 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Dynamic behaviors of a nonselective harvesting single species stagestructured system incorporating partial closure for the populations
Advances in Difference Equations volume 2018, Article number: 245 (2018)
Abstract
A single species stagestructured system incorporating partial closure for the populations and nonselective harvesting is proposed and studied in this paper. Local and global stability property of the boundary equilibrium and the positive equilibrium are investigated, respectively. Our study shows that the birth rate of the immature species and the fraction of the stocks for harvesting play a crucial role in the dynamic behaviors of the system. If the birth rate of the immature species is too low, then the species will be driven to extinction; also, with the increase in the fraction of the stocks for harvesting, the speed of driving the species to extinction becomes increasing. If the birth rate of the immature species is large enough, then the system always admits a unique globally asymptotically stable positive equilibrium; however, with the increase in the harvesting area, the final density of the species is decreasing. If the birth rate of the immature species lies in an interval, then there exists a threshold \(m^{*}\) such that the species will be driven to extinction for all \(m\in(m^{*},1)\), and the system will admit a unique globally asymptotically stable positive equilibrium for all \(m\in(0, m^{*})\); also, with the increase in the parameter m, the system takes much time to reach its steadystate. For this case, though there are some natural protected areas where the harvesting of the species is forbidden, if the area is too small, the species will still be driven to extinction, that is, the small natural protected area has no influence on the protection of the endangered species. Such a finding maybe useful for human beings to design the protected areas for endangered species. Numeric simulations are carried out to show the feasibility of the main results.
Introduction
The aim of this paper is to investigate the dynamic behaviors of the following single species stagestructured system incorporating partial closure for the populations and nonselective harvesting:
where α, β, \(\delta_{1}\), \(\delta_{2}\), \(q_{1}\), \(q_{2}\), E, and γ are all positive constants, \(x_{1}(t)\) and \(x_{2}(t)\) are the densities of the immature and mature species at time t, the following assumptions are made in formulating model (1.1):

1.
The per capita birth rate of the immature population is \(\alpha> 0\); The per capita death rate of the immature population is \(\delta_{1}> 0\); The per capita death rate of the mature population is proportional to the current mature population with a proportionality constant \(\delta_{2} > 0\); \(\beta>0\) denotes the surviving rate of immaturity to reach maturity; The mature species is density dependent with the parameter \(\gamma>0\);

2.
E is the combined fishing effort used to harvest and m (\(0< m<1\)) is the fraction of the stock available for harvesting.
During the last decades, many scholars investigated the dynamic behaviors of the stagestructured species, see [1–16] and the references cited therein. Among those works, there are two typical ideas used to establish the model.
(1) Assume that the immature species needs time to grown up, and denote this periodic as τ, this leads to the time delay model. For example, Chen, Chen, et al. [1], Chen, Xie, et al. [2], Chen, Wang, et al. [3], and Ma, Li, et al. [4] studied the dynamic behaviors of the following stagestructured predator–prey model:
where \(x_{1}(t)\) and \(x_{2}(t)\) denote the densities of the immature and mature prey species at time t, respectively; \(y_{1}(t)\) and \(y_{2}(t)\) represent the immature and mature population densities of predator species at time t, respectively; \(r_{i}(t)\), \(b_{i}(t)\), \(c_{i}(t)\) (\(i=1,2\)) are all continuous functions bounded above and below by positive constants for all \(t\geq0\). \(d_{ij}\), \(\tau_{i}\), \(i,j=1,2\), are all positive constants. They investigated the persistence, extinction, and stability property of the above system. Li, Chen, et al. [5] investigated the stability property of the following mutualism model in a plantpollinator system with stage structure and the Beddington–DeAngelis functional response:
where \(x_{i}(t)\), \(x_{m}(t)\), \(y(t)\) can be described as the immature, mature plant densities, and the pollinators densities at time t, respectively. The authors investigated the persistence, local and global stability of the above system. Lin, Xie, et al. [10] considered the following stagestructured predator–prey model (stage structure for both predator and prey, respectively) with modified Leslie–Gower and Hollingtype II schemes:
where \(d_{12}\) and \(d_{21}\) represent the death rate of mature prey \(x_{2}\) and mature predator \(y_{2}\), respectively; \(\tau_{1}\) is the time length of prey species from immature ones to mature ones, \(\tau _{2}\) is the time length of predator from immature ones to mature ones. By using the iterative technique method and fluctuation lemma, sufficient conditions which guarantee the global stability of the positive equilibrium and boundary equilibrium are obtained. Their results indicate that for a stagestructured predator–prey community, both stage structure and the death rate of the mature species are the important factors that lead to the permanence or extinction of the system. For more works in this direction, one could refer to [1–16] and the references cited therein. We mention here that the topic of the stability of the equilibrium and the extinction property of the ecosystem are the most important topics in the study of mathematics biology, one could refer to [17–35] for more works in this direction.
(2) Assume that the surviving rate of immaturity to reach maturity is proportional to the number of immature species. For example, Wu and Chen [15] studied the following singe species stagestructured ecosystem with both toxicant effect and harvesting:
where \(x_{1}(t)\), \(x_{2}(t)\) represent the population density of the immature and the mature at time t, respectively, \(r_{1}x_{1}^{3}\) is the effects of toxicant on the immature, E is the harvesting effort, \(c_{2}\) is the catchability coefficient. They assumed that the immature is density restricted, toxicant affects the immature population and only harvesting the mature species. They showed that toxicant has no influence on the persistence property of the system. They also considered the system with variable harvest effect, and sufficient conditions which ensure the global stability of bionomic equilibrium were obtained. Chen [14] studied the existence and stability of the strictly positive (componentwise) almost periodic solution of the following nonautonomous almost periodic competitive twospecies model with stage structure in one species:
Here \(x_{1}(t)\) and \(x_{2}(t)\) are immature and mature population densities of one species, respectively, and \(x_{3}(t)\) represents the population density of another species. Khajanchi and Banerjee [16] proposed the following stagestructured predator–prey model with ratiodependent functional response:
By constructing a suitable Lyapunov function, the authors obtained a set of sufficient conditions which ensure the uniform persistence and global asymptotic stability of the system. They showed that the constant prey refuge plays an important role in the coexistence of stagestructured predator–prey species. For more works in this direction, one could refer to [14–16] and the references cited therein.
On the other hand, as was pointed out by Chakraborty et al. [20], the study of resource management, including fisheries, forestry, and wildlife management, has great importance, it is necessary to harvest the population but harvesting should be regulated, so that both the ecological sustainability and conservation of the species can be implemented in a long run. Chakraborty et al. [20] proposed the following predator–prey model:
They tried to investigated the existence and stability property of the equilibria of the system; however, since the system is too complicated, they could not give detailed analysis of the influence of parameter m. Recently, many scholars investigated the dynamic behaviors of the nonselective harvesting ecosystem incorporating partial closure. Lin [22] investigated the dynamic behaviors of the following two species commensal symbiosis model with nonmonotonic functional response and nonselective harvesting in a partial closure:
where \(a_{i}\), \(b_{i}\), \(q_{i}\), \(i=1,2\), \(c_{1}\), E, m (\(0< m<1\)), and \(d_{1}\) are all positive constants, where E is the combined fishing effort used to harvest and m (\(0< m<1\)) is the fraction of the stock available for harvesting. His study showed that depending on the range of the parameter m, the system may collapse, or partially survive, or the two species could coexist in a stable state. He also showed that if the system admits a unique positive equilibrium, then it is globally asymptotically stable. Chen [21] studied the influence of nonselective harvesting on a Lotka–Volterra amensalism model incorporating partial closure for the populations, and he also found that the dynamic behaviors of the system become complicate.
As was shown above, though there are many works on a stagestructured ecosystem [1–16], seldom did they consider the influence of harvesting [15]. Also, though there are several scholars who investigated the dynamic behaviors of the nonselective harvesting ecosystem incorporating partial closure for the populations (see [20–22, 32, 33, 35]), to this day, still no scholars investigated the influence of nonselective harvesting stagestructured ecosystem incorporating partial closure for the populations. This motivated us to propose system (1.1). We will try to give a thorough analysis of the dynamic behaviors of system (1.1).
The paper is arranged as follows. We investigate the existence and locally stability property of the equilibria of system (1.1) in the next section. In Sect. 3, by constructing some suitable Lyapunov function, we are able to investigate the global stability property of the equilibria. Section 4 presents some numerical simulations to show the feasibility of the main results. We end this paper with a brief discussion.
Local stability of the equilibria
The system always admits the boundary equilibrium \(O(0,0)\).
If \(\alpha>(\delta_{2}+Eq_{2}m)(1+ \frac{\delta_{1}+Eq_{1}m}{\beta})\) holds, then the system admits a unique positive equilibrium \(A(x_{1}^{*},x_{2}^{*})\), where
We shall now investigate the local stability property of the above equilibria.
The variational matrix of system (1.1) is
The characteristic equation of the variational matrix is
Obviously, if \(\operatorname{tr}(J)<0\) and \(\operatorname{det}(J)>0\), then both eigenvalues have negative real parts, and the corresponding equilibrium solution is asymptotically stable.
Theorem 2.1
Assume that
holds, then \(O(0,0)\) is locally asymptotically stable.
Proof
From (2.2) we could see that the Jacobian matrix of the system about the equilibrium point \(O(0,0)\) is given by
Hence,
and under assumption (2.4), one has
Consequently, \(O(0,0)\) is locally asymptotically stable. This ends the proof of Theorem 2.1. □
Theorem 2.2
Assume that
holds, then \(A(x^{*},y^{*})\) is locally asymptotically stable.
Proof
From (2.2) we could see that the Jacobian matrix of the system about the equilibrium point \(A(x_{1}^{*},x_{2}^{*})\) is given by
Hence,
and under assumption (2.6), one has
Consequently, \(A(x_{1}^{*},x_{2}^{*})\) is locally asymptotically stable. This ends the proof of Theorem 2.2. □
Global asymptotic stability
This section tries to obtain some sufficient conditions which could ensure the global asymptotic stability of the equilibria.
Theorem 3.1
Assume that
holds, then \(O(0,0)\) is globally asymptotically stable.
Proof
Condition (3.1) is equal to
We will prove Theorem 3.1 by constructing some suitable Lyapunov function. Let us define a Lyapunov function
One could easily see that the function \(V_{1}\) is zero at the equilibrium \(O(0,0)\) and is positive for all other positive values of \(x_{1}\) and \(x_{2}\). The time derivative of \(V_{1}\) along the trajectories of (1.1) is
Obviously, under assumption (3.1), \(D^{+}V_{1}(t)<0\) strictly for all \(x_{1}, x_{2}>0\) except the boundary equilibrium \(O(0, 0)\), where \(D^{+}V_{1}(t)=0\). Thus, \(V_{1}(x_{1},x_{2})\) satisfies Lyapunov’s asymptotic stability theorem, and the boundary equilibrium \(O(0, 0)\) of system (1.1) is globally asymptotically stable.
This completes the proof of Theorem 3.1. □
Theorem 3.2
Assume that
holds, then \(A(x_{1}^{*},x_{2}^{*})\) is globally asymptotically stable.
Proof
We will prove Theorem 3.2 by constructing some suitable Lyapunov function. Let us define a Lyapunov function
where \(k_{1}\), \(k_{2}\) are some positive constants to be determined later.
One could easily see that the function \(V_{2}\) is zero at the equilibrium \(A(x_{1}^{*},x_{2}^{*})\) and is positive for all other positive values of \(x_{1}\) and \(x_{2}\). The time derivative of \(V_{2}\) along the trajectories of (1.1) is
Note that from the relationship of \(x_{1}^{*}\) and \(x_{2}^{*}\), we have
Also, from the expression of \(x_{2}^{*}\), one has
Applying (3.6) and (3.7) to (3.5) leads to
Now let us choose \(k_{2}=1\), \(k_{1}=\frac{\beta x_{1}^{*}}{x_{2}^{*}\alpha}\), then
Obviously, under assumption (3.1), \(D^{+}V_{2}(t)<0\) strictly for all \(x_{1}, x_{2}>0\) except the positive equilibrium \(A(x_{1}^{*}, x_{2}^{*})\), where \(D^{+}V_{2}(t)=0\). Thus, \(V_{2}(x_{1},x_{2})\) satisfies Lyapunov’s asymptotic stability theorem, and the positive equilibrium \(A(x_{1}^{*}, x_{2}^{*})\) of system (1.1) is globally asymptotically stable.
This completes the proof of Theorem 3.2. □
The influence of partial closure
To find out the influence of partial closure, let us consider the single species stagestructured model:
where α, β, \(\delta_{1}\), \(\delta_{2}\), and γ are all positive constants, \(x_{1}(t)\) and \(x_{2}(t)\) are the densities of the immature and mature species at time t. As a direct corollary of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2, we have the following.
Theorem 4.1
Assume that
holds, then the boundary equilibrium \(O_{1}(0,0)\) of system (4.1) is globally stable.
Theorem 4.2
Assume that
holds, then the positive equilibrium \(B(x_{1}^{**},x_{2}^{**})\) of system (4.1) is globally stable, where
Now let us discuss the influence of partial closure in three cases.
Case 1. Assume that inequality (4.2) holds, then for all \(m\in(0,1)\), inequality (3.1) holds, that is, if the system without harvesting is extinct, then, for the system with harvesting, despite the partial closure where the species could not be harvested, the species is always driven to extinction. That is, if the birth rate of the immature species is too low, the species will be driven to extinction.
Case 2. Assume that
holds, then for all \(m\in(0,1)\), inequality (3.4) holds. It follows from Theorem 3.2 that the system always admits a unique positive equilibrium which is globally asymptotically stable. That is, if the birth rate of the immature species is large enough such that inequality (4.5) holds, then the partial closure has no influence on the persistence property of the system. However, from (2.1), one could see that
and
Here, with the increase in the harvesting area, the final densities of the immature and mature species are both decreasing.
Case 3. Now let us assume that
holds, then from (4.3) and Theorem 4.2 we know that the system without harvesting admits a unique positive equilibrium \(B(x_{1}^{**},x_{2}^{**})\), which is globally asymptotically stable. In this case, it follows from Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 that there exists a threshold
where
For all \(m\in(0, m^{*})\), inequality (3.4) holds, and the system has a unique positive equilibrium \(A(x_{1}^{*}, x_{2}^{*})\), which is globally asymptotically stable. In this case, by using (2.1), we could see that (4.6) and (4.7) also hold, that is, with the increase in the harvesting area, the final density of the species is decreasing. However, for all \(m\in(m^{*}, 1)\), inequality (3.1) holds, and the species will be driven to extinction. It is well known that m (\(0< m<1\)) is the fraction of the stock available for harvesting, hence, under assumption (4.8), if the harvesting area is too large, despite the fact that there are some areas where the harvesting is forbidden, the species will still be driven to extinction.
Numeric simulations
Now let us consider the following examples.
Example 5.1
Let us consider the single species stagestructured system incorporating partial closure for the populations and nonselective harvesting:
here we choose \(\beta=\delta_{1}=\delta_{2}=E=q_{1}=q_{2}=1\), \(m=\frac{1}{2}\), \(\gamma=1\).
(1) From Theorems 2.1 and 3.1, we know that if
then \(O(0,0)\) is globally attractive, Fig. 1 is numeric simulation for the case \(\alpha=3\);
(2) From Theorems 2.2 and 3.2, we know that if
then \(A(x_{1}^{*},x_{2}^{*})\) is globally asymptotically stable. Now let us take \(\alpha=5\), then the system admits a unique positive equilibrium \((1, 0.5)\). Figure 2 shows that in this case, \((1, 0.5)\) is globally asymptotically stable.
Example 5.2
Let us consider the single species stagestructured system incorporating partial closure for the populations and nonselective harvesting:
here we choose \(\beta=\alpha= \delta_{1}=\delta_{2}=E=q_{1}=q_{2}=1\), \(\gamma =1\). In this case, since
It follows from the analysis of Case 1 in Sect. 4, for all \(m\in(0,1)\), that the species will be driven to extinction. Figure 3 and Fig. 4 show that with the increase in m, the time for the species to go to extinction becomes shorter. That is, with intense harvesting, the chance for the species to be driven to extinction is increasing.
Example 5.3
Let us consider the single species stagestructured system incorporating partial closure for the populations and nonselective harvesting:
here we choose \(\alpha=10\), \(\beta= \delta_{1}=\delta_{2}=E=q_{1}=q_{2}=1\), \(\gamma=1\). In this case, since
It follows from the analysis of Case 2 in Sect. 4, for all \(m\in(0,1)\), that the system always admits a unique positive equilibrium, which is globally asymptotically stable. Figure 5 and Fig. 6 show that with the increase in m, the density of the species becomes decreasing. That is, with intense harvesting, the final density of the species is decreasing.
Example 5.4
Let us consider the single species stagestructured system incorporating partial closure for the populations and nonselective harvesting:
here we choose \(\alpha=4\), \(\beta= \delta_{1}=\delta_{2}=E=q_{1}=q_{2}=1\), \(\gamma=1\). In this case, since
It follows from the analysis of Case 3 in Sect. 4, that there exists \(m^{*}\approx0.5615528128\) such that, for all \(m\in(0,m^{*})\), the system always admits a unique positive equilibrium, which is globally asymptotically stable, while for \(m\in(m^{*},1)\), the system will be driven to extinction. Figure 7 is the case for \(m=0.8\). Figure 8 and Fig. 9 show that for the case \(m\in (0, m^{*})\), with the increase in m, the density of the species becomes decreasing. That is, with intense harvesting, the final density of the species is decreasing. Also, from Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, one could see that with the increase in m, the system takes much time to reach its steadystate.
Conclusion
Since the pioneering works of Chakraborty et al. [20], many scholars [21, 22, 32, 33, 35] investigated the dynamic behaviors of the nonselective harvesting ecosystem incorporating partial closure for the populations. Though Chakraborty et al. [20] could not give a distinct analysis of the parameter m, both the works [21] and [22] showed that, depending on the range of the parameter m, the system they considered could collapse, or partially survive, or the two species could coexist in a stable state.
In this paper, we propose a nonselective harvesting single species stagestructured system incorporating partial closure for the populations. Our study shows that the dynamic behaviors of system (1.1) differ from those of the system considered in [21, 22] in the sense that the system could not have a partial survival case. In system (1.1), there are only two possible situations: (1) the boundary equilibrium \(O(0,0)\) is globally asymptotically stable; (2) the positive equilibrium \(A(x_{1}^{*}, x_{2}^{*})\) is globally asymptotically stable.
Our study shows that with the increase in the harvesting area, the final density of the species becomes decreasing, or it takes much time for the system to approach its steadystate, it is in this sense that the parameter m has the destabilizing effect to the system.
References
 1.
Chen, F.D., Chen, W.L., et al.: Permanence of a stagestructured predatorprey system. Appl. Math. Comput. 219(17), 8856–8862 (2013)
 2.
Chen, F.D., Xie, X.D., et al.: Partial survival and extinction of a delayed predatorprey model with stage structure. Appl. Math. Comput. 219(8), 4157–4162 (2012)
 3.
Chen, F.D., Wang, H.N., et al.: Global stability of a stagestructured predatorprey system. Appl. Math. Comput. 223, 45–53 (2013)
 4.
Ma, Z.H., Li, Z.Z., et al.: Permanence of a predator–prey system with stage structure and time delay. Appl. Math. Comput. 201, 65–71 (2008)
 5.
Li, T.T., Chen, F.D., et al.: Stability of a mutualism model in plantpollinator system with stagestructure and the Beddington–DeAngelis functional response. J. Nonlinear Funct. Anal. 2017, Article ID 50 (2017)
 6.
Li, Z., Chen, F.D.: Extinction in periodic competitive stagestructured Lotka–Volterra model with the effects of toxic substances. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 231, 143–153 (2009)
 7.
Li, Z., Han, M.A., et al.: Global stability of stagestructured predatorprey model with modified Leslie–Gower and Hollingtype II schemes. Int. J. Biomath. 6, Article ID 1250057 (2012)
 8.
Li, Z., Han, M., et al.: Global stability of a predator–prey system with stage structure and mutual interference. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., Ser. B 19(1), 173–187 (2014)
 9.
Chen, F.D., Xie, X.D., et al.: Dynamic behaviors of a stagestructured cooperation model. Commun. Math. Biol. Neurosci. 2015, Article ID 4 (2015)
 10.
Lin, X., Xie, X., et al.: Convergences of a stagestructured predator–prey model with modified Leslie–Gower and Hollingtype II schemes. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2016, 181 (2016)
 11.
Chen, F.D., You, M.S.: Permanence, extinction and periodic solution of the predator–prey system with Beddington–DeAngelis functional response and stage structure for prey. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 9(2), 207–221 (2008)
 12.
Pu, L.Q., Miao, Z.S., et al.: Global stability of a stagestructured predator–prey model. Commun. Math. Biol. Neurosci. 2015, Article ID 5 (2015)
 13.
Han, R.Y., Yang, L.Y., et al.: Global attractivity of a single species stagestructured model with feedback control and infinite delay. Commun. Math. Biol. Neurosci. 2015, Article ID 6 (2015)
 14.
Chen, F.D.: Almost periodic solution of the nonautonomous twospecies competitive model with stage structure. Appl. Math. Comput. 181(1), 685–693 (2006)
 15.
Wu, H.L., Chen, F.D.: Harvesting of a singlespecies system incorporating stage structure and toxicity. Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2009, Article ID 290123 (2009)
 16.
Khajanchi, S., Banerjee, S.: Role of constant prey refuge on stage structure predator–prey model with ratio dependent functional response. Appl. Math. Comput. 314, 193–198 (2017)
 17.
Xue, Y.L., Xie, X.D., et al.: Almost periodic solution of a discrete commensalism system. Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2015, Article ID 295483 (2015)
 18.
Lin, Q., Xie, X.D., et al.: Dynamical analysis of a logistic model with impulsive Holling typeII harvesting. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2018, 112 (2018)
 19.
Chen, F.D., Wu, H.L., et al.: Global attractivity of a discrete cooperative system incorporating harvesting. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2016, 268 (2016)
 20.
Chakraborty, K., Das, S., Kar, T.K.: On nonselective harvesting of a multispecies fishery incorporating partial closure for the populations. Appl. Math. Comput. 221, 581–597 (2013)
 21.
Chen, B.G.: Dynamic behaviors of a nonselective harvesting Lotka–Volterra amensalism model incorporating partial closure for the populations. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2008, Article ID 111 (2008)
 22.
Lin, Q.F.: Dynamic behaviors of a commensal symbiosis model with nonmonotonic functional response and nonselective harvesting in a partial closure. Commun. Math. Biol. Neurosci. 2018, Article ID 4 (2018)
 23.
Yang, L., Xie, X., et al.: Permanence of the periodic predator–preymutualist system. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2015(1), 331 (2015)
 24.
Xie, X., Xue, Y., et al.: Extinction of a two species competitive system with nonlinear interinhibition terms and one toxin producing phytoplankton. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2016(1), 258 (2016)
 25.
Chen, F., Xie, X., et al.: Extinction in two species nonautonomous nonlinear competitive system. Appl. Math. Comput. 274, 119–124 (2016)
 26.
Yu, S.: Global stability of a modified Leslie–Gower model with Beddington–DeAngelis functional response. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2014, 84 (2014)
 27.
Wu, R., Lin, L.: Dynamic behaviors of a commensal symbiosis model with ratiodependent functional response and one party can not survive independently. J. Math. Comput. Sci. 16, 495–506 (2016)
 28.
Wu, R.X., Li, L., et al.: A commensal symbiosis model with Holling type functional response. J. Math. Comput. Sci. 16, 364–371 (2016)
 29.
Lin, Q., Xie, X., et al.: Dynamical analysis of a logistic model with impulsive Holling typeII harvesting. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2018, 112 (2018)
 30.
Chen, F., Chen, X., et al.: Extinction of a two species nonautonomous competitive system with Beddington–DeAngelis functional response and the effect of toxic substances. Open Math. 14(1), 1157–1173 (2016)
 31.
Huang, S., Chen, F., et al.: Global dynamics of a networkbased SIQRS epidemic model with demographics and vaccination. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 43, 296–310 (2017)
 32.
Lei, C.Q.: Dynamic behaviors of a nonselective harvesting May cooperative system incorporating partial closure for the populations. Commun. Math. Biol. Neurosci. 2018, Article ID 12 (2018)
 33.
Deng, H., Huang, X.Y.: The influence of partial closure for the populations to a harvesting Lotka–Volterra commensalism model. Commun. Math. Biol. Neurosci. 2018, Article ID 10 (2018)
 34.
Yang, K., Miao, Z.S., et al.: Influence of single feedback control variable on an autonomous HollingII type cooperative system. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 435(1), 874–888 (2016)
 35.
Liu, Y., Xie, X.D., et al.: Permanence, partial survival, extinction and global attractivity of a nonautonomous harvesting Lotka–Volterra commensalism model incorporating partial closure for the populations. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2018, 211 (2018)
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to anonymous referees for their excellent comments, which greatly improve the expression of the paper.
Funding
The research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant (11601085) and the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province (2017J01400).
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed equally to the writing of this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Xiao, A., Lei, C. Dynamic behaviors of a nonselective harvesting single species stagestructured system incorporating partial closure for the populations. Adv Differ Equ 2018, 245 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366201817095
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
MSC
 34C25
 92D25
 34D20
 34D40
Keywords
 Stage structure
 Species
 Local stability
 Lyapunov function
 Global stability