Scinovex

Research article · 2022 · Full text

International Journal of Statistics and Applied Mathematics

The Laplace transform decomposition method applied to the numerical solution of the food chain ecoepidemic model

Liberty Ebiwareme

Volume 7(1) · Pages 132–145 · DOI: 10.22271/maths.2022.v7.i1b.784 ↗

Research areasCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

↓ Read full-text PDF4 citations

Abstract

Author-written

The aim of this study is to theoretically investigate the model parameters of the food chain ecoepidemic model using the Laplace transform decomposition method. The first order autonomous differential equations governing the model were reduced via the Laplace transform and Adomian decomposition to an algebraic equation, where the inverse Laplace transform gives the pertinent parameters. The analytically obtained solution which is the partial sum of the infinite series is then treated with Pade approximation to improve its convergence. To validate the results obtained, we compare the numerical solution via LADM with other semi-analytical methods viz LADM-Pade and Daftardar-Jafari (DJM. The results obtained are presented in tables and figures. The comparison showed, there is excellent agreement between the methods. It is observed the method is valid, efficient, applicable, robust, and computationally convenient to handle both linear and nonlinear differential as well partial differential equations.

Summary

Source-checked

Plain-language reading of the full paper, prepared with AI and checked against the text. Each point links to the authors' own words.

  1. Why it matters

    • Trophic levels within food chains are essential components of ecology and biological sciences. View evidence ↗

      Why it matters

      Trophic levels within food chains are essential components of ecology and biological sciences.

      In the paper's own words

      “In the field of ecology and biological sciences, trophic levels containing food chains play a pivotal role.”

      Page 1

      Found in: Introduction

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 1 ↗
    • Mathematical modeling of food chains has increased in academic interest because of the critical role food plays in ecosystems. View evidence ↗

      Why it matters

      Mathematical modeling of food chains has increased in academic interest because of the critical role food plays in ecosystems.

      In the paper's own words

      “The study of these mathematical models has grown among academics the world over especially in recent times due to the importance of food in the ecosystem.”

      Page 1

      Found in: Introduction

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 1 ↗
    • Modern research in this area includes the study of diseases affecting various levels of predator-prey interactions and the role of parasites. View evidence ↗

      Why it matters

      Modern research in this area includes the study of diseases affecting various levels of predator-prey interactions and the role of parasites.

      In the paper's own words

      “This now encompasses studies of diseases affecting the predator-prey both at the top and bottom, disease affecting interacting species in each population, effect of disease in aquatic lives, disease in parasitic and symbiotic environment and roles of parasites in ecology and many more.”

      Page 1

      Found in: Introduction

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 1 ↗
  2. The question

    • The study aims to theoretically investigate the parameters of a food chain ecoepidemic model using the Laplace transform decomposition method (LADM). View evidence ↗

      The question

      The study aims to theoretically investigate the parameters of a food chain ecoepidemic model using the Laplace transform decomposition method (LADM).

      In the paper's own words

      “The aim of this study is to theoretically investigate the model parameters of the food chain ecoepidemic model using the Laplace transform decomposition method.”

      Page 1

      Found in: Introduction

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 1 ↗
  3. What they did

    • The model consists of three trophic levels: top predators, intermediate predators, and a bottom prey population divided into infected and susceptible subpopulations. View evidence ↗

      What they did

      The model consists of three trophic levels: top predators, intermediate predators, and a bottom prey population divided into infected and susceptible subpopulations.

      In the paper's own words

      “In this present research, we theoretically investigate the model parameters in the Ecoepidemic model of food chain consisting of three trophic levels namely: top predators, intermediate predators and a bottom subpopulation comprising infected and susceptible preys.”

      Page 2

      Found in: Introduction

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 2 ↗
    • The researchers used the Laplace transform and Adomian decomposition to reduce first-order autonomous differential equations to algebraic equations to find model parameters. View evidence ↗

      What they did

      The researchers used the Laplace transform and Adomian decomposition to reduce first-order autonomous differential equations to algebraic equations to find model parameters.

      In the paper's own words

      “The first-order autonomous differential equations governing the model were reduced via the Laplace transform and Adomian decomposition to an algebraic equation, where the inverse Laplace transform gives the pertinent parameters.”

      Page 1

      Found in: Introduction

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 1 ↗
    • Pade approximation was applied to the partial sum of the infinite series solution to enhance its convergence. View evidence ↗

      What they did

      Pade approximation was applied to the partial sum of the infinite series solution to enhance its convergence.

      In the paper's own words

      “The analytically obtained solution which is the partial sum of the infinite series is then treated with Pade approximation to improve its convergence.”

      Page 1

      Found in: Padé Approximation

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 1 ↗
    • The LADM numerical solutions were validated by comparing them with LADM-Pade and the Daftardar-Jafari method (DJM). View evidence ↗

      What they did

      The LADM numerical solutions were validated by comparing them with LADM-Pade and the Daftardar-Jafari method (DJM).

      In the paper's own words

      “To validate the results obtained, we compare the numerical solution via LADM with other semi-analytical methods viz LADM-Pade and Daftardar-Jafari (DJM.”

      Page 1

      Found in: Introduction

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 1 ↗
  4. What they found

    • The comparison between LADM, LADM-Pade, and DJM showed excellent agreement in the results. View evidence ↗

      What they found

      The comparison between LADM, LADM-Pade, and DJM showed excellent agreement in the results.

      In the paper's own words

      “The comparison showed, there is excellent agreement between the methods.”

      Page 1

      Found in: Results and Discussion

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 1 ↗
    • For top predators (W), the LADM and DJM methods yielded identical values of 1.00000 at t=0 and 0.80400 at t=0.2. View evidence ↗

      What they found

      For top predators (W), the LADM and DJM methods yielded identical values of 1.00000 at t=0 and 0.80400 at t=0.2.

      In the paper's own words

      “𝒕 | LADM | LADM-PADE | Daftardar-Jafari (DJM) 0 | 1.00000 | 1.00000 | 1.00000 0.2 | 0.80400 | 0.80400 | 0.80400 0.4 | 0.61600 | 0.61920 | 0.61600”

      Page 9

      Found in: Table 1

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 9 ↗
    • For intermediate predators (V), LADM and DJM both produced a value of 1.55500 at t=0.2. View evidence ↗

      What they found

      For intermediate predators (V), LADM and DJM both produced a value of 1.55500 at t=0.2.

      In the paper's own words

      “𝒕 | LADM | LADM-PADE | Daftardar-Jafari (DJM) 0 | 1.00000 | 1.00000 | 1.00000 0.2 | 1.55500 | 1.55600 | 1.55500 0.4 | 2.02400 | 2.02400 | 2.02000”

      Page 9

      Found in: Table 2

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 9 ↗
    • For infected prey (I), LADM and DJM results were identical at t=0 (1.00000), t=0.2 (2.10000), and t=0.4 (1.60000). View evidence ↗

      What they found

      For infected prey (I), LADM and DJM results were identical at t=0 (1.00000), t=0.2 (2.10000), and t=0.4 (1.60000).

      In the paper's own words

      “𝒕 | LADM | LADM-PADE | Daftardar-Jafari (DJM) 0 | 1.00000 | 1.00000 | 1.00000 0.2 | 2.10000 | 2.00000 | 2.100000 0.4 | 1.60000 | 1.56000 | 1.60000”

      Page 9

      Found in: Table 3

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 9 ↗
    • For susceptible prey (S), LADM and DJM produced identical values of 0.00000 at t=0 and -1.84480 at t=0.2. View evidence ↗

      What they found

      For susceptible prey (S), LADM and DJM produced identical values of 0.00000 at t=0 and -1.84480 at t=0.2.

      In the paper's own words

      “𝒕 | LADM | LADM-PADE | Daftardar-Jafari (DJM) 0 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 0.2 | -1.84480 | -1.83500 | -1.84480 0.4 | -3.47840 | -3.47790 | -3.47830”

      Page 9

      Found in: Table 4

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 9 ↗
  5. What it means

    • The authors conclude that the LADM is a valid, efficient, robust, and computationally convenient method for solving linear and nonlinear differential equations. View evidence ↗

      What it means

      The authors conclude that the LADM is a valid, efficient, robust, and computationally convenient method for solving linear and nonlinear differential equations.

      In the paper's own words

      “It is observed the method is valid, efficient, applicable, robust, and computationally convenient to handle both linear and nonlinear differential as well partial differential equations.”

      Page 1

      Found in: Introduction

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 1 ↗
    • The final analysis indicates that the method is correct and efficient, requiring less computational effort. View evidence ↗

      What it means

      The final analysis indicates that the method is correct and efficient, requiring less computational effort.

      In the paper's own words

      “The result shows, the method is robust, applicable, correct, valid, and efficient with less computational work.”

      Page 13

      Found in: Concluding Remarks

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 13 ↗

Visual summary

3 visuals

Illustrations explain the paper; charts are replotted from the paper's own table values.

AI-generated illustration
AI-generated conceptual illustration (a three-level food chain consisting of a hawk, a snake, and a group of mice). It explains the idea and does not show study data.↗ Enlarge
Food Chain Ecoepidemic Structure
AI-generated conceptual illustration (a three-level food chain consisting of a hawk, a snake, and a group of mice). It explains the idea and does not show study data.

AI-generated conceptual illustration (a three-level food chain consisting of a hawk, a snake, and a group of mice). It explains the idea and does not show study data.

Open full-size image ↗

Food Chain Ecoepidemic Structure

AI-generated conceptual illustration (a three-level food chain consisting of a hawk, a snake, and a group of mice). It explains the idea and does not show study data.

View source evidence ↗
Replotted from source data
Replotted from Table 1 (page 9) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.↗ Enlarge
0: LADM vs LADM-PADE vs Daftardar-Jafari (DJM)
Replotted from Table 1 (page 9) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Replotted from Table 1 (page 9) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Open full-size image ↗

0: LADM vs LADM-PADE vs Daftardar-Jafari (DJM)

Replotted from Table 1 (page 9) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

View source evidence ↗
Replotted from source data
Replotted from Table 1 (page 9) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.↗ Enlarge
0.2: LADM vs LADM-PADE vs Daftardar-Jafari (DJM)
Replotted from Table 1 (page 9) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Replotted from Table 1 (page 9) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Open full-size image ↗

0.2: LADM vs LADM-PADE vs Daftardar-Jafari (DJM)

Replotted from Table 1 (page 9) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

View source evidence ↗

Figures & tables

From the original paper
Numerical Computation for Top predators W(t)Table 1Page 9Numerical Computation for Intermediate predator V(t)Table 2Page 9Numerical Computation for Infected prey in subpopulation I(t)Table 3Page 9Numerical Computation for Susceptible prey in subpopulation S(t)Table 4Page 9Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and R-K for Top predator at fixed TimeFigure 1Page 10Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and R-K for Intermediate PreyFigure 2Page 10Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and R-K for Infected Prey PopulationFigure 3Page 10Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and DJM for Susceptible Prey PopulationFigure 4Page 11Variation of Top Predator and Intermediate Predator at fixed TimeFigure 5Page 11Comparison of Susceptible Prey and Top Predator for constant TimeFigure 6Page 11Comparison of Intermediate Predator and Susceptible Prey at fixed TimeFigure 7Page 12Comparison of Top predator and Infected Prey at fixed TimeFigure 8Page 12Comparison of Intermediate predator and Infected prey for Fixed TimeFigure 9Page 12Comparison of Infected Prey and Susceptible Prey at fixed TimeFigure 10Page 13Comparison of Top predator, Intermediate predator, Infected prey and Susceptible prey at fixed TimeFigure 11Page 13
FULL TEXT Original article · reflowed for reading

Introduction

In the field of ecology and biological sciences, trophic levels containing food chains play a pivotal role. Though this area of research is relatively nascent, researchers have done extensive research on this area with a view to understanding the ever-changing behaviour of the food web, modelling and analysing the changes in the pertinent parameters of the model. Earlier studies in the food chain model were carried out by Gard et al. 1979 [1] , Hallam and Gard 1980 [2] , Shukla 1981 et al. [3] and Kirlinger 1988 [4] . These studies were incisive and elaborate but couldn't incorporate all the intriguing factors that affects the food web and its attendant competition The extinction of the food web was modelled by [5] using a single variable parameter. The study of these mathematical models has grown among academics the world over especially in recent times due to the importance of food in the ecosystem. This now encompasses studies of diseases affecting the predator-prey both at the top and bottom, disease affecting interacting species in each population, effect of disease in aquatic lives, disease in parasitic and symbiotic environment and roles of parasites in ecology and many more. The dynamics and nature of diseases causing organism as well as others factor which breeds competition has equally been giving devoted attention by scholars. Most recently, Tripathi et al. 2004 [6] examined the prey-predator model with an emphasis on a reserved area. The study reveals that, when the parameter bearing the reserved area reaches a certain threshold, Hopf bifurcation sets in. It was further shown that better stabilizing influence results when predator refuse is introduced using Beddington-De Angeles functional response. This, the study opined is useful to national parks where prey and predators co-exist together, and the prey wished to be protected [7] . The Lokta-Volterra system with pest was investigated by Venturino 1993 [8] . In this study, the introduction of the pest was a check to keep predators at bay so the prey population wouldn't be utterly harmed by the predators [9][10] . independently analysed the prey-predator models including the SIS, SIR with infected prey. It was observed in this study that, when the prey population is vulnerable due to the disease introduced, the predators will persistently be present when indeed they are supposed to go extinction. Though most of these models are first order nonlinear autonomous differential equations, several approaches have been adopted to solve them for analytical and approximates solutions. These includes variational iteration method (VIM) [12][13] , Energy balance method [14][15] , Homotopy Analysis method (HAM) [16][17] , Homotopy perturbation method (HPM) [18] , Adomian decomposition method (ADM) [19] , Perturbation method [20] and others. Similarly, the modified Laplace Adomian decomposition method (LADM) have proved to be potent and extensively applied to solve several linear and nonlinear problems in contemporary times since it accelerates the rate of convergence of the approximate solution to the exact solution [21] . investigated the SIR model that incorporate child disease with preventive vaccine strategy using LADM. The system of linear and nonlinear PDEs have been studied by [22] . The study showed when more terms are taken, the convergence of the approximate solution was improved compared to ADM. The Duffing equation, Falkner-Skan equation, systems of nonlinear differential equations, nonlinear coupled PDEs, HIV infection model of CD4+Tcells, Newell-Whitehead-Segel equation, Systems of ordinary differential equations, linear and nonlinear Volterra Integral equation, Nonlinear Volterra Integro-differential equation, nth order integro-differential equation, two-dimensional viscous fluid with shrinking sheet, convection diffusion-dissipation equation, crime deterrence model, dynamics of atmospheric carbon dioxide have all been investigated using LADM [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] . Equally, the Daftardar-Jafari method (DJM) presented by Daftardar-Gejji Varsha, and Hossein Jafari have also been used to solve linear and nonlinear problems including PDEs, Jeffery-Hamel flow problems, nonlinear functional equation, fractional physical differential equation and fractional gas dynamics equation with coupled Burger's equation [34][35][36][37][38] . In this present research, we theoretically investigate the model parameters in the Ecoepidemic model of food chain consisting of three trophic levels namely: top predators, intermediate predators and a bottom subpopulation comprising infected and susceptible preys. The study is organized as follows. In section 1, the detailed introduction of the study is given. The basics of the Laplace Adomian decomposition method (LADM) is presented in section 2. The fundamentals of the Daftardar-Jafari method (DJM) are discussed in section 3. Section 4 gives the application of the LADM to the model to ascertain the model parameters. In section 5, the results are presented in tables, figures, and their explanation. Finally, the conclusion of the study is drawn in section 6.

Laplace Decomposition method (LADM)

In this subsection, we outline the basics of the fundamentals of the fusion Laplace transformation and Adomian decomposition method (LADM) Consider a functional differential equation of the form

Subject to the initial condition

Rearranging the above, we obtain the following relation for

Applying Laplace transform on both sides of Eq. ( 1), supposing the highest differential operator is of order two and using the differentiation property, we get

Next, we apply the inverse transform on both sides of Eq. ( 4), we obtain

Where 𝜙(𝑥) is the term arising from the first three terms on the right-hand side of Eq. ( 5) Next, we assume the solution as decomposing series in the form

Similarly, the nonlinear terms are written in terms of the Adomian polynomials

Where the 𝐴 𝑛 ′𝑠 represents the Adomian polynomials defined in the form

Plugging Eqs ( 6) and ( 7) into Eq. ( 5), we obtain

Matching both sides of Eq. ( 9), we obtain an iterative algorithm in the form

Then the solution of the differential equation is obtained as the sum of decomposed series in the form

Padé Approximation

In Mathematics and other applied sciences, power series representation of a function is usually in truncated form. To approximate these functions to an appreciable degree, polynomials are used because their singularities are easily noticeable in each finite region. However, the radius of convergence may not be large enough to contain two boundaries, for this reason, power series is not always the best method to approximate a function. To overcome this inherent hurdle, a new approximation is applied to the solution obtained using power series as a quotient of two functions with varying degrees in a finite interval. Pade approximation has been widely used to approximate several problems and has tremendous applications especially in computer calculation because it gives a better approximation without truncating its power series and still in problems where the series diverges. The different Pade approximants are obtained with the use of symbolic software Mathematica. [See 39 -42] A rational approximation to a function 𝑓(𝑥) on [𝑎, 𝑏] is the quotient of two polynomials, 𝑃 𝑁 (𝑥) and 𝑄 𝑀 (𝑥) of degrees 𝑁 and 𝑀 respectively. It is denoted by

Now consider the formal power series

Multiply both sides of Eq. ( 14) by a constant keep it unchanged, hence we impose the normalization condition.

Next, we require that 𝑃 𝑁 (𝑥) and 𝑄 𝑀 (𝑥) have non-common factors, so we write the coefficients of the 𝑃 𝑁 (𝑥) and 𝑄 𝑀 (𝑥) as follows

Using Eqs. ( 15) and ( 16), we multiply Eq. ( 13) by 𝑄 𝑀 (𝑥). This linearizes the coefficient equation. Its is given in detailed form as

Equating the coefficients of 𝑥 𝑁+1 , 𝑥 𝑁+2 , … , 𝑥 𝑁+𝑀 successively to zero, we obtain the system of Equations

For 𝑗 < 0, we define 𝑐 𝑘 = 0 for consistency. Setting 𝑏 0 = 1, Eq. ( 12) become a set of 𝑀 linear equations for 𝑀 unknown coefficients in the denominator.

Solving the above system in Eq. ( 18), the coefficients 𝑏 𝑖 for 𝑖 = 1,2, … . 𝑀 may be found. Since the coefficients of the numerator, 𝑐 0 , 𝑐 1 , 𝑐 2 , … . , 𝑐 𝑘 is known. We equate the coefficients of 1, 𝑥, 𝑥 2 , … , 𝑥 𝑁 , 𝑥 𝑁+𝑀 to obtain the remaining coefficients 𝑎 0 , 𝑎 1 , 𝑎 2 , … , 𝑎 𝑁 𝑥 0 : 𝑐 0 -𝑎 0 = 0

𝑥 𝑁 : 𝑐 0 𝑏 𝑁 + 𝑐 1 𝑏 𝑁-1 + 𝑐 𝑁 -𝑎 𝑁 = 0

Writing the above in explicit form, we obtain

In view of Eqs. ( 18) and ( 19), the numerator and denominator of the Pade approximant are all determined which agrees with the original series to the order of 𝑥 𝑁+𝑀. Now, to solve the system (19) for the set of unknowns, we assume that the Eqs. ( 18) and ( 19) are non-singular, so we can obtain the solution via the determinant.

To obtain the diagonal Pade approximants of different orders such as

⁄ ], we use symbolic software Mathematica

Application of LADM to the Epidemic Model

We consider the eco-epidemic model as follows

By the LADM, we represent the linear terms as an infinite series of the form

Similarly, the nonlinear terms as Adomian polynomials of the form

Where 𝐴 𝑛 , 𝐵 𝑛 , 𝐶 𝑛 , 𝐷 𝑛 and 𝐸 𝑛 are the so-called Adomian polynomials expressed equivalently as follows

Plugging Eqs. ( 28) and ( 29) into Eq. ( 26), we obtain

Matching both sides of Eq. ( 35) we have the following iterative algorithm for the control parameters of the model as follows

Applying the inverse Laplace transform of both sides of Eq. ( 38)- (39), we obtain the following iteratives for the parameters as follows

The next iterate of the problem become

Evaluating the Laplace transform of Eqs. ( 40) and ( 41) and taking the inverse Laplace transform, we obtain the first and approximate solutions of the model 𝑊 0 (𝑡), 𝑉 0 (𝑡), 𝐼 0 (𝑡), 𝑆 0 (𝑡) and 𝑊 1 (𝑡), 𝑉 1 (𝑡), 𝐼 1 (𝑡), 𝑆 1 (𝑡)

Similarly, the succeeding iterative solution of the parameters of interest, 𝑊 2 (𝑡), 𝑊 3 (𝑡), … , 𝑊 𝑛 (𝑡), 𝑉 2 (𝑡), 𝑉 3 (𝑡), … , 𝑉 𝑛 (𝑡), 𝐼 2 (𝑡), 𝐼 3 (𝑡), … , 𝐼 𝑛 (𝑡) and 𝑆 2 (𝑡), 𝑆 3 (𝑡), … , 𝑆 𝑛 (𝑡) are obtained recursively in a similar manner.

Numerical Simulation

Now to obtain the solutions of the control parameters of the model in explicit form, we apply the LADM and take the following values via simulation.𝑊(0) = 1, 𝑉(0) = 1, 𝐼(0) = 1, 𝑆(0) = 1 for the four parameters of interest. Next, we take 𝑎 = 3, 𝐾 = 5, 𝑚 = 1, 𝑝 = 0.2, 𝑙 = 3, 𝑒 = 1, ℎ = 0.5, 𝑞 = 1, 𝛽 = 2, 𝑛 = 0.5, 𝑐 = 1, 𝛾 = 10 and 𝜐 = 0

Using the above, we obtain the first few approximations to the parameters given as

Taking the inverse Laplace transform of both sides of Eqs. ( 42) and (43), we obtain the partial sum of the parameters of interest as follows.

𝑆(𝑡) = 1 + 10𝑡 -4𝑡 2 -0.6𝑡

Results and Discussion

In this section, we present the results in Tables and Graphs and their interpretation. Comparison is made between the result obtained using ADM, LADM-Pade and Daftardar-Jafari method (DJM).

Concluding Remarks

In this present work, we investigate the model parameters of the food chain ecoepidemic model with three trophic levels consisting of top predators, intermediate predators and bottom predators comprising susceptible and infected subpopulation using the Laplace decomposition method. The solutions were obtained and matched with an improved LADM-Pade approximation to increase its convergence. In the final analysis, we compare the results with fourth order Runge-Kutta method. The result shows, the method is robust, applicable, correct, valid, and efficient with less computational work.

Figures and tables from the paper

Table 1. Numerical Computation for Top predators W(t)
𝒕LADMLADM-PADEDaftardar-Jafari (DJM)
01.000001.000001.00000
0.20.804000.804000.80400
0.40.616000.619200.61600
0.60.436000.443200.43600
0.80.264000.276800.26400
1.00.100000.120000.10000
1.2-0.00560-0.02720-0.05600

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image
Numerical Computation for Top predators W(t)↗ Enlarge
Table 1
Numerical Computation for Top predators W(t)

Numerical Computation for Top predators W(t)

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper tableSource PDF · page 9 ↗
Table 2. Numerical Computation for Intermediate predator V(t)
𝒕LADMLADM-PADEDaftardar-Jafari (DJM)
01.000001.000001.00000
0.21.555001.556001.55500
0.42.024002.024002.02000
0.62.404002.404002.39500
0.82.696002.696002.68000
1.02.900002.900002.87500
1.23.016003.016002.98000

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image
Numerical Computation for Intermediate predator V(t)↗ Enlarge
Table 2
Numerical Computation for Intermediate predator V(t)

Numerical Computation for Intermediate predator V(t)

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper tableSource PDF · page 9 ↗
Table 3. Numerical Computation for Infected prey in subpopulation I(t)
𝒕LADMLADM-PADEDaftardar-Jafari (DJM)
01.000001.000001.00000
0.22.100002.000002.100000
0.41.600001.560001.60000
0.6-0.50000-0.51000-0.54000
0.8-4.20000-4.16000-4.13200
1.0-9.50000-9.51000-9.51100
1.2-16.40000-16.35000-16.32000

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image
Numerical Computation for Infected prey in subpopulation I(t)↗ Enlarge
Table 3
Numerical Computation for Infected prey in subpopulation I(t)

Numerical Computation for Infected prey in subpopulation I(t)

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper tableSource PDF · page 9 ↗
Table 4. Numerical Computation for Susceptible prey in subpopulation S(t)
𝒕LADMLADM-PADEDaftardar-Jafari (DJM)
00.000000.000000.00000
0.2-1.84480-1.83500-1.84480
0.4-3.47840-3.47790-3.47830
0.6-4.92960-4.92950-4.92950
0.8-6.22720-6.22710-6.22730
1.0-7.40000-7.41000-7.41200
1.2-8.47680-8.47670-8.47680

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image
Numerical Computation for Susceptible prey in subpopulation S(t)↗ Enlarge
Table 4
Numerical Computation for Susceptible prey in subpopulation S(t)

Numerical Computation for Susceptible prey in subpopulation S(t)

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper tableSource PDF · page 9 ↗
Figure 1. Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and R-K for Top predator at fixed Time
Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and R-K for Top predator at fixed Time↗ Enlarge
Figure 1
Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and R-K for Top predator at fixed Time

Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and R-K for Top predator at fixed Time

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper figureSource PDF · page 10 ↗
Figure 2. Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and R-K for Intermediate Prey
Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and R-K for Intermediate Prey↗ Enlarge
Figure 2
Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and R-K for Intermediate Prey

Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and R-K for Intermediate Prey

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper figureSource PDF · page 10 ↗
Figure 3. Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and R-K for Infected Prey Population
Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and R-K for Infected Prey Population↗ Enlarge
Figure 3
Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and R-K for Infected Prey Population

Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and R-K for Infected Prey Population

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper figureSource PDF · page 10 ↗
Figure 4. Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and DJM for Susceptible Prey Population
Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and DJM for Susceptible Prey Population↗ Enlarge
Figure 4
Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and DJM for Susceptible Prey Population

Comparison of LADM, LADM-Pade and DJM for Susceptible Prey Population

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper figureSource PDF · page 11 ↗
Figure 5. Variation of Top Predator and Intermediate Predator at fixed Time
Variation of Top Predator and Intermediate Predator at fixed Time↗ Enlarge
Figure 5
Variation of Top Predator and Intermediate Predator at fixed Time

Variation of Top Predator and Intermediate Predator at fixed Time

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper figureSource PDF · page 11 ↗
Figure 6. Comparison of Susceptible Prey and Top Predator for constant Time
Comparison of Susceptible Prey and Top Predator for constant Time↗ Enlarge
Figure 6
Comparison of Susceptible Prey and Top Predator for constant Time

Comparison of Susceptible Prey and Top Predator for constant Time

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper figureSource PDF · page 11 ↗
Figure 7. Comparison of Intermediate Predator and Susceptible Prey at fixed Time
Comparison of Intermediate Predator and Susceptible Prey at fixed Time↗ Enlarge
Figure 7
Comparison of Intermediate Predator and Susceptible Prey at fixed Time

Comparison of Intermediate Predator and Susceptible Prey at fixed Time

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper figureSource PDF · page 12 ↗
Figure 8. Comparison of Top predator and Infected Prey at fixed Time
Comparison of Top predator and Infected Prey at fixed Time↗ Enlarge
Figure 8
Comparison of Top predator and Infected Prey at fixed Time

Comparison of Top predator and Infected Prey at fixed Time

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper figureSource PDF · page 12 ↗
Figure 9. Comparison of Intermediate predator and Infected prey for Fixed Time
Comparison of Intermediate predator and Infected prey for Fixed Time↗ Enlarge
Figure 9
Comparison of Intermediate predator and Infected prey for Fixed Time

Comparison of Intermediate predator and Infected prey for Fixed Time

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper figureSource PDF · page 12 ↗
Figure 10. Comparison of Infected Prey and Susceptible Prey at fixed Time
Comparison of Infected Prey and Susceptible Prey at fixed Time↗ Enlarge
Figure 10
Comparison of Infected Prey and Susceptible Prey at fixed Time

Comparison of Infected Prey and Susceptible Prey at fixed Time

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper figureSource PDF · page 13 ↗
Figure 11. Comparison of Top predator, Intermediate predator, Infected prey and Susceptible prey at fixed Time
Comparison of Top predator, Intermediate predator, Infected prey and Susceptible prey at fixed Time↗ Enlarge
Figure 11
Comparison of Top predator, Intermediate predator, Infected prey and Susceptible prey at fixed Time

Comparison of Top predator, Intermediate predator, Infected prey and Susceptible prey at fixed Time

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper figureSource PDF · page 13 ↗

References

40 in the original paper
  1. Gard TC, Hallam TG. Persistence in food web-Lokta-Volterra food chain. Bull Mathematical Biology. 1979;4(16):877-889.
  2. Gard TC. Persistence in food webs: Holing-type food chains. Mathematical Bioscience. 1980;49(1-2):61-67.
  3. Shukla VP, Shukla JB, Das PC. Environmental effects on the linear stability of three species food chain model. Mathematical Bioscience. 1981;57(1-2):35-58.
  4. Kirlinger G. Permanence of some ecological systems with several predator and one prey species. Journal of mathematical Biology. 1988;26(2):217-232.
  5. Roy AB, Solimano F. Global Stability of partially closed food-chains with resources. Bull Mathematical Biology. 1988;48(56):455-468.
  6. Tripathi JP, Abbas S, Thakur M. Dynamical Analysis of a prey-predator model with Beddington-De Angelis type function response incorporating a prey refuse. Nonlinear Dynamics. 2014;80(1):177-196.
  7. Tripathi, P., Gao, X., Pan, Q., He, M., Kang, Y. A predator-prey model with disease in both prey and predator. Phys A, Statistical Mechanics and Application. 2013;392(23):3222-3228.
  8. Venturino E. The influence of disease on Lokta-Volterra systems. Rocky Mt. Journal of Mathematics. 1993;24(1):381-402.
  9. Han L, Ma Z, Hethcote HW. Four predator preys with models with infectious diseases. Mathematics and Computational Modelling. 2001;34(7-8):849-858.
  10. Hethcote HW, Wang W, Han L, Ma Z. A prey-predator model with infected prey. Theory of population Biology. 2004;66(3):259-268.
  11. Askari H, Esmailzadeh E, Zhang D. Nonlinear vibration analysis of nonlocal Nanowires. Compos. Part B, Eng. 2014 Dec 1;67:607-613.
  12. Wazwaz AM. The Variational Iteration Method for solving linear and nonlinear Volterra Integral and Integro-differential equation. International Journal of Computer Mathematics. 2010;87(5):1131-1141.
  13. He, JH. Variational Iteration method for autonomous ordinary differential systems. Applied Mathematics and Computation. 2000;114(2):115-123
  14. Younesian D, Askari H, Saadatnia Z, Kalami Y. Frequency analysis of strongly nonlinear generalized Duffing Oscillators using He's Energy balance method. Computational Mathematical. 2010;59(9):3222-3228.
  15. Biazar J, Hosami M. Homotopy Analysis Method for an Epidemic model. Walaikal Journal of Science and Technology (WJST). 2013;111(13):120-132.
  16. El-Ajou A, Arqub OA. Solution of the fractional epidemic model by Homotopy Analysis method. Journal of King Saud University of Science and Technology. 2013;25(1):73-81.
  17. Biazar J, Eslami M. A new Homotopy perturbation method for solving systems of delay differential equations. Computational Mathematics Applications. 2011;62(1):225-265.
  18. Biazar J, Eslami M. Application of Homotopy Perturbation Method for systems of Volterra Integral equations of the first kind. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. 2019;42(5):3021-3026.
  19. Yildirim A. Homotopy Perturbation Method for solving systems of Partial differential equations. Asian-European Journal of Mathematics. 2001;2(4):657-665.
  20. Makinde OD. Adomian decomposition Approach to a SIR epidemic model with constant vaccination strategy. Applied Mathematics and Computation. 2007;84(2):842-848.
  21. Fadaei J. Application of Laplace-Adomian decomposition method to linear and Nonlinear Partial differential equations. Applied Mathematical Sciences. 2011;5(27):1307-1315.
  22. Yusufoglu E. Numerical solution of the Duffing equation by the Laplace decomposition algorithm. Applied Mathematics computation. 2006 Jun 15;177(2):572-580.
  23. Nasser AS. A Numerical method for the solution of the Falkner-Skan equation. Applied Mathematics Computation. 1997; Feb 1;81(2-3):259-264.
  24. Khuri, SA. A Laplace decomposition algorithm applied to a class of nonlinear differential equation. Journal of Applied Mathematics. 2001;1:141-155.
  25. Khan M, Hussain M, Jafari H, Khan Y. Application of Laplace decomposition method to solve nonlinear coupled partial differential equations. World Applied Science Journal. 2010 Sep 9;9(1):13-19.
  26. Ongun MY. The Laplace Adomian decomposition for solving a model for HIV infection of CD4+Tcells. Mathematics and computational modelling. 2011 Mar 1;53(5-6):597-603.
  27. Pue-on P. Laplace Adomian decomposition method for solving Newell-Whitehead-Segel Equation. Applied Mathematical Sciences. 2013;7(132):6593-6600.
  28. Doğan N. Solution of the System of Ordinary Differential Equation by Combined Laplace Transform-Adomian Decomposition Method. Mathematical and Computational Applications. 2012;17(3):203-2012.
  29. Hendi FA. The Combined Laplace Adomian decomposition Method Applied for Solving Linear and Nonlinear Volterra Integral Equation with Weakly kernel. Studies in Nonlinear Sciences. 2011;2(4):129-134.
  30. Wazwaz AM. The combined Laplace transform-Adomian decomposition method for handling nonlinear Volterra Integrodifferential equations. Applied Mathematics and Computation. 2010;216(4):1304-1309.
  31. Waleed AH. Solving nth-order Integro-differential equation using the combined Laplace transform-Adomian decomposition method. Applied Mathematics. 2013;4(6):882-886.
  32. Koroma, MA, Widatalla S, Kamara AF, Zhang C. Laplace Adomian decomposition method applied to a two-dimensional viscous fluid with shrinking sheet. 2013;7(3):525-529.
  33. Yindoula JB, Youssouf P, Bissanga G, Bassino F, Some B. Application of the Adomian decomposition method and Laplace transform method to solving the convection diffusion-dissipation equation. International Journal of Applied Mathematical Research. 2014 Jan 1;3(1):30-35.
  34. Daftardar-Gejji V, Jafari H. An Iterative method for solving nonlinear functional equations. Journal of Mathematics analysis and Application. 2006;316:753-763.
  35. Hemeda AA. New Iterative method: An Application for solving Fractional physical Differential Equations. Abstract and Applied Analysis. 2013;13:342-360.
  36. Manoj K, Shanker AS. New Iterative method for solving higher order KDV equations. Journal of Current Research. 2016;3(5):152-164.
  37. Mohamed AS. New Iterative method for solving Nonlinear Abel Type Integral Equations. International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences. 2015;14(3):307-315.
  38. Al-Jawary M, Al-Zahraa JAN. Three Iterative method for solving Jeffery-Hamel flow problem. Kuwait Journal of Science. 2020;47(1):1-13.
  39. Boyd J. Padé Approximant algorithm for solving nonlinear ordinary differential equation boundary value problems on an unbounded domain. Computers in Physics. 1997;11(3):299-303.
  40. Padé H. Sur La Représentation Approchée D'une Fonction Par Des Fractions Rationnelles. Annales Scientifiques De L'école Normale Supérieure. 1892;9:193.

Cited by 4

From OpenAlex, OpenCitations and reference lists read by Scinovex