_y,\; n_z\) the number of M-, C- and Q-species verifying the inequalities of Hypothesis 5, and thus having the possibility to be at equilibrium with a positive biomass, under controls \(D\) and \(s_{in}\). Each of these species has a positive corresponding eigenvalue on this equilibrium, so that equilibrium \({\tilde{E}}_0\) has \(n_x+n_y+n_z\) positive eigenvalues, and \(N_x-n_x+N_y-n_y+ 2 N_z - n_z\) negative eigenvalues.
1.3.2 C.2 M-only equilibria
For equilibrium \(E^{x\star }_i\) we get all the previously cited x-, y-, z- and q-eigenvalues:
-
\(\alpha _l(s^{x\star }_i)-D\) whose signs are the same as \(sign(s^{x\star }_i-s^{x\star }_l)\)
-
\(\beta _j(s^{x\star }_i,0)-D\) which are positive if the \(j^{th}\) species is \(s^{x\star }_i\)-compliant, or negative else;
-
\(\gamma _k(Q_k(s^{x\star }_i))-D\) whose signs are the same as \(sign(s^{x\star }_i-s^{z\star }_k)\)
-
\(\frac{-\partial f_k}{\partial q_k}\) which are all negative
and the remaining eigenvalue corresponds to the positive \(x_i\)-only dynamics:
which yields the eigenvalue \(-\frac{\partial \alpha _i}{\partial s} x_i^{\star }\) for free bacteria species \(i\). Each free species with a substrate subsistence concentration \(s^{x\star }_l\) or \(s^{z\star }_k\) lower than \(s^{x\star }_i\) gives a positive eigenvalue. Among all the \(E^{x\star }_i\) equilibria, only \(E^{x\star }_1\) is stable if and only if \(s^{\star }=s_1^{x\star }<s_1^{z\star }\), and if all the C-species are not \(s^{x\star }_1\)-compliant.
1.3.3 C.3 Q-only equilibria
For Equilibrium \(E^{z\star }_k\) we get all the
-
\(x\)-eigenvalues whose signs are the sign of \(sign(s^{z\star }_k-s^{x\star }_i)\);
-
\(y\)-eigenvalues: as previously, \(y\)-eigenvalues are positive if the corresponding C-species is \(s^{z\star }_k\)-compliant and negative else;
-
\(z_l\)-eigenvalues whose signs are the sign of \(sign(s^{z\star }_k-s^{z\star }_l)\);
-
\(q_l\)-eigenvalues for all \(l \ne k\) (negative);
and the remaining eigenvalues correspond to the positive \((z_k,q_k)\)-only dynamics:
and we obtain the following resulting matrix:
which has negative trace and positive determinant, so that its two eigenvalues are real negative. Just like before, each free species with a substrate subsistence concentration \(s^{x\star }_i\) or \(s^{z\star }_l\) lower than \(s^{z\star }_k\) gives a positive eigenvalue. Among all the \(E^{z\star }_k\) equilibria, only \(E^{z\star }_1\) is stable if and only if \(s^{\star }=s_1^{z\star }<s_1^{x\star }\), and if all the C-species are not \(s^{z\star }_1\)-compliant.
1.3.4 C.4 C-only equilibria
Now let us consider the \(E^{y\star }_G\) equilibria for which all \(j \in G\) (where \(G\) represents a subset of \(\{1,\ldots ,N_y\}\)) C-species coexist in the chemostat under substrate concentration \(s^{y\star }_G\), while all the free species are washed out. \(s^{y\star }_G\) is defined by \(s^{y\star }_G + \sum _{j \in G} Y_j(s^{y\star }_G) = s_{in}\). Note that some of the \(G\) species can have a null biomass on these equilibria, as \(Y_j(s^{y\star }_G)\) might be null for some \(j \in G\).
This gives all the
-
\(x\)-eigenvalues whose sign are the same as the signs of \(s^{x\star }_i-s^{y\star }_G\);
-
\(z\)-eigenvalues whose sign are the same as the signs of \(s^{z\star }_k-s^{y\star }_G\);
-
\(q\)-eigenvalues (negative).
All the \(y_j\) species who are not included in \(G\) give negative eigenvalues if they are not \(s^{y\star }_G\)-compliant, and positive eigenvalues else; their eigenvalues cannot be null because of technical Hypothesis 7. All the \(y_j\) species who are included in \(G\) but have a null biomass \(Y_j(s^{y\star }_G)\) on the \(E^{y\star }_G\) equilibrium give negative eigenvalues. Now let us study the remaining matrix \(J^{yy}_G\) which is composed of all the \(j \in G\) lines of \(J^{yy}\), for which \(Y_j(s^{y\star }_G)>0\), and thus \(\beta _j(s^{y\star }_G, Y_j(s^{y\star }_G))=D\):
which yields the Jacobian matrix:
with \(a_j = \frac{\partial \beta _j}{\partial s}Y_j(s^{y\star }_G)>0\) and \(b_j = -\frac{\partial \beta _j}{\partial y_j}Y_j(s^{y\star }_G)>0\).
Let us show that this matrix has only real negative eigenvalues, by using the definition of an eigenvalue \(\lambda =(A + B i)\), where \(A \in {\mathbb {R}}\) is the real part and \(B \in {\mathbb {R}}\) the imaginary part:
We obtain \(n\) equations:
and thus
If we have \(A+Bi+b_j = 0\) for some \(j\), then \(B=0\) and \(A=-b_j<0\) so that we have a negative eigenvalue.
Else, isolating \(y_j\) yields
Summing over \(j\), we obtain
Now if \(\sum _j y_j=0\), since some \(y_j\) must be different of \(0\), (31) yields, for that \(j\), that \(A+Bi+b_j = 0\) so that again \(B=0\) and \(A=-b_j<0\).
Else, simplifying the sums of \(y_l\) and \(y_j\), this yields
Since the left-hand-side is real, the imaginary part of the right-hand side must be zero, which imposes \(B=0\). For the right-hand-side to be positive, at least one of the \(b_j+A\) must be negative, which translates into \(\min _j (b_j+A)<0\) and
We conclude from this that all eigenvalues of this matrix are real negative.
Finally, an \(E^{y\star }_G\) equilibrium is stable if and only if all the C-species not contained in \(G\) are not \(s^{y\star }_G\)-compliant (this is equivalent to saying that \(s^{y\star }_G = s^{y\star }, \hbox { with } s^{y\star }= s^{y\star }_{\{1,\ldots ,N_y\}}\)), and if \(s^{\star }=s^{y\star }\).
1.3.5 C.5 M-coexistive equilibria
In this section we consider equilibria \(E^{(x,y)\star }_{i,G}\) where free bacteria species \(x_i\) coexists with the C-species in \(G\), a subset of \(\{1,\ldots ,N_y\}\), under substrate concentration \(s^{x\star }_i\).
We obtain here all the
-
\(x_l\)-eigenvalues (\(l \ne i\)) whose signs are the signs of \(s^{x\star }_i-s^{x\star }_l\);
-
\(z\)-eigenvalues whose sign is the sign of \(s^{x\star }_i-s^{z\star }_k\);
-
\(q\)-eigenvalues (negative);
\(y_j\)-eigenvalues with \(j\) not in \(G\) are positive if \(y_j\) is \(s^{x\star }_i\)-compliant and negative else; \(y_j\)-eigenvalues with \(j\) in \(G\) but have a null biomass \(Y_j(s^{x\star }_i)\) give negative eigenvalues. For the remaining C-species, and species \(x_i\), we obtain the following system:
and the Jacobian matrix:
with \(a_0=\frac{\partial \alpha _i}{\partial s}x_i^{\star }>0,\; a_j = \frac{\partial \beta _j}{\partial s}Y_j(s^{x\star }_i)>0\) and \(b_j = -\frac{\partial \beta _j}{\partial y_j}Y_j(s^{x\star }_i)>0\) (for \(j\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}\)). This matrix has exactly the same form has the one considered on Appendix C.4. The only difference being that the there is no “\(b_0\)” in the first element of the matrix. Defining a \(b_0=0\), we can then conclude that all eigenvalues are real and negative because, following the development of Appendix C.4, we obtain
Finally, only equilibrium \(E^{(x,y)\star }_{1,\{1,\ldots ,N_y\}}\) can be stable if and only if \(s^{\star }=s^{x\star }_1\).
1.3.6 C.6 Q-coexistive equilibria
In this section we consider equilibria \(E^{(z,y)\star }_{k,G}\) where phytoplankton species \(z_k\) coexists with the aggregating species in \(G\), a subset of \(\{1,\ldots ,N_y\}\), under substrate concentration \(s^{z\star }_k\).
We obtain here all the
-
\(x\)-eigenvalues whose signs are the signs of \(s^{z\star }_k-s^{x\star }_i\);
-
\(z_l\)-eigenvalues (\(l \ne j\)) whose sign are the signs of \(s^{z\star }_k-s^{z\star }_l\);
-
\(q\)-eigenvalues (negative);
\(y_j\)-eigenvalues with \(j\) not in \(G\) are positive if \(y_j\) is \(s^{z\star }_k\)-compliant and negative else; \(y_j\)-eigenvalues with \(j\) in \(G\) but have a null biomass \(Y_j(s^{z\star }_k)\) give negative eigenvalues. For the remaining C-species, and species \(z_k\), we obtain the following model
and, swapping the last two equations and using \(f_k(q_k)=\gamma _k(q_k)q_k\), we get the Jacobian matrix:
with \(a_j = \frac{\partial \beta _j}{\partial s}Y_j(s^{z\star }_k)>0\) and \(b_j = -\frac{\partial \beta _j}{\partial y_j}Y_j(s^{z\star }_k)>0\) for \(j\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}\), with \(a_{n+1}=\frac{\partial \rho _k}{\partial s}\) and \(b_{n+1}=\frac{\partial \gamma _k}{\partial q_k}\). By using the definition of eigenvalue \(\lambda =(A + B i)\) [see (30)] we follow a similar path to that of Appendix C.4. We show that the eigenvalues are real and negative by isolating \(\sum _j y_j+q_k^{\star } z_k+z_j^{\star } q_k\) instead of \(\sum _j y_j\) with \((y_1,\ldots ,y_n,q_k,z_k)\) a candidate eigenvector. One of the crucial arguments concerns the case where the summation is zero and with either some \(y_j\ne 0\), which leads to identical arguments to those of Appendix C.4 or, if all \(y_j= 0,q_k\) and \(z_k\) are both non-zero and of opposite signs. In the latter case, the \(q_k\) line of the eigenvector definition then becomes \((-b_{n+1}q_k^{\star }-\gamma _k)q_k=(A+Bi)q_k\) so that necessarily \(B=0\) and \(A<0\). The remainder of the proof is unchanged.
Finally, only equilibrium \(E^{(z,y)\star }_{1,\{1,\ldots ,N_y\}}\) can be stable if and only if \(s^{\star }=s^{z\star }_1\).
Remark 7
The same work can be done for the whole system (9), where the eigenvalues are the same, plus the \(-D\) eigenvalue which arises from mass balance dynamics (10).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grognard, F., Masci, P., Benoît, E. et al. Competition between phytoplankton and bacteria: exclusion and coexistence. J. Math. Biol. 70, 959–1006 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-014-0783-x
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-014-0783-x