No Access

DYNAMICS OF A FISHERY MODEL WITH CONTINUOUS THRESHOLD HARVESTING POLICY AND ITS LEVERAGE FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

JOYDEB BHATTACHARYYA

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4600-2776

Department Mathematics, Karimpur Pannadevi College, Nadia, West Bengal 741152, India

E-mail Address: b.joydeb@gmail.com

Corresponding author.

Search for more papers by this author

and

ANAL CHATTERJEE

Department of Mathematics, Barrackpore Rastraguru Surendranath College, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal 700120, India

E-mail Address: chatterjeeanal172@gmail.com

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218339022500334Cited by:4 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

There is a global decline in marine fish abundance due to unsustainable harvesting. An effective harvesting policy can protect the overfished population from possible extinction. In this study, we used a mathematical model characterized by density-dependent refuge protection for herbivorous fish, exhibiting an anti-predator response in presence of a generalist invasive fish. The anti-predator behavior entails predator density-dependent reduced fecundity of the herbivorous fish. The model assumes a continuous threshold harvesting policy (CTHP) for the herbivorous fish and uses the catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) hypothesis for harvesting the invasive fish. The CTHP allows harvesting of the herbivorous fish only when the density of the herbivorous fish exceeds a specified threshold value, thus ensuring the long-term sustainability of the herbivorous fish stock. The existence and stability of steady-state solutions and the bifurcations of the model are investigated. Our study reveals that the level of apprehension of the herbivorous fish and fishing efforts will play a significant role in the stability of the system. We examine the existence of the bionomic equilibrium and then study the dynamic optimization of the harvesting policy by employing Pontryagin’s maximum principle. We discuss different subsidies and tax policies for the effective management of a sustainable fishery. We use numerical simulations to compare the revenues corresponding to the harvest policies based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY), maximum economic yield (MEY), and optimal sustainable yield (OSY) for inferring an ecologically sustainable and economically viable harvesting policy.

Keywords:

References

1. Jackson JB, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW, Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke R, Erlandson J, Estes JA, Hughes TP, Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems, Science 293(5530) :629–638, 2001. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
2. Mansfield B, “Modern” industrial fisheries and the crisis of overfishing, in Global Political Ecology, Routledge, pp. 98–113, 2010. Google Scholar
3. Olson J, Development in theory: Replacing the space of community: A story of cultural politics, policies, and fisheries management, Anthropol Q 78(1) :247–268, 2005. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
4. Rosenberg A, Bigford TE, Leathery S, Hill RL, Bickers K, Ecosystem approaches to fishery management through essential fish habitat, Bull Mar Sci 66(3) :535–542, 2000. Web of Science, Google Scholar
5. Hilborn R, Walters CJ, Ludwig D, Sustainable exploitation of renewable resources, Annu Rev Ecol Syst 26(1) :45–67, 1995. Crossref, Google Scholar
6. Meza ME, Bhaya A, Kaszkurewicz E, da Silveira Costa MI, Threshold policies control for predator–prey systems using a control Lyapunov function approach, Theor Popul Biol 67(4) :273–284, 2005. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
7. da Silveira Costa MI, Harvesting induced fluctuations: Insights from a threshold management policy, Math Biosci 205(1) :77–82, 2007. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
8. Fryxell JM, Packer C, McCann K, Solberg EJ, Sther BE, Resource management cycles and the sustainability of harvested wildlife populations, Science 328(5980) :903–906, 2010. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
9. Lenzini P, Rebaza J, Nonconstant predator harvesting on ratio-dependent predator–prey models, Appl Math Sci 4(16) :791–803, 2010. Google Scholar
10. Leard B, Rebaza J, Analysis of predator–prey models with continuous threshold harvesting, Appl Math Comput 217(12) :5265–5278, 2011. Web of Science, Google Scholar
11. Kronbak LG, The dynamics of an open-access fishery: Baltic Sea cod, Mar Res Econ 19(4) :459–479, 2004. Crossref, Google Scholar
12. Cabral RB, Halpern BS, Lester SE, White C, Gaines SD, Costello C, Designing MPAs for food security in open-access fisheries, Sci Rep 9(1) :1–10, 2019. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
13. Hardin G, The tragedy of the commons: The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality, Science 162(3859) :1243–1248, 1968. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
14. Grilli G, Curtis J, Hynes S, O’Reilly P, Anglers’ views on stock conservation: Sea bass angling in Ireland, Mar Pol 99 :34–41, 2019. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
15. Kar TK, Ghosh B, Impacts of maximum sustainable yield policy to prey–predator systems, Ecol Model 250 :134–142, 2013. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
16. Grafton RQ, Kompas T, Hilborn RW, Economics of overexploitation revisited, Science 318(5856) :1601–1601, 2007. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
17. Cox SP, Walters CJ, Post JR, A model-based evaluation of active management of recreational fishing effort, North Amer J Fish Manage 23(4) :1294–1302, 2003. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
18. Sagoff M, Do non-native species threaten the natural environment? J Agric Environ Ethics 18(3) :215–236, 2005. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
19. Kletou D, Hall-Spencer JM, Kleitou P, A lionfish (Pterois miles) invasion has begun in the Mediterranean Sea, Mar Biodivers Rec 9(1) :1–7, 2016. Crossref, Google Scholar
20. Albins MA, Effects of invasive Pacific red lionfish Pterois volitans versus a native predator on Bahamian coral-reef fish communities, Biol Invas 15(1): 29–43, 2013. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
21. Ritger AL, Fountain CT, Bourne K, Martn-Fernndez JA, Pierotti ME, Diet choice in a generalist predator, the invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles), J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 524 :151311, 2020. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
22. Pasko S, Goldberg J, Review of harvest incentives to control invasive species, Manage Biol Invas 5(3) :263–277, 2014. Web of Science, Google Scholar
23. Zhang H, Cai Y, Fu S, Wang W, Impact of the fear effect in a prey-predator model incorporating a prey refuge, Appl Math Comput 356 :328–337, 2019. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
24. Ling Z, Zhang L, Zhu M, Banerjee M, Dynamical behaviour of a generalist predator-prey model with free boundary, Bound Value Probl 139 :1–20, 2017. Google Scholar
25. Yue Q, Dynamics of a modified Leslie–Gower predator–prey model with Holling-type II schemes and a prey refuge, SpringerPlus 5(1) :4–12, 2016. Crossref, Google Scholar
26. Gupta RP, Chandra P, Banerjee M, Dynamical complexity of a prey–predator model with nonlinear predator harvesting, Discrete Contin Dyn Syst Ser B 20(2) :423–443, 2015. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
27. Datta J, Jana D, Upadhyay RK, Bifurcation and bio-economic analysis of a prey-generalist predator model with Holling type IV functional response and nonlinear age-selective prey harvesting, Chaos Solitons Fractals 122 :229–235, 2019. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
28. Pujaru K, Kar TK, Impacts of predator–prey interaction on managing maximum sustainable yield and resilience, Nonlinear Anal Model Control 25(3) :400–416, 2020. Web of Science, Google Scholar
29. Zhou R, Segerson K, Individual vs. collective approaches to fisheries management, Mar Res Econ 31(2) :165–192, 2016. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
30. Squires D, Clarke R, Chan V, Subsidies, public goods, and external benefits in fisheries, Mar Policy 45 :222–227, 2014. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
31. Parshad RD, Upadhyay RK, Mishra S, Tiwari SK, Sharma S, On the explosive instability in a three- species food chain model with modified Holling type IV functional response, Math Methods Appl Sci 40(16) :5707–5726, 2017. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
32. Campbell RA, CPUE standardisation and the construction of indices of stock abundance in a spatially varying fishery using general linear models, Fish Res 70(2–3) :209–227, 2004. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
33. Bhattacharyya J, Roelke DL, Walton JR, Banerjee S, Using YY supermales to destabilize invasive fish populations, Theor Popul Biol 134 :1–14, 2020. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
34. Bhattacharyya J, Piiroinen PT, Banerjee S, Dynamics of a Filippov predator–prey system with stage-specific intermittent harvesting, Nonlinear Dyn 105 :1019–1043, 2021. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
35. Halder S, Bhattacharyya J, Pal S, Predator–prey interactions under fear effect and multiple foraging strategies, Discrete Contin Dyn Syst B 2021, https://doi.org/10.3934/dcdsb.2021206. Web of Science, Google Scholar
36. Bhattacharyya J, Chattopadhyay J, Non-smooth dynamics emerging from predator-driven discontinuous Prey Dispersal, Nonlinear Dyn 106 :3647–3668, 2021. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
37. Lawrence P, Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991. Google Scholar
38. Gordon HS, The economic theory of a common-property resource: The fishery, in Classic Papers in Natural ReSource Economics, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 178–203, 1991. Google Scholar
39. Kompas T, Chu L, MEY for a short-lived species: A neural network approach, Fish Res 201(3) :138–146, 2018. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
40. Auliyah N, Rumagia F, Sinohaji A, Muawanah U, Bioeconomic analysis of skipjack tuna fisheries in North Gorontalo Regency, Indonesia, IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 890(1) :012051, 2021. Crossref, Google Scholar
41. Kar TK, Pahari UK, Chaudhuri KS, Management of a prey–predator fishery based on continuous fishing effort, J Biol Syst 12(3) :301–313, 2004. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
42. Clark CW, Bioeconomic Modelling and Fisheries Management, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1985. Google Scholar
43. Clark CW, Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Mathematics of Conservation, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2010. Google Scholar
44. Reimer MN, Wilen JE, Regulated open access and regulated restricted access fisheries, Encycl Energy Nat Res Environ Econ 2 :215–233, 2013. Google Scholar
45. Kohn RE, Alternative property rights to wetland externalities, Ecol Econ 10(1) :61–68, 1994. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
46. Boyce JR, Using participation data to estimate fishing costs for commercial salmon fisheries in Alaska, Mar Res Econ 8(4) :367–394, 1993. Crossref, Google Scholar