Dynamic simulation modelers are particularly interested in understanding and being able to distinguish between the behavior of stocks and flows that result from internal interactions and those that result from external forces acting on a system.  For some time modelers have been particularly int

Dynamic simulation modelers are particularly interested in understanding and being able to distinguish between the behavior of stocks and flows that result from internal interactions and those that result from external forces acting on a system.  For some time modelers have been particularly interested in internal interactions that result in stable oscillations in the absence of any external forces acting on a system.  The model in this last scenario was independently developed by Alfred Lotka (1924) and Vito Volterra (1926).  Lotka was interested in understanding internal dynamics that might explain oscillations in moth and butterfly populations and the parasitoids that attack them.  Volterra was interested in explaining an increase in coastal populations of predatory fish and a decrease in their prey that was observed during World War I when human fishing pressures on the predator species declined.  Both discovered that a relatively simple model is capable of producing the cyclical behaviors they observed.  Since that time, several researchers have been able to reproduce the modeling dynamics in simple experimental systems consisting of only predators and prey.  It is now generally recognized that the model world that Lotka and Volterra produced is too simple to explain the complexity of most and predator-prey dynamics in nature.  And yet, the model significantly advanced our understanding of the critical role of feedback in predator-prey interactions and in feeding relationships that result in community dynamics.The Lotka–Volterra model makes a number of assumptions about the environment and evolution of the predator and prey populations:

1. The prey population finds ample food at all times.
2. The food supply of the predator population depends entirely on the size of the prey population.
3. The rate of change of population is proportional to its size.
4. During the process, the environment does not change in favour of one species and genetic adaptation is inconsequential.
5. Predators have limitless appetite.
As differential equations are used, the solution is deterministic and continuous. This, in turn, implies that the generations of both the predator and prey are continually overlapping.[23]

Prey
When multiplied out, the prey equation becomes
dx/dtαx - βxy
 The prey are assumed to have an unlimited food supply, and to reproduce exponentially unless subject to predation; this exponential growth is represented in the equation above by the term αx. The rate of predation upon the prey is assumed to be proportional to the rate at which the predators and the prey meet; this is represented above by βxy. If either x or y is zero then there can be no predation.

With these two terms the equation above can be interpreted as: the change in the prey's numbers is given by its own growth minus the rate at which it is preyed upon.

Predators

The predator equation becomes

dy/dt =  - 

In this equation, {\displaystyle \displaystyle \delta xy} represents the growth of the predator population. (Note the similarity to the predation rate; however, a different constant is used as the rate at which the predator population grows is not necessarily equal to the rate at which it consumes the prey). {\displaystyle \displaystyle \gamma y} represents the loss rate of the predators due to either natural death or emigration; it leads to an exponential decay in the absence of prey.

Hence the equation expresses the change in the predator population as growth fueled by the food supply, minus natural death.


  Overview  A model which simulates the competition between logging versus adventure tourism (mountain bike ridding) in Derby Tasmania.  Simulation borrowed from the Easter Island simulation.     How the model works.   Trees grow, we cut them down because of demand for Timber amd sell the logs.  Wit
Overview
A model which simulates the competition between logging versus adventure tourism (mountain bike ridding) in Derby Tasmania.  Simulation borrowed from the Easter Island simulation.

How the model works.
Trees grow, we cut them down because of demand for Timber amd sell the logs.
With mountain bkie visits.  This depends on past experience and recommendations.  Past experience and recommendations depends on Scenery number of trees compared to visitor and Adventure number of trees and users.  Park capacity limits the number of users.  
Interesting insights
It seems that high logging does not deter mountain biking.  By reducing park capacity, visitor experience and numbers are improved.  A major problem is that any success with the mountain bike park leads to an explosion in visitor numbers.  Also a high price of timber is needed to balance popularity of the park. It seems also that only a narrow corridor is needed for mountain biking
This simulation shows how plant, deer and wolf populations impact each other in a deciduous forest ecosystem.
This simulation shows how plant, deer and wolf populations impact each other in a deciduous forest ecosystem.
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.  Experiment with adjusting the initial number of moose and wolves on the island.
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.

Experiment with adjusting the initial number of moose and wolves on the island.
    Dynamic simulation modelers are particularly interested in understanding and being able to distinguish between the behavior of stocks and flows that result from internal interactions and those that result from external forces acting on a system.  For some time modelers have been particularly int

Dynamic simulation modelers are particularly interested in understanding and being able to distinguish between the behavior of stocks and flows that result from internal interactions and those that result from external forces acting on a system.  For some time modelers have been particularly interested in internal interactions that result in stable oscillations in the absence of any external forces acting on a system.  The model in this last scenario was independently developed by Alfred Lotka (1924) and Vito Volterra (1926).  Lotka was interested in understanding internal dynamics that might explain oscillations in moth and butterfly populations and the parasitoids that attack them.  Volterra was interested in explaining an increase in coastal populations of predatory fish and a decrease in their prey that was observed during World War I when human fishing pressures on the predator species declined.  Both discovered that a relatively simple model is capable of producing the cyclical behaviors they observed.  Since that time, several researchers have been able to reproduce the modeling dynamics in simple experimental systems consisting of only predators and prey.  It is now generally recognized that the model world that Lotka and Volterra produced is too simple to explain the complexity of most and predator-prey dynamics in nature.  And yet, the model significantly advanced our understanding of the critical role of feedback in predator-prey interactions and in feeding relationships that result in community dynamics.The Lotka–Volterra model makes a number of assumptions about the environment and evolution of the predator and prey populations:

1. The prey population finds ample food at all times.
2. The food supply of the predator population depends entirely on the size of the prey population.
3. The rate of change of population is proportional to its size.
4. During the process, the environment does not change in favour of one species and genetic adaptation is inconsequential.
5. Predators have limitless appetite.
As differential equations are used, the solution is deterministic and continuous. This, in turn, implies that the generations of both the predator and prey are continually overlapping.[23]

Prey
When multiplied out, the prey equation becomes
dx/dtαx - βxy
 The prey are assumed to have an unlimited food supply, and to reproduce exponentially unless subject to predation; this exponential growth is represented in the equation above by the term αx. The rate of predation upon the prey is assumed to be proportional to the rate at which the predators and the prey meet; this is represented above by βxy. If either x or y is zero then there can be no predation.

With these two terms the equation above can be interpreted as: the change in the prey's numbers is given by its own growth minus the rate at which it is preyed upon.

Predators

The predator equation becomes

dy/dt =  - 

In this equation, {\displaystyle \displaystyle \delta xy} represents the growth of the predator population. (Note the similarity to the predation rate; however, a different constant is used as the rate at which the predator population grows is not necessarily equal to the rate at which it consumes the prey). {\displaystyle \displaystyle \gamma y} represents the loss rate of the predators due to either natural death or emigration; it leads to an exponential decay in the absence of prey.

Hence the equation expresses the change in the predator population as growth fueled by the food supply, minus natural death.


A simulation model that shows the relationship between the mountain biking trails in derby and the the effect it has on the tourism, 
A simulation model that shows the relationship between the mountain biking trails in derby and the the effect it has on the tourism, 
    Dynamic simulation modelers are particularly interested in understanding and being able to distinguish between the behavior of stocks and flows that result from internal interactions and those that result from external forces acting on a system.  For some time modelers have been particularly int

Dynamic simulation modelers are particularly interested in understanding and being able to distinguish between the behavior of stocks and flows that result from internal interactions and those that result from external forces acting on a system.  For some time modelers have been particularly interested in internal interactions that result in stable oscillations in the absence of any external forces acting on a system.  The model in this last scenario was independently developed by Alfred Lotka (1924) and Vito Volterra (1926).  Lotka was interested in understanding internal dynamics that might explain oscillations in moth and butterfly populations and the parasitoids that attack them.  Volterra was interested in explaining an increase in coastal populations of predatory fish and a decrease in their prey that was observed during World War I when human fishing pressures on the predator species declined.  Both discovered that a relatively simple model is capable of producing the cyclical behaviors they observed.  Since that time, several researchers have been able to reproduce the modeling dynamics in simple experimental systems consisting of only predators and prey.  It is now generally recognized that the model world that Lotka and Volterra produced is too simple to explain the complexity of most and predator-prey dynamics in nature.  And yet, the model significantly advanced our understanding of the critical role of feedback in predator-prey interactions and in feeding relationships that result in community dynamics.The Lotka–Volterra model makes a number of assumptions about the environment and evolution of the predator and prey populations:

1. The prey population finds ample food at all times.
2. The food supply of the predator population depends entirely on the size of the prey population.
3. The rate of change of population is proportional to its size.
4. During the process, the environment does not change in favour of one species and genetic adaptation is inconsequential.
5. Predators have limitless appetite.
As differential equations are used, the solution is deterministic and continuous. This, in turn, implies that the generations of both the predator and prey are continually overlapping.[23]

Prey
When multiplied out, the prey equation becomes
dx/dtαx - βxy
 The prey are assumed to have an unlimited food supply, and to reproduce exponentially unless subject to predation; this exponential growth is represented in the equation above by the term αx. The rate of predation upon the prey is assumed to be proportional to the rate at which the predators and the prey meet; this is represented above by βxy. If either x or y is zero then there can be no predation.

With these two terms the equation above can be interpreted as: the change in the prey's numbers is given by its own growth minus the rate at which it is preyed upon.

Predators

The predator equation becomes

dy/dt =  - 

In this equation, {\displaystyle \displaystyle \delta xy} represents the growth of the predator population. (Note the similarity to the predation rate; however, a different constant is used as the rate at which the predator population grows is not necessarily equal to the rate at which it consumes the prey). {\displaystyle \displaystyle \gamma y} represents the loss rate of the predators due to either natural death or emigration; it leads to an exponential decay in the absence of prey.

Hence the equation expresses the change in the predator population as growth fueled by the food supply, minus natural death.


   Overview     This model not only reveals the conflict between proposed logging of adjacent coups and Mountain bike in Derby but also simulates competition between them. The simulation model aims to investigate the potential coexistence opportunities between the mountain biking and forestry and fi

Overview 

This model not only reveals the conflict between proposed logging of adjacent coups and Mountain bike in Derby but also simulates competition between them. The simulation model aims to investigate the potential coexistence opportunities between the mountain biking and forestry and find out the optimal point for coexistence to help improve Tasmania’s economy. 

 

How the model works 

It is recognized that the mountain biking and forestry industries can help support the Tasmanian community and strengthen the Tasmanian economy. The logging and forest sector in Derby can help the local community generate wealth and create more employment opportunities. The sector main source of income come from selling timber such as domestic and export sales. Nevertheless, the sector’s profit has decreased over the past few years on account of the weaker demand and reduced output. Accordingly, the profitability and output of the sector have fluctuated in response to the availability of timber, the timber price movements as well as the impact of changing demand conditions in downstream timber processing sectors. The slow growth rate for a timber has a negative impact on the profitability of the forestry industry and the economic contribution of this industry is set to grow slower, as there is a positive correlation between these variables. In addition, the mountain biking industry in Derby can bring a huge significant economic contribution to the local community. The revenue streams of the industry come from bike rental, accommodation, retail purchase and meals and beverages. These variables also influence the past experience which is positive correlation between reviews and satisfaction that can impact the demand for the mountain biking trails. More importantly, the low regeneration rate for a timber can have a negative impact on the landscape of the mountain biking and the tourist’s past experience that led to a decrease in the demand of tourists for the mountain biking, as the reviews and satisfaction are dependent on the landscape and past experience. It is evident that the industry not only helps the local community generate wealth through industry value addition but also creates a lot of employment opportunities. Therefore, the Mountain Bike Trails can be regarded as sustainable tourism that can help increase employment opportunities and economic contribution that can be of main economic significance to the Tasmania’s economy. Therefore, both industries can co-exist that can maximise the economic contribution to the local community and the Tasmanian economy.


Interesting Insights

It is interesting to note that the activity of cutting down trees does not influence the development of Mountain Biking industry. By lowering the prices of accommodation, food, bike rental and souvenirs, it can help increase the reviews and recommendations of Mountain Biking that will enhance the number of tourists. In this case, the Mountain Biking industry can achieve sustainable economic growth in the long-term while the economic growth rate of forestry industry will continue to decrease. 


This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.  Experiment with adjusting the initial number of moose and wolves on the island.
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.

Experiment with adjusting the initial number of moose and wolves on the island.
 This model is a modified version of the 'Very Simple Ecosystem Model' (VSEM; Hartig et al. 2019). Controls have been added to gross primary productivity (GPP) and heterotrophic respiration (Rhetero) based on evapotranspiration rates.    Reference:  Hartig, F., Minunno, F., and Paul, S. (2019). Baye
This model is a modified version of the 'Very Simple Ecosystem Model' (VSEM; Hartig et al. 2019). Controls have been added to gross primary productivity (GPP) and heterotrophic respiration (Rhetero) based on evapotranspiration rates.

Reference:
Hartig, F., Minunno, F., and Paul, S. (2019). BayesianTools: General-Purpose MCMC and SMC Samplers and Tools for Bayesian Statistics. R package version 0.1.7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesianTools
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.  We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale websi
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.

We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale website.

I start with these parameters:
Wolf Death Rate = 0.15
Wolf Birth Rate = 0.0187963
Moose Birth Rate = 0.4
Carrying Capacity = 2000
Initial Moose: 563
Initial Wolves: 20

I used RK-4 with step-size 0.1, from 1959 for 60 years.

The moose birth flow is logistic, MBR*M*(1-M/K)
Moose death flow is Kill Rate (in Moose/Year)
Wolf birth flow is WBR*Kill Rate (in Wolves/Year)
Wolf death flow is WDR*W

This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.  We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale websi
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.

We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale website.

I start with these parameters:
Wolf Death Rate = 0.15
Wolf Birth Rate = 0.0187963
Moose Birth Rate = 0.4
Carrying Capacity = 2000
Initial Moose: 563
Initial Wolves: 20

I used RK-4 with step-size 0.1, from 1959 for 60 years.

The moose birth flow is logistic, MBR*M*(1-M/K)
Moose death flow is Kill Rate (in Moose/Year)
Wolf birth flow is WBR*Kill Rate (in Wolves/Year)
Wolf death flow is WDR*W

This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.  We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale websi
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.

We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale website.

I start with these parameters:
Wolf Death Rate = 0.15
Wolf Birth Rate = 0.0187963
Moose Birth Rate = 0.4
Carrying Capacity = 2000
Initial Moose: 563
Initial Wolves: 20

I used RK-4 with step-size 0.1, from 1959 for 60 years.

The moose birth flow is logistic, MBR*M*(1-M/K)
Moose death flow is Kill Rate (in Moose/Year)
Wolf birth flow is WBR*Kill Rate (in Wolves/Year)
Wolf death flow is WDR*W

This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.  We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale websi
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.

We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale website.

I start with these parameters:
Wolf Death Rate = 0.15
Wolf Birth Rate = 0.0187963
Moose Birth Rate = 0.4
Carrying Capacity = 2000
Initial Moose: 563
Initial Wolves: 20

I used RK-4 with step-size 0.1, from 1959 for 60 years.

The moose birth flow is logistic, MBR*M*(1-M/K)
Moose death flow is Kill Rate (in Moose/Year)
Wolf birth flow is WBR*Kill Rate (in Wolves/Year)
Wolf death flow is WDR*W

 ​Physical meaning of the equations  The Lotka–Volterra model makes a number of assumptions about the environment and evolution of the predator and prey populations:        1. The prey population finds ample food at all times.    2. The food supply of the predator population depends entirely on the
​Physical meaning of the equations
The Lotka–Volterra model makes a number of assumptions about the environment and evolution of the predator and prey populations:

1. The prey population finds ample food at all times.
2. The food supply of the predator population depends entirely on the size of the prey population.
3. The rate of change of population is proportional to its size.
4. During the process, the environment does not change in favour of one species and genetic adaptation is inconsequential.
5. Predators have limitless appetite.
As differential equations are used, the solution is deterministic and continuous. This, in turn, implies that the generations of both the predator and prey are continually overlapping.[23]

Prey
When multiplied out, the prey equation becomes
dx/dtαx - βxy
 The prey are assumed to have an unlimited food supply, and to reproduce exponentially unless subject to predation; this exponential growth is represented in the equation above by the term αx. The rate of predation upon the prey is assumed to be proportional to the rate at which the predators and the prey meet; this is represented above by βxy. If either x or y is zero then there can be no predation.

With these two terms the equation above can be interpreted as: the change in the prey's numbers is given by its own growth minus the rate at which it is preyed upon.

Predators

The predator equation becomes

dy/dt =  - 

In this equation, {\displaystyle \displaystyle \delta xy} represents the growth of the predator population. (Note the similarity to the predation rate; however, a different constant is used as the rate at which the predator population grows is not necessarily equal to the rate at which it consumes the prey). {\displaystyle \displaystyle \gamma y} represents the loss rate of the predators due to either natural death or emigration; it leads to an exponential decay in the absence of prey.

Hence the equation expresses the change in the predator population as growth fueled by the food supply, minus natural death.


    Dynamic simulation modelers are particularly interested in understanding and being able to distinguish between the behavior of stocks and flows that result from internal interactions and those that result from external forces acting on a system.  For some time modelers have been particularly int

Dynamic simulation modelers are particularly interested in understanding and being able to distinguish between the behavior of stocks and flows that result from internal interactions and those that result from external forces acting on a system.  For some time modelers have been particularly interested in internal interactions that result in stable oscillations in the absence of any external forces acting on a system.  The model in this last scenario was independently developed by Alfred Lotka (1924) and Vito Volterra (1926).  Lotka was interested in understanding internal dynamics that might explain oscillations in moth and butterfly populations and the parasitoids that attack them.  Volterra was interested in explaining an increase in coastal populations of predatory fish and a decrease in their prey that was observed during World War I when human fishing pressures on the predator species declined.  Both discovered that a relatively simple model is capable of producing the cyclical behaviors they observed.  Since that time, several researchers have been able to reproduce the modeling dynamics in simple experimental systems consisting of only predators and prey.  It is now generally recognized that the model world that Lotka and Volterra produced is too simple to explain the complexity of most and predator-prey dynamics in nature.  And yet, the model significantly advanced our understanding of the critical role of feedback in predator-prey interactions and in feeding relationships that result in community dynamics.The Lotka–Volterra model makes a number of assumptions about the environment and evolution of the predator and prey populations:

1. The prey population finds ample food at all times.
2. The food supply of the predator population depends entirely on the size of the prey population.
3. The rate of change of population is proportional to its size.
4. During the process, the environment does not change in favour of one species and genetic adaptation is inconsequential.
5. Predators have limitless appetite.
As differential equations are used, the solution is deterministic and continuous. This, in turn, implies that the generations of both the predator and prey are continually overlapping.[23]

Prey
When multiplied out, the prey equation becomes
dx/dtαx - βxy
 The prey are assumed to have an unlimited food supply, and to reproduce exponentially unless subject to predation; this exponential growth is represented in the equation above by the term αx. The rate of predation upon the prey is assumed to be proportional to the rate at which the predators and the prey meet; this is represented above by βxy. If either x or y is zero then there can be no predation.

With these two terms the equation above can be interpreted as: the change in the prey's numbers is given by its own growth minus the rate at which it is preyed upon.

Predators

The predator equation becomes

dy/dt =  - 

In this equation, {\displaystyle \displaystyle \delta xy} represents the growth of the predator population. (Note the similarity to the predation rate; however, a different constant is used as the rate at which the predator population grows is not necessarily equal to the rate at which it consumes the prey). {\displaystyle \displaystyle \gamma y} represents the loss rate of the predators due to either natural death or emigration; it leads to an exponential decay in the absence of prey.

Hence the equation expresses the change in the predator population as growth fueled by the food supply, minus natural death.


This simulation shows how plant, deer and wolf populations impact each other in a deciduous forest ecosystem.
This simulation shows how plant, deer and wolf populations impact each other in a deciduous forest ecosystem.
This simulation shows how plant, deer and wolf populations impact each other in a deciduous forest ecosystem.
This simulation shows how plant, deer and wolf populations impact each other in a deciduous forest ecosystem.
 STEM-SM combines a simple ecosystem model (modified version of VSEM; Hartig et al. 2019) with a soil moisture model (Guswa et al. (2002) leaky bucket model). Outputs from the soil moisture model influence ecosystem dynamics in three ways.   (1) The ratio of actual transpiration to maximum evapotran
STEM-SM combines a simple ecosystem model (modified version of VSEM; Hartig et al. 2019) with a soil moisture model (Guswa et al. (2002) leaky bucket model). Outputs from the soil moisture model influence ecosystem dynamics in three ways. 
(1) The ratio of actual transpiration to maximum evapotranspiration (T/ETmax) modifies gross primary productivity (GPP).
(2) Degree of saturation of the soil (Sd) modifies the rate of soil heterotrophic respiration.
(3) Water limitation of GPP (by T/ETmax) and of soil nutrient availability (approximated by Sd) combine with leaf area limitation (approximated by fraction of incident photosynthetically-active radiation that is absorbed) to modify the allocation of net primary productivity to aboveground and belowground parts of the vegetation.

Ecosystem dynamics in turn influence flows of water in to and out of the soil moisture stock. The size of the aboveground biomass stock determines fractional vegetation cover, which modifies interception, soil evaporation and transpiration by plants.

References:
Guswa, A.J., Celia, M.A., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. (2002) Models of soil moisture dynamics in ecohydrology: a comparative study. Water Resources Research 38, 5-1 - 5-15.

Hartig, F., Minunno, F., and Paul, S. (2019). BayesianTools: General-Purpose MCMC and SMC Samplers and Tools for Bayesian Statistics. R package version 0.1.7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesianTools

This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale (Michigan, USA).  Experiment with adjusting the initial number of moose and wolves on the island.    forked from the model "Isle Royale: Predator Prey Interactions" by Scott Fortma
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale (Michigan, USA).

Experiment with adjusting the initial number of moose and wolves on the island.

forked from the model "Isle Royale: Predator Prey Interactions" by Scott Fortmann-Roe
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.  We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale websi
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.

We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale website.

I start with these parameters:
Wolf Death Rate = 0.15
Wolf Birth Rate = 0.0187963
Moose Birth Rate = 0.4
Carrying Capacity = 2000
Initial Moose: 563
Initial Wolves: 20

I used RK-4 with step-size 0.1, from 1959 for 60 years.

The moose birth flow is logistic, MBR*M*(1-M/K)
Moose death flow is Kill Rate (in Moose/Year)
Wolf birth flow is WBR*Kill Rate (in Wolves/Year)
Wolf death flow is WDR*W

Basic idea is to model demand with endogenous growth (but "satiation" becomes possible - eventually - at some notional "sufficiency" level); and supply then tracks demand with some time lag (~5-50 years(?), characteristic of commissioning/decommissioning large scale energy infrastructure). Then add
Basic idea is to model demand with endogenous growth (but "satiation" becomes possible - eventually - at some notional "sufficiency" level); and supply then tracks demand with some time lag (~5-50 years(?), characteristic of commissioning/decommissioning large scale energy infrastructure). Then add cumulative pollution, with a hard constraint/limit which trumps demand and forces supply (of any non-zero polluting source) to zero. In this version we have one source (so no substitution is possible), and it produces a cumulative pollutant, so  we expect to see supply decline and/or crash (according to the specific parameters and dynamics). Of course, "demand" will still carry merrily on its way up anyway, but the interpretation of the consequently growing supply shortfall will be left to the eye of the beholder. In this version we try to "smooth" the decline - using the fractional "exhaustion" of the pollution "quota" as feedback signal to smoothly shift from a dynamic of "supply chasing demand" and one of "exponential mitigation of supply within the remaining pollution quota". This particular dynamic is rigid about not exceeding the quota: it does not allow (and could not cope with) overshoot. There is also no provision for delay in the feedback (that could perhaps be added, and would presumably allow a more prolonged addiction, but then more rapid and painful withdrawal?).
This simulation shows how plant, deer and wolf populations impact each other in a deciduous forest ecosystem.
This simulation shows how plant, deer and wolf populations impact each other in a deciduous forest ecosystem.