Structural sensitivity of biological models revisited.

Enhancing the predictive power of models in biology is a challenging issue. Among the major difficulties impeding model development and implementation are the sensitivity of outcomes to variations in model parameters, the problem of choosing of particular expressions for the parametrization of functional relations, and difficulties in validating models using laboratory data and/or field observations. In this paper, we revisit the phenomenon which is referred to as structural sensitivity of a model. Structural sensitivity arises as a result of the interplay between sensitivity of model outcomes to variations in parameters and sensitivity to the choice of model functions, and this can be somewhat of a bottleneck in improving the models predictive power. We provide a rigorous definition of structural sensitivity and we show how we can quantify the degree of sensitivity of a model based on the Hausdorff distance concept. We propose a simple semi-analytical test of structural sensitivity in an ODE modeling framework. Furthermore, we emphasize the importance of directly linking the variability of field/experimental data and model predictions, and we demonstrate a way of assessing the robustness of modeling predictions with respect to data sampling variability. As an insightful illustrative example, we test our sensitivity analysis methods on a chemostat predator-prey model, where we use laboratory data on the feeding of protozoa to parameterize the predator functional response.

[1]  Horst Malchow,et al.  Experimental demonstration of chaos in a microbial food web , 2005, Nature.

[2]  Jean-Christophe Poggiale,et al.  Towards methodological approaches to implement the zooplankton component in “end to end” food-web models , 2010 .

[3]  S. Ellner,et al.  Crossing the hopf bifurcation in a live predator-prey system. , 2000, Science.

[4]  R. Arditi,et al.  Variation in Plankton Densities Among Lakes: A Case for Ratio-Dependent Predation Models , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[5]  M. Conroy,et al.  Analysis and Management of Animal Populations , 2002 .

[6]  H. I. Freedman Graphical stability, enrichment, and pest control by a natural enemy , 1976 .

[7]  S Pavlou,et al.  Dynamics of a chemostat in which one microbial population feeds on another , 1985, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[8]  Jeffrey C. Lagarias,et al.  Convergence Properties of the Nelder-Mead Simplex Method in Low Dimensions , 1998, SIAM J. Optim..

[9]  Mary R. Myerscough,et al.  Stability, persistence and structural stability in a classical predator-prey model , 1996 .

[10]  B. Quéguiner,et al.  How far details are important in ecosystem modelling: the case of multi-limiting nutrients in phytoplankton–zooplankton interactions , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  J. Truscott,et al.  Equilibria, stability and excitability in a general class of plankton population models , 1994, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[12]  Y. Kuznetsov Elements of Applied Bifurcation Theory , 2023, Applied Mathematical Sciences.

[13]  Bernd Blasius,et al.  Community response to enrichment is highly sensitive to model structure , 2005, Biology Letters.

[14]  Predator-prey models in heterogeneous environment: Emergence of functional response , 1998 .

[15]  Craig A. Stow,et al.  Evaluation of the current state of mechanistic aquatic biogeochemical modeling: citation analysis and future perspectives. , 2006 .

[16]  Yang Kuang,et al.  Uniqueness of limit cycles in Gause-type models of predator-prey systems , 1988 .

[17]  Horst R. Thieme,et al.  Asymptotically Autonomous Differential Equations in the Plane , 1993 .

[18]  Göran Englund,et al.  Scaling up the functional response for spatially heterogeneous systems. , 2008, Ecology letters.

[19]  Jonathan M. Jeschke,et al.  PREDATOR FUNCTIONAL RESPONSES: DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN HANDLING AND DIGESTING PREY , 2002 .

[20]  Paul Waltman,et al.  The Theory of the Chemostat , 1995 .

[21]  A. Morozov,et al.  Emergence of Holling type III zooplankton functional response: bringing together field evidence and mathematical modelling. , 2010, Journal of theoretical biology.

[22]  J. Simonoff Smoothing Methods in Statistics , 1998 .

[23]  A. Morozov,et al.  Towards a correct description of zooplankton feeding in models: taking into account food-mediated unsynchronized vertical migration. , 2010, Journal of theoretical biology.

[24]  G. Butler,et al.  Predator-mediated competition in the chemostat , 1986 .

[25]  Andrei Korobeinikov,et al.  Stability of ecosystem: global properties of a general predator-prey model. , 2009, Mathematical medicine and biology : a journal of the IMA.

[26]  Michel Loreau,et al.  Trophic Interactions and the Relationship between Species Diversity and Ecosystem Stability , 2005, The American Naturalist.

[27]  John Parslow,et al.  Biogeochemical marine ecosystem models II: the effect of physiological detail on model performance , 2004 .

[28]  Peter A. Abrams,et al.  The Fallacies of "Ratio‐Dependent" Predation , 1994 .

[29]  F. Brauer,et al.  Mathematical Models in Population Biology and Epidemiology , 2001 .

[30]  Simon N. Wood,et al.  Super–sensitivity to structure in biological models , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[31]  J. Demongeot,et al.  From biological and clinical experiments to mathematical models , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[32]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[33]  R. P. Canale,et al.  Experimental and mathematical modeling studies of protozoan predation on bacteria , 1973 .