Akash JBS Published

2nd Reading
December 30, 2022 20:34 WSPC/S0218-3390 129-JBS 2350003
Journal of Biological Systems, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2023) 1–31

c World Scientific Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0218339023500031
MODELING THE EFFECTS OF INSECTICIDES

ON CROP PRODUCTION IN THE PRESENCE
OF INSECT POPULATION
by Arvind Misra on 03/03/23. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
ARVIND KUMAR MISRA∗ and AKASH YADAV

Department of Mathematics, Institute of Science
Banaras Hindu University
Varanasi 221005, India
∗akmisra@bhu.ac.in
J. Biol. Syst. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
Received 28 February 2022

Accepted 12 October 2022
Published 31 December 2022
In this research work, a nonlinear mathematical model is proposed and analyzed to study
the adverse effects of insects on agricultural productivity by controlling the insect popu-
lation using insecticides. In the model formulation, it is assumed that agricultural crops
grow logistically and the growth rate of insects wholly depends on agricultural crops
with Holling type-II functional response. It is further assumed that insects uptake insec-
ticides; thus, the amount of insecticides decreases at a rate proportional to its amount
and the density of insect population, and the growth rate of insect population decrease
in the same proportion. The feasibility of all non-negative equilibria and their stability
properties are discussed. Stability analysis specifies that agricultural crop consumption
rate destabilizes the system; however, the spraying rate of insecticides stabilizes the
system. The conditions for the existence of pitchfork and Hopf-bifurcation are derived.
Considering the spraying rate of insecticides as time-dependent, we have also discussed
the optimal control strategy to minimize both insect density and the associated cost.
The numerical simulation validates the analytical findings.
Keywords: Mathematical Model; Crop Production; Insect Population; Insecticides; Sta-

bility; Hopf-Bifurcation.
1. Introduction
The attack of insects on crops has always been of big concern and poses a threat
to farmers as well as to the industrial and economic growth of any country. Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has estimated that up
to 40% of global crop production is lost annually because of pests. Each year, the
global economy costs more than $220 billion on plant diseases and $70 billion on
the invasion of insects.
Worldwide increase in population compels the farmers to increase crop produc-
tion and for this, they use fertilizers and at the same time, they also use insecticides
∗ Corresponding author.
1
2nd Reading
2 Misra & Yadav

(a) (b)
Fig. 1. (a) and (b) Crop production and pesticide use in the world from 1990 to 2018.
to minimize the loss in production because of insect population. In a report pre-

pared by FAO, it is mentioned that insecticides helped farmers to increase the
production of major crops more than tripled since 1960. Figure 1 demonstrates the
cereal production and the use of pesticides in the world from 1990 to 2018.1,2
In India, approximately 43% of geographical area is used for agriculture, which
is the backbone of Indian economy. Nearly 58% of Indian population use agriculture
as a primary source for their livelihood and contributes about 17% to Gross Value
Added (GVA).3 To minimize the loss in agricultural crop production due to insect
population, farmers use insecticides and it raises the productivity per hectare. The
use of insecticides to keep insects away from agricultural crops is historical as far
as 2500 B.C., when Sumerians realized sulfur to have insecticidal properties and
Japanese used whale oil to control insects in rice paddies.4 Apart from these, several
natural and chemical-based insecticides were identified and used to protect agricul-
tural crops from insects in various countries. The use of insecticides is proliferated
to decrease crop loss and conquer the needs of increasing population.
During the last few decades, it has been noted that farmers are using insecticides
at a large scale to protect their crops from insects and increase the production. The
excessive use of insecticides deteriorates not only the quality of grains (which affects
human health) but also the terrestrial ecology.5–10 Some scientists in the world have
estimated that the use of pesticides in 2050 will be 2.7 times higher in comparison
to 2000 and this can put the climate and living creatures of this planet Earth
in a serious peril.11 Keeping in mind the adverse effects of pesticides on human
health and ecological system, some nations, like Indonesia, Norway, Netherlands,
Sweden, France, Spain, and Belgium, have begun their efforts to reduce the use of
insecticides on agricultural crops.12–15
In a study made by Donatelli et al.,16 it is pointed out that for food security
and to reduce poverty, it is important to educate and train the farmers for pest
management and crop loss modeling. Recently, Roy et al.17 have studied a mathe-
matical model to control virus carrying vector (white-fly) on Jatropha curcas plant
2nd Reading
Modeling the Effects of Insecticides on Crop Production 3
and discussed the different strategies for the control of pest population. Further,
models have been proposed for the optimized effect of insecticides and to evaluate
control techniques.18,19 Chowdhury et al.20 have derived a mathematical model for
pest management by considering the combined effect of chemical pesticides and
bio-pesticides and obtained the optimal concentration profiles for both pesticides
to minimize adverse effects on production in a cost effective way. In the past, some
modeling studies have been carried out to assess the impact of insects and their
possible control mechanisms on the agricultural crop production. Mandal et al.21

have proposed a two-dimensional ecological model consisting of prey (pest) and its
natural enemy as the predator to control pest population using natural enemies
and determined a threshold for which the natural enemies are eradicated from the
system and pest outbreak occurs.
In the case of large density of insect population in agricultural farms, for quick
relief from insects, farmers rely on chemical insecticides rather than biological pes-
ticides. Most of the farmers in India are less educated and they use the insecticides
in their farms according to their own choice or on the advice of retailers, which
is sometimes much higher than the prescribed limit.22 To reduce the use of insec-
ticides in agricultural farms, it is imperative to make the farmers aware of the ill
effects of insecticides and its application in farms. In this direction, mathemati-
cal models are formulated and in these studies, it is pointed out that awareness
among farmers can significantly reduce the usage of insecticides and increases the
crop yield.23,24 To assess the loss in crop production due to insects and possible
its control, Misra et al.25 have formulated a nonlinear mathematical model by con-
sidering that insecticides are used proportional to the density of insect population.
In this model, it is also assumed that crop production grows logistically and the
insect population is wholly dependent on agricultural crops with bilinear interac-
tion. Further, this model has been generalized by considering the role of nutrients
and applied external efforts to increase the crop production.26,27 A lot of studies
are available in literature regarding the application of insecticides to reduce the
density of insect population but very little attention has been paid to formulate
mathematical models in this direction.
In this work, we aim to formulate and analyze a nonlinear mathematical model
to measure the impact of insecticides on crop production by suppressing insect
population. The rate of crop consumption increases with the increase in crop pro-
duction, but eventually levels off at a plateau (or asymptote) as the consumer
(insect) is limited by its capacity to process food.28–31 Therefore, in this paper,
we consider the crop–insect interaction with Holling type-II functional response.
This paper is coordinated as follows. Mathematical model and its assumptions are
introduced in the upcoming section. Non-negativity and boundedness of the system
are discussed in Sec. 3. In Sec. 4, we find the equilibria of the proposed model sys-
tem and analyze the stability of the model at these equilibrium points. Bifurcation
analysis, including the existence of Hopf-bifurcation and its direction and stability
2nd Reading
4 Misra & Yadav
are discussed in Sec. 5. In Sec. 6, the proposed model is extended to optimal con-
trol problem. Numerical simulation is performed in Sec. 7 to validate analytically
obtained results and to get more data about the nature of the model. Finally, we
discussed the outcomes with conclusion in Sec. 8.
2. The Mathematical Model

In this section, we formulate a mathematical model to control the insect population

using insecticides and reduce the adverse effects of insects on crop production. In
the modeling process, the following assumptions are made:
(1) Since it is found that major cereal crops have a logistic pattern of yield
growth,32,33 we assume that the crop production grows logistically (expressed
via rA(1 − KA
) term).
(2) Due to attack of insects, crop production decreases with Holling type-II func-
αAS
tional response (expressed via m+A term) as considered earlier.30
(3) It is assumed that agricultural crops are the only source of food for insects,
therefore growth rate of insects wholly depends on agricultural crops and is
taken proportional to the functional response term with θ as the proportionality
constant (expressed via θαAS
m+A term).
(4) The growth rate of insect population decreases due to natural death (expressed
via δS term) and also due to uptake of the insecticides30,34 (expressed via
λφ1 P S term).
(5) Since excessive insecticides usage on crops might impair agricultural farms and
human health, it is assumed that spraying rate of insecticides used to kill insects
is proportional to the density of insect population (expressed via φS term).
(6) The amount of insecticides decreases at a rate proportional to the product of
its amount and the density of insect population (expressed via φ1 P S term),
and also due to the natural depletion26 (expressed via φ0 P term).
In the light of above assumptions, a flowchart is presented in Fig. 2. The dynamics
of the problem is governed by the following nonlinear differential equations:

dA A αAS
= rA 1 − − ,
dt K m+A
dS θαAS
= − δS − λφ1 P S, (2.1)
dt m+A
dP
= φS − φ0 P − φ1 P S,
dt
with initial conditions A(0) = A0 ≥ 0, S(0) = S0 ≥ 0, and P (0) = P0 ≥ 0.
The model system includes agriculture crop production, A(t); the density of
insects, S(t); and the amount of insecticides, P (t) in a unit area of crop field at a
time t. The parameters r and K are the intrinsic growth rate and environmental car-
rying capacity of crop production, respectively. Here, m is half-saturation constant
2nd Reading

Fig. 2. Flowchart of model system (2.1).

Table 1. Values of the parameters used in the numerical simulation.
Parameter Description Unit Value

r Intrinsic growth rate of agricultural crop day −1 0.01
K Carrying capacity of agricultural crop kg 500
α Agricultural crop consumption rate by insects kg insect−1 day−1 0.2
m Half saturation constant kg 50
θ Conversion efficiency insect kg −1 0.7
δ Mortality rate of insects day−1 0.01
φ Rate of spraying insecticides ml insect−1 day−1 0.022
φ0 Natural depletion rate of insecticides day −1 0.001
φ1 Uptake rate of insecticides by insects insect−1 day−1 0.002
λ Depletion rate of insects due to insecticides insect ml−1 5
and α is crop consumption rate by insects. The parameter θ represents conversion

efficiency of insects and δ is mortality rate of insects. To reduce the adverse effects
of insects on crop production, insecticides are used with spraying rate φ. Insecti-
cides deplete naturally with depletion rate φ0 . It is assumed that insects uptake
some amount of insecticides, which is proportional to the density of insects and
concentration of insecticide; therefore the amount of insecticides decreases at a rate
φ1 P S, where the uptake rate of insecticides by insects is denoted by φ1 . The param-
eter λ represents depletion rate of insects due to insecticides. Biological meaning of
parameters of system (2.1) and their value used for numerical simulation are given
in Table 1.
3. Positivity and Boundedness of the System

3.1. Positivity
In this section, using Lemma 4 of Ref. 35, we show that all the solutions of model
system (2.1) with positive initial conditions remain positive.
2nd Reading
6 Misra & Yadav
Theorem 3.1. All the solutions of the model system (2.1) with positive initial
conditions are positive for all t ≥ 0.
For proof of above theorem, see Appendix A.
3.2. Boundedness
Boundedness of model system ensures its validity. Hence to establish the uniform
boundedness of the model system (2.1), we have the following theorem.
Theorem 3.2. All the solutions of the model system (2.1), which are initiated in
R3+ are uniformly bounded, i.e., there exists a constant M > 0, such that A(t) ≤ M,
S(t) ≤ M and P (t) ≤ M for each solution Y (t) = (A(t), S(t), P (t)) of model system
(2.1) with all t large enough 36 .
For proof of above theorem, see Appendix B.
4. Mathematical Analysis
To determine the long-term behavior of the model system (2.1), we analyze the
system (2.1). Since system (2.1) is not easy to solve directly due to the presence
of nonlinearity, we examine its qualitative behavior using the stability theory of
differential equations. For this, first we show the feasibility of equilibria and then
discuss their stability properties.
4.1. Equilibrium analysis

In this section, we obtain the feasible equilibria of model system (2.1) by putting
the rate of change of all dynamical variables to zero. In this way, we see that model
system (2.1) has three different non-negative equilibria, which are stated as follows:
(1) The trivial equilibrium E0 (0, 0, 0). In this equilibrium, the agricultural crop is
absent and as we have assumed that the insect population wholly depends on
agricultural crops and so the density of insect population is zero, which implies
that insecticides used to kill insect population is also zero.
(2) The insect-free equilibrium E1 (K, 0, 0). This equilibrium depicts the situation
where agricultural crops are present but the insect population is absent and
due to the absence of insect population, the amount of insecticides used to kill
the insects is zero.
(3) The interior equilibrium E ∗ (A∗ , S ∗ , P ∗ ). In this equilibrium, all the system
variables are present and affect the dynamics of each other and so this is the
most interesting equilibrium and will be analyzed in detail.
2nd Reading
The feasibility of equilibrium E ∗ can be shown by analyzing the following alge-

braic equations:

A αS
r 1− − = 0, (4.1)
K m+A
θαA
− δ − λφ1 P = 0, (4.2)
m+A
φS − φ0 P − φ1 P S = 0. (4.3)
From Eqs. (4.1) and (4.2), the value of S and P in terms of A can be, respectively,
obtained as

r(m + A) A
S= 1− , (4.4)
α K

1 θαA
P = −δ . (4.5)
λφ1 m + A
Now, using above values of S and P from Eqs. (4.4) and (4.5) in Eq. (4.3), we get
the following cubic equation in A:
rφ1 (λφ − θα + δ)A3 − rφ1 {K(λφ − θα + δ) − m(2λφ − θα + 2δ)}A2
+ {αφ0 K(θα − δ) + rφ1 m2 (λφ + δ) − rφ1 mK(2λφ − θα + 2δ)}A
− mK{rφ1 m(λφ + δ) + αδφ0 } = 0. (4.6)
From Eqs. (4.4) and (4.5), it may be easily noted that the values of S and P will
be positive if A ∈ (A, K), where A = mδ/(θα − δ) and so we are interested in
a root/roots of Eq. (4.6), which is/are in the interval (A, K). To know the exact
number of roots of the above equation in the interval (A, K), we make the use of
transformation A = (A + Kx)/(x + 1). After substituting A = (A + Kx)/(x + 1)
in Eq. (4.6) and making some algebraic manipulations, we get the following cubic
equation in x:
p1 x3 + p2 x2 + p3 x + p4 = 0, (4.7)
where
p1 = αφ0 K(θα − δ)3 ,

2 θαK 2
p2 = (θα − δ) λφ − − δ rφ1 (m + K) − 2Kφ0 α(θα − δ) ,
m+K

p3 = −α(θα − δ) −Kφ0 α(θα − δ)2 + rφ1 mθ(m + K)

θαK
× 2λφ − −δ , and
m+K
p4 = −rλφφ1 θ2 α2 m2 .
2nd Reading
8 Misra & Yadav
Now, the number of roots of Eq. (4.6) lying in the interval (A, K) is same as number
of positive roots of Eq. (4.7). In Eq. (4.7), we note that p1 > 0 and p4 < 0. Thus,
applying Descartes’s rule of sign, we can say that Eq. (4.7) has unique positive root
if p2 and p3 are of same sign; however it may have three positive roots if they have
opposite sign. This clearly states that Eq. (4.6) possesses a unique positive root
or may have three positive roots in the desired interval (A, K), if for the model
parameters p2 and p3 are of same sign or opposite sign, respectively.
4.2. Stability analysis

The stability analysis is quite important to understand the long-term behavior of
the solutions of the model. The behavior of the solutions of the model around an
equilibrium is described as local stability, and the behavior of the solution through-
out the whole domain is described as global stability. Here, we present the local
stability behavior of the feasible equilibria of the system (1). We have the following
result regarding the local stability of equilibrium E ∗ .
Theorem 4.1. (1) The trivial equilibrium E0 is unstable. The insects-free equi-
librium E1 is stable, provided α < δ(m+K)
θK . When α > δ(m+K)
θK , E1 becomes
unstable and the interior equilibrium E ∗ becomes feasible.
(2) The equilibrium E ∗ is locally asymptotically stable, provided the following con-
dition holds:

∗ r αS ∗
ρ = − > 0. (4.8)
K (m + A∗ )2
Proof. The Jacobian matrix J for the system (2.1) is obtained as follows:
⎛ ⎞
2A αmS αA
⎜r 1 − − − 0 ⎟
⎜ K (m + A)2 (m + A) ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
J =⎜ θαmS θαA ⎟.
⎜ − δ − λφ1 P −λφ1 S ⎟
⎜ (m + A)2 (m + A) ⎟
⎝ ⎠
0 φ − φ1 P −(φ0 + φ1 S)
(1) Eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix J at the equilibrium E0 are obtained as

r, −δ and −φ0 . Since one eigenvalue is always positive, hence we make an
assertion that this equilibrium is unstable in A-direction.
(2) Evaluating the Jacobian J at the equilibrium E1 , we get the three eigenvalues
as −r, m+KθαK
− δ and −φ0 . The second eigenvalue must be positive for the
feasibility of equilibrium E ∗ . The positive sign of one eigenvalue implies the
instability in S-direction of the equilibrium E1 whenever interior equilibrium
E ∗ is feasible.
2nd Reading
(3) At the interior equilibrium E ∗ , the Jacobian matrix J is

⎛ ⎞
∗ ∗ αA∗
⎜ −ρ A − 0 ⎟
⎜ (m + A∗ ) ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ θαmS ∗ ⎟
⎜ −λφ ∗ ⎟
JE ∗ = ⎜ 0 1 S ⎟.
⎜ (m + A∗ )2 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ φ P ∗ ⎟
⎝ 0 ∗ ⎠
0 ∗
−(φ0 + φ1 S )
S
The characteristic polynomial for JE ∗ is obtained as

X 3 + A1 X 2 + A2 X + A3 = 0, (4.9)
where
A1 = ρ∗ A∗ + φ0 + φ1 S ∗ ,
θα2 mA∗ S ∗
A2 = (φ0 + φ1 S ∗ )ρ∗ A∗ + + λφ0 φ1 P ∗ ,
(m + A∗ )3
θα2 mA∗ S ∗
A3 = λφ0 φ1 ρ∗ A∗ P ∗ + (φ0 + φ1 S ∗ ).
(m + A∗ )3
It is apparent that A1 , A2 and A3 are positive provided ρ∗ > 0. Further, a little
calculation yields that (A1 A2 − A3 ) is also positive, provided the same condition
holds. Thus, using Routh–Hurwitz criterion, we can say that all the eigenvalues of
JE ∗ are either negative or with negative real part provided ρ∗ > 0.
Remark 4.1. From the above analysis, it is clear that optimal crop production
can be obtained by reducing crop consumption rate to a threshold value (here
α < δ(m+K)
θK ). Thus, insecticides which only reduce insects crop consumption rate
to a certain limit play an important role in insect management.
5. Bifurcation Analysis
In this section, we analyze conditions under which model system (2.1) exhibits dif-
ferent bifurcations. Here, we focus our analysis on the crop consumption rate α and
spraying rate of insecticides φ, which are biologically most important parameters.
The existence of transcritical bifurcation at boundary equilibrium E1 and pitchfork
bifurcation at interior equilibrium E ∗ is proved with the help of Sotomayor’s theo-
rem.37 Existence of Hopf-bifurcation and its direction and stability are discussed.
5.1. Transcritical bifurcation

Theorem 5.1. The system (2.1) undergoes a transcritical bifurcation with respect
to the bifurcation parameter α around E1 (K, 0, 0), at α = δ(m+K)
θK = α∗ .
For proof of above theorem, see Appendix C.
2nd Reading
10 Misra & Yadav
5.2. Pitchfork bifurcation

Theorem 5.2. The model system (2.1) undergoes pitchfork bifurcation around the
interior equilibrium E ∗ with respect to the bifurcation parameter φ, at
θα2 m(φ0 + φ1 S ∗ )
φ = φ1 P ∗ − = φ∗ ,
λφ1 ρ∗ (m + A∗ )3
if the following conditions hold:

α(φ0 +φ1 S ∗ )
(1) r
φ1 (m+A∗ )2 ( ρ∗ K + 1) + ρ∗ = 0;
∗
ρ∗ A∗ (m+A∗ )2 = 1.
αmS
(2)
For proof of above theorem, see Appendix D.

5.3. Existence of Hopf-bifurcation

In this section, we study the Hopf-bifurcation around the equilibrium
E ∗ (A∗ , S ∗ , P ∗ ) by taking the spraying rate of insecticides (φ) as bifurcation param-
eter, and keeping other parameters fixed. Since all the coefficients of characteristic
polynomial can be written as function of φ, we get
X 3 + A1 (φ)X 2 + A2 (φ)X + A3 (φ) = 0. (5.1)
Let us consider that at the critical value of φ, i.e., φc , we have
(A1 (φc )A2 (φc ) − A3 (φc )) = 0.
Thus, the characteristic equation (5.1) can be written as
(X 2 + A2 )(X + A1 ) = 0. (5.2)
The above equation has three roots, say Xi (i = 1, 2, 3) with a pair of pure imaginary
√
roots X1,2 = ±iw0 and X3 = α3 , where w0 = A2 and α3 = −A1 . Hence at φ = φc ,
the characteristic equation (5.1) has a pair of pure imaginary roots and one root is
negative.
Further, we find out the transversality condition under which Hopf-bifurcation
may occur. Therefore, consider at any point φ in -neighborhood of φc , X1,2 =
α1 (φ) ± iα2 (φ). By putting this in characteristic equation (5.1) and separating real
and imaginary parts, we get
α31 − 3α1 α22 + A1 (α21 − α22 ) + A2 α1 + A3 = 0, (5.3)

α2 (3α21 − α22 + 2A1 α1 + A2 ) = 0. (5.4)
As α2 (φ) = 0, from Eq. (5.4), we have
α22 = 3α21 + 2A1 α1 + A2 . (5.5)

2nd Reading
Using this value of α2 in Eq. (5.3), we get
8α31 + 8A1 α21 + 2α1 (A21 + A2 ) + A1 A2 − A3 = 0. (5.6)
Differentiating the above equation with respect to φ and using the fact that
α1 (φc ) = 0, we get

dα1 1 d
=− − = 0
(A A
1 2 A3 )
dφ φ=φc 2(A21 + A2 ) dφ φ=φc
provided d
dφ (A1 A2 − A3 ) φ=φc
= 0. Hence, it is clear that transversality condition
holds if:
d
(A1 A2 − A3 )|φ=φc = 0.
dφ
Therefore, we have the following theorem for existence of Hopf-bifurcation.
Theorem 5.3. The system (2.1) undergoes Hopf-bifurcation around the interior
equilibrium E ∗ , if there exists φ = φc such that
(1) A1 (φc )A2 (φc ) − A3 (φc ) = 0;

d
(2) dφ (A1 A2 − A3 )|φ=φc = 0.
Remark 5.1. When the parameter φ crosses the critical value φc , a limit cycle of
the system (2.1) generates around E ∗ . In a similar way, it can be proved that the
system enters into Hopf-bifurcation as the parameter α crosses its critical value αc .
From an agricultural point of view, periodic behavior is unpleasant. It implies

fluctuations in the amount of insecticides, which makes it difficult to allocate
resources to increase crop production. It is also possible for oscillations to have
a long period. This means that the actual behavior of the system may not be
displayed, if the data are measured over only a small time interval. Thus, it is
important to identify the situation in which Hopf-bifurcation occurs.
5.4. Direction and stability of Hopf-bifurcation

In this section, we determine the direction and stability criterion of bifurcating
periodic solutions of system (2.1) by applying the normal form theory. In this
regard, we have the following result.
Theorem 5.4. If μ2 > 0(μ2 < 0), Hopf-bifurcation is forward (backward) and the
bifurcating periodic solution exists for φ > φc (φ < φc ). The periodic solutions are
stable or unstable according as β2 < 0 or β2 > 0 and period increases or decreases
according as τ2 > 0 or τ2 < 0.
For proof of the above theorem, see Appendix E.

2nd Reading
12 Misra & Yadav
6. The Optimal Control Problem

For the control of insect density, it is necessary to spray insecticides, but a successful
intervention strategy is one which reduces insect density with minimum cost. Keep-
ing this goal in mind, we consider the control function for the model system (2.1)
to minimize the insect density with minimum associated cost of spraying insecti-
cides. We consider that the spraying rate of insecticides as a Lebesgue measurable
function, u(t), on a finite interval [0, T ]. Therefore, our objective is to minimize the
cost functional,
T
J(u) = [w1 S(t) + w2 u2 (t)]dt (6.1)
0
subject to

dA A αAS
= rA 1 − − ,
dt K m+A
dS θαAS
= − δS − λφ1 P S, (6.2)
dt m+A
dP
= u(t)S − φ0 P − φ1 P S,
dt
with initial conditions A(0) = A0 ≥ 0, S(0) = S0 ≥ 0, and P (0) = P0 ≥ 0. The
quantities w1 and w2 represents the positive weight functions. Our goal is to find
the optimal control u∗ (t) in the control set U = {u(t) : u(t) is measurable, 0 ≤
u(t) ≤ umax } for t ∈ [0, T ], which minimizes the functional J(u) subjected to the
system (6.2).
6.1. Existence of optimal control

The existence of optimal control can be proved using the result described by Fleming
and Rishel.38
Theorem 6.1. There exists optimal control u∗ ∈ U which minimizes the objective
functional (6.1) subjected to (6.2) on interval [0, T ].
For proof of this theorem, see Ref. 39.
6.2. Characterization of optimal control

Following the establishment of optimal control, Pontryagin’s Principle40,41 is used
to obtain the necessary condition for optimal control. Now, Hamiltonian for the
control problem can be written as
H(A, S, P, u, ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 ) = w1 S(t) + w2 u2 (t)

A αAS
+ ξ1 rA 1 − −
K m+A
2nd Reading

θαAS
+ ξ2 − δS − λφ1 P S
m+A
+ ξ3 [u(t)S − φ0 P − φ1 P S], (6.3)
where ξi (i = 1, 2, 3) represents the adjoint variables and their respective differential
equations are given by

∂H 2A αmS θαmS

ξ1 = − = −ξ1 r 1 − − − ξ2 ,
∂A K (m + A)2 (m + A)2

∂H αA θαA
ξ2 = − = − w1 − ξ1 + ξ2 − δ − λφ1 P + ξ3 (u − φ1 P ) ,
∂S m+A m+A
∂H
ξ3 = − = ξ2 λφ1 S + ξ3 (φ0 + φ1 S).
∂P
(6.4)
The transversality conditions are ξi (T ) = 0, for i = 1, 2, 3. The optimum control
u∗ can be obtained by the optimality condition ∂H ∗
∂u = 0 at u = u on the set
∗ ∗ −ξ3 S
{t ∈ [0, T ] : 0 < u(t) < u (t)}. This condition gives u = 2w2 on the interior of
set U .
Using the bound constraints for control, the optimal control u∗ (t) is obtained as

∗ −ξ3 S max
u (t) = max min ,u ,0 . (6.5)
2w2
Now, we have the following theorem.
Theorem 6.2. The optimal control u∗ for the system (6.2), which minimizes the
objective functional (6.1) is characterized by (6.5).
7. Numerical Simulation
In this section, numerical calculations are performed to visualize and validate the
analytical results obtained in the previous sections. To simulate the system (2.1), we
consider a set of parameter values given in Table 1. For the chosen set of parameter
values, the interior equilibrium E ∗ of system (2.1) is obtained as
A∗ = 210.816, S ∗ = 7.542, P ∗ = 10.316.
The eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix corresponding to the interior equilibrium
E ∗ are
−0.0113, −0.002 ± 0.0129i.
Thus, from the above one can note that the eigenvalues are either negative or have
negative real part, which shows that interior equilibrium E ∗ is locally asymptot-
ically stable. To visualize the global stability of interior equilibrium E ∗ for the
considered parameters in Table 1, we plot the phase portrait by taking different
2nd Reading
14 Misra & Yadav

Fig. 3. Global stability of interior equilibrium, E ∗ .

initial starts in the basin of attraction and observed that the solution trajecto-
ries approach towards the equilibrium point E ∗ , which ensures that E ∗ is globally
asymptotically stable, Fig. 3.
7.1. Bifurcation results

We first analyzed the effect of agriculture crop consumption rate on crop produc-
tion considering bifurcation parameter α. With φ = 0.02 and rest of the parameter
values from Table 1, the model system (2.1) displays the transcritical bifurcation at
α = 0.015714 = α∗ (Fig. 4(a)). Figure 4(b) indicates that insect density decreases
rapidly, if α < α∗ . It is also clear from the above study that for a certain consump-
tion rate of insects (here α < 0.015714), we can find a constant spraying rate (here
φ = 0.02) of insecticides which decrease the insect density rapidly.
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. (a) Transcritical bifurcation plot with respect to α, (b) Effect of α on insect density at
φ = 0.02 and rest of the parameters are same as given in Table 1.
2nd Reading

Fig. 5. Pitchfork bifurcation with respect to bifurcation parameter φ at m = 5, rest of the

parameters are same as given in Table 1.
When we choose m = 5 and rest of the parameters same as in Table 1, system

(2.1) undergoes pitchfork bifurcation around interior equilibrium E ∗ as shown in
Fig. 5, and stable (shown by blue color) and unstable (shown by red color) equilibria
are obtained. As the value of φ decreases, stable and unstable equilibria collapse,
resulting in a single unstable equilibrium.
At φ = 0.01870 = φc , the conditions stated in Theorem 5.3 are satisfied (i.e.,
A1 (φc )A2 (φc ) − A3 (φc ) = 0 and d/dφ(A1 A2 − A3 )φ=φc = −0.062 = 0) and model
system (2.1) undergoes Hopf-bifurcation at interior equilibrium E ∗ shown in Fig. 6.
Further, the values of μ2 , β2 , and τ2 at φ = φc are calculated as −6.76 × 10−12 ,
−3.33×10−11, and 7.02×10−9, respectively. Using Theorem 5.4, we can say that the
Hopf-bifurcation is backward and bifurcating periodic solutions exist for φ < φc .
The periodic solutions are stable and period increases as μ < 0, β2 < 0, and τ2 > 0.
From Fig. 6, it is also clear that for lower values of φ, the system is unstable
around interior equilibrium and shows oscillatory behavior, but becomes stable
after a threshold value. Here, for φ > φc , the system is stable and when φ < φc , it
becomes unstable. Thus for the stability of interior equilibrium, spraying rate must
be greater than a threshold value. Figures 7(a) and 7(b) evince that stable limit
cycle and stable equilibrium are formed at φ = 0.017 < φc and φ = 0.019 > φc ,
respectively.
For small values of α, the system is stable but as the crop consumption rate
increases, crop production decreases and system becomes unstable. From Fig. 8,
we observe that Hopf-bifurcation occurs at α = 0.212323 = αc around interior
equilibrium E ∗ . When α < αc system is stable and as crop consumption rate
increases, oscillations appear and system becomes unstable.
To observe the long-term behavior of the system for different spraying rates
of insecticides, time-series solution of the model system is plotted in Fig. 9, by
taking the parameter values as given in Table 1. Figure 9 contains two outcomes
2nd Reading
16 Misra & Yadav

Fig. 6. Hopf-bifurcation diagram taking φ as the bifurcation parameter; other parameters are
same as given in Table 1.
500
400 Unstable equilibrium
Stable limit cycle

300
A
200
100
0
0 20 40 60 80
S
(a) (b)
Fig. 7. (a) Stable limit cycle for φ = 0.017 and (b) Stable interior equilibrium for φ = 0.019.
of the system (2.1). As we increase the value of φ, the agriculture crop production
increases and also decreases in insect density as expected.
7.2. Optimal control results

Here, we have solved the optimality system numerically using forward–backward
sweep method.42 The process starts with some initial guess on control variable. The
system of state variables is solved forward in time and then the system of adjoint
variables is solved backward in time, using Runge–Kutta fourth-order iterative
scheme. The value of control is updated in each iteration. The process is repeated
until the desired convergence is achieved. We choose the weight factor associated
with minimization of insect density and spraying of insecticides as w1 = w2 = 1
2nd Reading

Fig. 8. Hopf-bifurcation diagram taking α as the bifurcation parameter at φ = 0.02, rest of the
parameters are same as given in Table 1.
Fig. 9. In these figures, we portray the time-series characteristic of agriculture crop A(t), insect
density S(t) and amount of insecticides P (t) to show the effect of spraying constant φ, taking
parameter values from Table 1.
and umax = 1, whereas the other parameter values are same as in Table 1. The
simulations for the insect density under the time-dependent optimal control u(t)
and without control strategies are shown in Fig. 10(a). It is evident from Fig. 10(b)
that it is optimal to spray insecticides till 5 days at maximum rate and lower down
afterwards.
2nd Reading
18 Misra & Yadav

(a) (b)
Fig. 10. (a) Insect density with and without control and (b) Profile of control u(t).
8. Conclusion
Insects pose a significant threat to agriculture crops and are of worldwide concern.
The effective strategy to reduce the crop loss and manage insect population is to
apply insecticides efficiently. In this paper, we have investigated a three-dimensional
mathematical model to study the adverse effects of insects on crop production and
control the insect population using insecticides. Qualitative analysis of the proposed
model reveals that when crop consumption rate is below a threshold value, insect-
free equilibrium is stable and, in this case, interior equilibrium does not exist.
This suggests that crop production can be increased much by reducing the crop
consumption rate and this can be achieved either by infecting the insect population
using viruses from the baculovirus family or by protecting the crops.
Bifurcation analysis is performed to investigate the impact of crop consumption
rate and spraying rate of insecticide on crop production. As the crop consumption
rate increases, model system (2.1) becomes unstable around insect-free equilibrium
and transcritical bifurcation occurs, which suggests that crop consumption rate
acts as a destabilizing agent and destabilizes the insect-free equilibrium. Further,
increase in crop consumption rate leads to a destabilization of interior equilibrium
and appearance of stable periodic oscillations. The intuitive explanation of these
oscillations is that higher crop consumption rate provides an opportunity for the
growth of insect density; higher insect density leads to decrease in crop produc-
tion, which in turn results in decrease in insect population, and the cycle repeats.
Conditions for the existence of Hopf-bifurcation with respect to spraying rate of
insecticides and direction and stability of periodic nature of the system are given
in Theorems 5.3 and 5.4. When spraying rate is below a threshold value, the insect
density increases; so the crop production decreases and since the insect population
wholly depends on agricultural crops, the density of insect population decreases.
This interplay between crop production and insect population gives rise to the oscil-
latory solution. Spraying rate of insecticides acts as a stabilizing agent, and thus
2nd Reading
by increasing the spraying rate of insecticides, stability and higher crop production
can be achieved as shown in Fig. 9.
Additionally, since farmers choose a strategy that minimizes both the insect
population and the cost of spraying insecticides, the proposed model has been
extended to include the fact that spraying rate of insecticides varies with time. We
have identified the optimal time profile for the spraying rate of insecticides, which
minimizes both insect density and its associated cost.
The results obtained in this paper indicate that crop consumption rate and
spraying rate of insecticides are crucial factors in controlling the insect population.
The use of insecticides reduces the influence of oscillations and allows the system to
become stable in a shorter period of time. Our findings demonstrate that to enhance
crop production, it is important to increase the spraying rate of insecticides with
the increase of crop consumption by insect population.
Acknowledgment
Akash Yadav is thankful to University Grants Commission, Government of India
for providing financial support in the form of junior research fellowship (UGC-Ref.
No. 1060/(CSIR-UGC NET DEC.2018)).
References
1. Food and Agriculture Organization electronic files and websites, The World Bank,
2018, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.PRD.CREL.MT.
2. Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database (FAO-
STAT), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RP/visualize.
3. Annual Report, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Department of Agri-
cultural Research and Education Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Gov-
ernment of India, New Delhi, 2020. https://icar.org.in/sites/default/files/ICAR-AR-
2020-English.pdf
4. Perry AS, Yamamoto I, Ishaaya I, Perry RY, Insecticides in Agriculture and
Environment: Retrospects and Prospects, Springer Science and Business Media, 2013.
5. IFPRI, 2016 Annual Report, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),
Washington, DC, 2017, doi:10.2499/9780896292628.
6. Mulé R, Sabella G, Robba L, Manachini B, Systematic review of the effects of chemical
insecticides on four common butterfly families, Front Environ Sci 5:32, 2017.
7. Koureas M, Tsakalof A, Tsatsakis A, Hadjichristodoulou C, Systematic review of
biomonitoring studies to determine the association between exposure to organophos-
phorus and pyrethroid insecticides and human health outcomes, Toxicol Lett
210(2):155–168, 2012.
8. Ansari MS, Moraiet MA, Ahmad S, Insecticides: Impact on the environment and
human health, in Environmental Deterioration and Human Health, Springer, Dor-
drecht, pp. 99–123, 2014.
9. Hernández AF, Parrón T, Tsatsakis AM, Requena M, Alarcón R, López-Guarnido
O, Toxic effects of pesticide mixtures at a molecular level: Their relevance to human
health, Toxicology 307:136–145, 2013.
2nd Reading
20 Misra & Yadav
10. Nicholls CI, Altieri MA, Plant biodiversity enhances bees and other insect pollinators
in agroecosystems. A review, Agron Sustain Dev 33(2):257–274, 2013.
11. Sexton SE, Lei Z, Zilberman D, The economics of pesticides and pest control, Int Rev
Environ Resour Econ 1(3):271–326, 2007.
12. Oka IN, Success and challenges of the Indonesia National Integrated Pest Management
Program in the rice-based cropping system, Crop Prot 10(3):163–165, 1991.
13. Sæthre MG, Ørpen HM, Hofsvang T, Action programmes for pesticide risk reduction
and pesticide use in different crops in Norway, Crop Prot 18(3):207–215, 1999.
14. Jansma JE, Van Keulen H, Zadoks JC, Crop protection in the year 2000: A comparison
of current policies towards agrochemical usage in four West European countries, Crop
Prot 12(7):483–489, 1993.
15. De Smet B, Claeys S, Vagenende B, Overloop S, Steurbaut W, Van Steertegem M,
The sum of spread equivalents: A pesticide risk index used in environmental policy
in Flanders, Belgium, Crop Prot 24(4):363–374, 2005.
16. Donatelli M, Magarey RD, Bregaglio S, Willocquet L, Whish JP, Savary S, Modeling
the impacts of pests and diseases on agricultural systems, Agric Syst 155:213–224,
2017.
17. Roy PK, Li XZ, Basir FA, Datta A, Chowdhury J, Effect of insecticide spraying on
Jatropha curcas plant to control mosaic virus: A mathematical study, Commun Math
Biol Neurosci 2015:36, 2015.
18. Venturino E, Roy PK, Al Basir F, Datta A, A model for the control of the mosaic
virus disease in Jatropha curcas plantations, Energy Ecol Environ 1(6):360–369, 2016.
19. Al-Basir F, Roy PK, Ray S, Impact of roguing and insecticide spraying on mosaic
disease in Jatropha curcas, Control Cybern 46(4):325–344, 2017.
20. Chowdhury J, Al Basir F, Takeuchi Y, Ghosh M, Roy PK, A mathematical model for
pest management in Jatropha curcas with integrated pesticides — An optimal control
approach, Ecol Complex 37:24–31, 2019.
21. Mandal DS, Samanta S, Alzahrani AK, Chattopadhyay J, Study of a predator–prey
model with pest management perspective, J Biol Syst 27(3):309–336, 2019.
22. Shetty PK, Murugan M, Hiremath MB, Sreeja KG, Farmers’ education and perception
on pesticide use and crop economies in Indian agriculture, J Exp Sci 1(1):3–8, 2010.
23. Al Basir F, Blyuss KB, Ray S, The effects of awareness-based interventions to control
the mosaic disease of Jatropha curcas, Ecol Complex 36:92–100, 2018.
24. Al Basir F, Banerjee A, Ray S, Role of farming awareness in crop pest management
— A mathematical model, J Theor Biol 461:59–67, 2019.
25. Misra AK, Jha N, Patel R, Modeling the effects of insects and insecticides on agri-
cultural crops with NSFD method, J Appl Math Comput 63(1):197–215, 2020.
26. Misra AK, Jha N, Patel R, Modeling the effects of insects and insecticides
with external efforts on agricultural crops, Differ Equ Dyn Syst 1–18, 2020,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12591-020-00555-3.
27. Misra AK, Patel R, Jha N, Modeling the effects of insecticides and external efforts on
crop production, Nonlinear Anal, Model Control 26(6):1012–1030, 2021.
28. Al Basir F, Elaiw AM, Ray S, Effect of time delay in controlling crop pest using
farming awareness, Int J Appl Math 5(4):1–19, 2019.
29. Al Basir F, A multi-delay model for pest control with awareness induced interventions
— Hopf bifurcation and optimal control analysis, Int J Biomath 13(6):2050047, 2020.
30. Abraha T, Basir FA, Obsu LL, Torres DF, Farming awareness based optimum inter-
ventions for crop pest control, Math Biosci Eng 18(5):5364–5391, 2021.
31. Molla H, Rahman MS, Sarwardi S, Dynamics of a predator–prey model with Holling
type II functional response incorporating a prey refuge depending on both the species,
Int J Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 20(1):89–104, 2019.
2nd Reading
32. Harris JM, Kennedy S, Carrying capacity in agriculture: Global and regional issues,
Ecol Econ 29:443–461, 1999.
33. Verma M, Misra AK, Effects of elevated carbon dioxide and temperature on crop
yield: A modeling study, J Appl Math Comput 58(1):503–526, 2018.
34. Mandal DS, Chekroun A, Samanta S, Chattopadhyay J, A mathematical study of a
crop-pest–natural enemy model with Z-type control, Math Comput Simul 187:468–
488, 2021.
35. Yang X, Chen L, Chen J, Permanence and positive periodic solution for the single-
species nonautonomous delay diffusive models, Comput Math Appl 32(4):109–116,

1996.
36. Dubey B, Patra A, Srivastava PK, Dubey US, Modeling and analysis of an SEIR
model with different types of nonlinear treatment rates, J Biol Syst 21(3):1350023,
2013.
37. Lawrence P, Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems, Springer, 2001.
38. Fleming WH, Rishel RW, Deterministic and Stochastic Optimal Control, Springer,
Berlin, 1975.
39. Misra AK, Sharma A, Shukla JB, Stability analysis and optimal control of an epidemic
model with awareness programs by media, BioSystems 138:53–62, 2015.
40. Imran M, Khan A, Ansari AR, Shah STH, Modeling transmission dynamics of Ebola
virus disease, Int J Biomath 10(4):1750057, 2017.
41. Qin W, Tang S, Xiang C, Yang Y, Effects of limited medical resource on a Filippov
infectious disease model induced by selection pressure, Appl Math Comput 283:339–
354, 2016.
42. Lenhart S, Workman JT, Optimal Control Applied to Biological Models, Mathematical
and Computational Biology Series, Hall/CRC Press, Chapman, London, Boca Raton,
2007.
43. Hassard BD, Kazarinoff ND, Wan YH, Wan YW, Theory and Applications of Hopf
Bifurcation, Vol. 41, CUP Archive, 1981.
Appendix A
Proof of Theorem 3.1. Let (A(t), S(t), P (t)) be a solution of model system (2.1)
with the initial condition A(0) = A0 ≥ 0, S(0) = S0 ≥ 0, and P (0) = P0 ≥ 0. It
follows from the first and second equations of system (2.1) that
t
A(u) αS(u)
A(t) = A0 exp r 1− − du ,
0 K m + A(u)
t
θαA(u)
S(t) = S0 exp − δ − λφ1 P (u) du .
0 m + A(u)
Also, a comparison argument shows that

t
P (t) ≥ P0 exp − (φ0 + φ1 S(u))du .
0
Thus, A(t) ≥ 0, S(t) ≥ 0, and P (t) ≥ 0, for t ≥ 0 and all the solutions of the model
system (2.1) with positive initial conditions are positive for all t ≥ 0.
2nd Reading
22 Misra & Yadav
Appendix B
Proof of Theorem 3.2. Consider Y (t) = (A(t), S(t), P (t)) be a solution of model
system (2.1) with the positive initial condition and W = A + S + P .
Therefore,
dW dA dS dP
= + +
dt dt dt dt
rA2 α(1 − θ)
= rA − − AS − δS − φ1 (1 + λ)SP + φS − φ0 P.
K m+A
Therefore,
dW rA2
≤ −a(A + S + P ) + 2rA − ,
dt K
where a = min{r, (δ − φ), φ0 } > 0, provided δ > φ, Therefore,
dW
+ aW ≤ rK.
dt
Applying the theory of differential inequality, we obtain
rK
W (t) ≤ (1 − e−at ) + W (0)e−at .
a
For t → ∞, we get W (t) ≤ rK a .
So, W (t) is ultimately bounded. Thus, there exists a positive constant M = rK
a
such that each solution of model system (2.1), A(t) ≤ M , S(t) ≤ M and P (t) ≤ M
when t is sufficiently large.
Appendix C
Proof of Theorem 5.1. Let V = (v1 , v2 , v3 )T and W = (w1 , w2 , w3 )T be the
eigenvectors of J|E1 and J T |E1 , respectively, corresponding to zero eigenvalue. Con-
sider, g = (g (1) , g (2) , g (3) )T where

(1) A αAS
g = rA 1 − − ,
K m+A
θαAS
g (2) = − δS − λφ1 P S,
m+A
g (3) = φS − φ0 P − φ1 P S.
We have
⎛ ⎞
αK
⎜−r − 0 ⎟
⎜ (m + K) ⎟
⎜ ⎟
J|E1 =⎜
⎜0 θαK ⎟.
⎜ −δ 0 ⎟
⎟
⎝ (m + K) ⎠
0 φ −φ0
2nd Reading
Let α∗ be the value of α such that J|E1 has simple zero eigenvalue at α = α∗ . Now
at α = α∗
⎛ ⎞
δ
⎜−r − 0 ⎟
⎜ θ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
J|E1 = ⎜ ⎟.
⎜0 0 0 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
φ −φ0
Here, λ1 = −r < 0 and λ2 = −φ0 < 0. A simple calculation gives V = (− rθ δ

, 1, φφ0 )T
and W = (0, 1, 0)T . Let us define: η1 = A, η2 = S, η3 = P . Therefore,
⎛ ⎞
∂g (1) ⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ −AS
⎜ ∂α ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜m + A⎟
⎜ (2) ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ∂g ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
W T gα (E1 , α∗ ) = (0, 1, 0) ⎜
⎜ ∂α ⎟ = (0, 1, 0) ⎜ θAS ⎟ = 0,
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜m + A⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠
⎜ ∂g (3) ⎟
⎝ ⎠ 0
∂α E1
E1
⎛ ⎞
∂ 2 g (1) ∂ 2 g (1) ∂ 2 g (1)
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ∂η1 ∂α ∂η2 ∂α ∂η3 ∂α ⎟ ⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ 2 (2) ⎟ v1
⎜∂ g ∂ g 2 (2)
∂ 2 g (2) ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
W [Dgα (E1 , α )V ] = (0, 1, 0) ⎜
T ∗
⎜ ∂η ∂α
⎟ ⎝v2 ⎠
⎜ 1 ∂η2 ∂α ∂η3 ∂α ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ v3
⎜ ∂ 2 g (3) ∂ 2 g (3) 2 (3) ⎟
∂ g ⎠
⎝
∂η1 ∂α ∂η2 ∂α ∂η3 ∂α
E1
⎛ ⎞
K
⎜− m + K ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ θK
= (0, 1, 0) ⎜ θK ⎟
⎜
⎟ = = 0,
⎜ m+K ⎟ m+K
⎝ ⎠
0 E1
and
⎛ ⎞
∂g (1) ∂g (1) ∂g (1)
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ∂η1 ∂η2 ∂η3 ⎟ ⎛ ⎞⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ (2) ⎟ v1 v1
⎜ ∂g ∂g (2) (2) ⎟
∂g ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
W [D g(E1 , α )(V, V )] = (0, 1, 0)D ⎜
T 2 ∗
⎜ ∂η ⎝v2 ⎠ ⎝v2 ⎠
⎜ 1 ∂η2 ∂η3 ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ v3 v3
⎜ ∂g (3) ∂g (3) (3) ⎟
∂g ⎠
⎝
∂η1 ∂η2 ∂η3
E1
2nd Reading
24 Misra & Yadav
⎛ ⎞
∂g (1) ∂g (1) ∂g (1)
⎜ v3 ⎟
⎜ ∂η1 v1 + ∂η2
v2 +
∂η3 ⎟ ⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ v1
⎜ (2) ⎟
⎜ ∂g ∂g (2) ∂g (2) ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
= (0, 1, 0)D ⎜
⎜ ∂η v1 + v2 + v3 ⎟ ⎜v2 ⎟
⎜ 1 ∂η2 ∂η3 ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎜ ⎟ v3
⎜ ∂g (3) ∂g (3)
∂g (3) ⎟
⎝ v1 + v2 + v3 ⎠
∂η1 ∂η2 ∂η3

E1
⎛ ⎞
3
⎜ ∂ 2 g (1)
⎜ vi vj ⎟
⎟
⎜i,j=1 ∂ηi ∂ηj ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ 3 ⎟
⎜ ∂ 2 g (2) ⎟
= (0, 1, 0) ⎜ vi vj ⎟
⎜ ∂ηi ∂ηj ⎟
⎜i,j=1 ⎟
⎜ 3 ⎟
⎜ 2 (3) ⎟
⎝ ∂ g
vi vj ⎠
i,j=1
∂ηi ∂ηj
E1
2

mδ λφφ1
= −2 + = 0.
rθK(m + K) φ0
From the above calculation, it is clear that all the conditions of Sotomayor’s theorem
for transcritical bifurcation are satisfied and system (2.1) undergoes a transcritical
bifurcation around E1 at α = α∗ . When α < α∗ , the boundary equilibrium E1 is
stable and interior equilibrium E ∗ does not exist and as α increases to α∗ , E1 loses
its stability and the interior equilibrium E ∗ emerges.
Appendix D
Proof of Theorem 5.2. We translate the origin of the coordinate system to
the equilibrium point E ∗ (A∗ , S ∗ , P ∗ ), by using the transformation: A = A∗ + x1 ,
S = S ∗ + x2 and P = P ∗ + x3 . Thus, the model system (2.1) reduces to the form
⎛ ⎞
dx1
⎜ ⎟
⎜ dt ⎟ ⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ h1 (x1 , x2 , x3 )
⎜ dx ⎟ ⎜
⎜ 2 ⎟ ⎜h (x , x , x )⎟
3 ⎟ + O(|x|) ,
5
⎜ ⎟= 2 1 2
⎜ dt ⎟ ⎝ ⎠
⎜ ⎟ h3 (x1 , x2 , x3 )
⎜ dx ⎟
⎝ 3⎠
dt
where
αA∗ r 2 αmS ∗
h1 (x1 , x2 , x3 ) = −ρ∗ A∗ x1 − x2 − x + x2
(m + A∗ ) K 1 (m + A∗ )3 1
2nd Reading
αm αmS ∗ αm
− x1 x2 − x3 + x2 x2
∗
(m + A )2 (m + A∗ )4 1 (m + A∗ )3 1
αmS ∗ αmS ∗
+ x41 − x3 x2 ,
∗
(m + A )5 (m + A∗ )4 1
θαmS ∗ ∗ θαmS ∗ 2 θαm
h2 (x1 , x2 , x3 ) = ∗ 2
x1 − λφ1 S x3 − ∗ 3
x1 + x1 x2
(m + A ) (m + A ) (m + A∗ )2
θαmS ∗ 3 θαm
− λφ1 x2 x3 + x − x2 x2
(m + A∗ )4 1 (m + A∗ )3 1
θαmS ∗ 4 θαmS ∗ 3
− x1 + x x2 ,
∗
(m + A )5 (m + A∗ )4 1
h3 (x1 , x2 , x3 ) = (φ − φ1 P ∗ )x2 − (φ0 + φ1 S ∗ )x3 − φ1 x2 x3 .
Now, the Jacobian JE ∗ around E ∗ at φ = φ∗ is

⎛ ⎞
αA∗
⎜ −ρ∗ A∗ − 0 ⎟
⎜ (m + A∗ ) ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ θmαS ∗ ⎟
⎜ −λφ1 S ∗ ⎟
J(E ∗ ,φ∗ ) = ⎜ 0 ⎟.
⎜ (m + A∗ )2 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ θα2 m(φ0 + φ1 S ∗ ) ⎟
⎝ 0 − −(φ0 + φ1 S ∗ )⎠
λφ1 ρ∗ (m + A∗ )3
Two eigenvalues of J(E ∗ ,φ∗ ) are nonzero and one eigenvalue is zero. Eigenvectors of
T
J(E ∗ ,φ∗ ) and J(E ∗ ,φ∗ ) corresponding to eigenvalue 0 are
⎛ ⎞
1
⎜ ρ∗ (m + A∗ ) ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜− ⎟
V =⎜ ⎜ α ⎟ and
⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ θαm ⎠
λφ1 (m + A∗ )2
⎛ ⎞
θαm(φ0 + φ1 S ∗ )
−
⎜ λφ1 ρ∗ A∗ (m + A∗ )2 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
W =⎜ ⎟,
∗
⎜ (φ0 + φ 1 S ) ⎟ respectively.
⎜ − ∗ ⎟
⎝ λφ 1 S ⎠
1
Let us define: η1 = x1 , η2 = x2 , and η3 = x3 , then
⎛ ⎞
0
T ∗ ∗ T⎜ ⎟
W hφ (E , φ ) = W ⎝ 0 ⎠ = 0,
x2 E∗
2nd Reading
26 Misra & Yadav
⎛ ⎞
∂ 2 h(1) ∂ 2 h(1) ∂ 2 h(1)
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ∂η1 ∂φ ∂η2 ∂φ ∂η3 ∂φ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ v1
⎜ ∂ 2 h(2) 2 (2) 2 (2) ⎟
⎜ ∂ h ∂ h ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
W T [Dhφ (E ∗ , φ∗ )V ] = W T ⎜ ⎟ ⎝v2 ⎠
⎜ ∂η1 ∂φ ∂η2 ∂φ ∂η3 ∂φ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ v3
⎜ ∂ 2 h(3) ∂ 2 h(3) ∂ 2 h(3) ⎟
⎝ ⎠
∂η1 ∂φ ∂η2 ∂φ ∂η3 ∂φ

E1
⎛ ⎞
0
T⎜ ⎟
= W ⎝0⎠
v2 E∗
= v2 w3
ρ∗ (m + A∗ )
=− .
α
It is clear that W T [Dhφ (E ∗ , φ∗ )V ] = 0.
⎛ ⎞
3 2 (1)
⎜ ∂ h
⎜ vi vj ⎟
⎟
⎜i,j=1 i ∂ηj
∂η ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ 3 ⎟
⎜ 2 (2)
∂ h ⎟
W T [D2 h(E ∗ , φ∗ )(V, V )] = W T ⎜
⎜ vi vj ⎟
⎟
⎜i,j=1 ∂ηi ∂ηj ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ 3 ⎟
⎜ ∂ 2 h(3) ⎟
⎝ vi vj ⎠
i,j=1
∂ηi ∂ηj
E∗
⎛ ⎞
2r 2αmS ∗ 2 2αm
⎜ − + v − v1 v2 ⎟
⎜ K (m + A∗ )3 1 (m + A∗ )2 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
T⎜ ⎟
= W ⎜ 2θαmS ∗ 2 2θαm ⎟
⎜− ⎟
⎜ (m + A∗ )3 v1 + (m + A∗ )2 v1 v2 − 2λφ1 v2 v3 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
− 2φ1 v2 v3 E∗

2θm α(φ0 + φ1 S ∗ ) r
= ∗ 2 ∗
+ 1 + ρ∗ .
λ φ1 (m + A ) ρ K
From the above expression, it is clear that W T [D2 h(E ∗ , φ∗ )(V, V )] = 0, if

α(φ0 + φ1 S ∗ ) r
+ 1 + ρ∗ = 0
φ1 (m + A∗ )2 ρ∗ K
2nd Reading
and
W T [D3 h(E ∗ , φ∗ )(V, V, V )]
⎛ ⎞
3 2 (1)
⎜ ∂ h
⎜ vi vj ⎟
⎟
⎜i,j=1 ∂ηi ∂ηj ⎟ ⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ v1
⎜ 3 ⎟
T ⎜ ∂ 2 h(2) ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
= W D⎜ vi vj ⎟ ⎝v2 ⎠
⎜ ∂η ∂η ⎟
⎜i,j=1 i j ⎟
⎜ 3 ⎟ v3
⎜ ∂ 2 h(3) ⎟
⎝ vi vj ⎠
i,j=1
∂ηi ∂ηj
E∗
⎛ ⎞
6αmS ∗ 2 4αm 2αm
⎜ (m + A∗ )4 v1 + (m + A∗ )3 v1 v2 v2 0⎟ ⎛ ⎞
⎜ (m + A∗ )3 1 ⎟ v1
⎜
T ⎜
⎟ ⎜ ⎟
= W ⎜ 6θαmS ∗ 2 4θαm 2θαm ⎟ ⎝v2 ⎠
⎜ (m + A∗ )4 v1 − (m + A∗ )3 v1 v2 − v2 0⎟
⎟
⎝ (m + A∗ )3 1 ⎠ v3
0 0 0 E∗
6αm
= (v2 (m + A∗ ) − S ∗ )(w1 − θw2 )
(m + A∗ )4

6rmθ(φ0 + φ1 S ∗ ) αmS ∗
= 1 − .
λφ1 KS(m + A∗ )2 ρ∗ A∗ (m + A∗ )2
It is clear that W T [D3 h(E ∗ , φ∗ )(V, V, V )] = 0 if
αmS ∗
= 1.
ρ A (m + A∗ )2
∗ ∗
Appendix E
Proof of Theorem 5.4. To find the direction and stability of Hopf-bifurcation, we
translate origin of the coordinate system to the equilibrium point E ∗ (A∗ , S ∗ , P ∗ ),
by using the transformation:
A = A∗ + x1 , S = S ∗ + x2 , and P = P ∗ + x3 .
After neglecting the coefficient of the third-, fourth-, and higher-order terms in the
above expressions, the system (2.1) reduces to the form
⎛ ⎞
dx1
⎜ ⎟
⎜ dt ⎟ ⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ f1 (x1 , x2 , x3 )
⎜ dx ⎟
⎜ 2⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ = ⎝f2 (x1 , x2 , x3 )⎠ + O(|x|)3 ,
⎜ dt ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ dx ⎟ f3 (x1 , x2 , x3 )
⎝ 3⎠
dt
2nd Reading
28 Misra & Yadav
where
αA∗ r
f1 (x1 , x2 , x3 ) = −ρ∗ A∗ x1 − ∗
x2 − x21
(m + A ) K
αmS ∗ αm
+ ∗ 3
x21 − x1 x2 ,
(m + A ) (m + A∗ )2
θαmS ∗ θαmS ∗ 2 θαm
∗
f2 (x1 , x2 , x3 ) = x1 − λφ1 S x3 − x + x1 x2
(m + A∗ )2 (m + A∗ )3 1 (m + A∗ )2
−λφ1 x2 x3 ,
f3 (x1 , x2 , x3 ) = (φ − φ1 P ∗ )x2 − (φ0 + φ1 S ∗ )x3 − φ1 x2 x3 .
We can rewrite it as
ẋ = JE ∗ x + G(x),
where
⎛ ⎞
r 2 αmS ∗ 2 αm
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎜ −⎞ x + x − x1 2 ⎟
x
x1 G1 ⎜ K 1 (m + A∗ )3 1 (m + A∗ )2 ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
x = ⎝x2 ⎠, G(x) = ⎝G2 ⎠ = ⎜
⎜− θαmS ∗
2 θαm ⎟.
⎟
⎜ (m + A∗ )3 x1 + (m + A∗ )2 x1 x2 − λφ1 x2 x3 ⎟
x3 G3 ⎝ ⎠
−φ1 x2 x3
We obtain the eigenvectors of the Jacobian matrix JE ∗ corresponding to the eigen-

values ξ1 = iw0 and ξ3 = α3 , respectively, at φ = φc , as follows:
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
u11 − iu12 u13
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
u1 = ⎝u21 − iu22 ⎠, u2 = ⎝u23 ⎠,
u31 − iu32 u33
where

αA∗
∗
u11 = −(φ0 + φ1 S ) , u21 = ρ∗ A∗ (φ0 + φ1 S ∗ ) − w02 ,
m + A∗

φ0 ρ∗ A∗ P ∗ αA∗
u31 = , u12 = w0 ,
S∗ m + A∗
φ0 P ∗
u22 = −w0 (φ0 + φ1 S ∗ + ρ∗ A∗ ), u32 = −w0 ∗ ,
S
αA∗
u13 = − (φ0 + φ1 S ∗ + α3 ), u23 = (φ0 + φ1 S ∗ + α3 )(ρ∗ A∗ + α3 ),
m + A∗
φ0 P ∗ ∗ ∗
u33 = (ρ A + α3 ).
S∗
2nd Reading
Define, U = (Re(u1 ), −Im(u1 ), u2 )

⎛ ⎞
u11 u12 u13
⎜ ⎟
⎜
U = ⎝u21 u22 u23 ⎟.
⎠
u31 u32 u33
The matrix U is non-singular such that

⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
x11 x12 x13 0 −w0 0
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
U −1 = ⎝x21 x22 x23 ⎠ and U −1 JE ∗ U = ⎝w0 0 0 ⎠,
x31 x32 x33 0 0 α3
where
1 −1
x11 = [u22 u33 − u23 u32 ], x12 = [u12 u33 − u13 u32 ],
1 −1
x13 = [u12 u23 − u13 u22 ], x21 = [u21 u33 − u23 u31 ],
1 −1
x22 = [u11 u33 − u13 u31 ], x23 = [u11 u23 − u13 u21 ],
1 −1
x31 = [u21 u32 − u22 u31 ], x32 = [u11 u32 − u12 u31 ],
1
x33 = [u11 u22 − u12 u21 ], and = det(U ).
Consider the linear transformation x = U z, i.e., z = U −1 x, where z = (z1 , z2 , z3 )T .

Under this linear transformation, the reduced system takes the form
ż = (U −1 JE ∗ U )z + f (z),
where f (z) = U −1 G(U z). This can be written as
z˙1 = −w0 z2 + f1 (z1 , z2 , z3 ),

z˙2 = w0 z1 + f2 (z1 , z2 , z3 ),
z˙3 = α3 z3 + f3 (z1 , z2 , z3 ),
where f = (f1 , f2 , f3 )T ,
f1 = x11 G1 + x12 G2 + x13 G3 ,

f2 = x21 G1 + x22 G2 + x23 G3 ,
f3 = x31 G1 + x32 G2 + x33 G3 ,
2nd Reading
30 Misra & Yadav

r αmS ∗
G1 = − + (u11 z1 + u12 z2 + u13 z3 )2
K (m + A∗ )3
αm
− (u11 z1 + u12 z2 + u13 z3 )(u21 z1 + u22 z2 + u23 z3 ),
(m + A∗ )2
θαmS ∗
G2 = − (u11 z1 + u12 z2 + u13 z3 )2
(m + A∗ )3
θαm
+ (u11 z1 + u12 z2 + u13 z3 )(u21 z1 + u22 z2 + u23 z3 )
(m + A∗ )2
− λφ1 (u21 z1 + u22 z2 + u23 z3 )(u31 z1 + u32 z2 + u33 z3 ),
G3 = −φ1 (u21 z1 + u22 z2 + u23 z3 )(u31 z1 + u32 z2 + u33 z3 ).
The point (0, 0, 0) is an equilibrium point of the reduced system. Furthermore, we

calculate the following quantities, all are evaluated at equilibrium point (0, 0, 0)
using procedure given in Hassard et al.43
2
1 ∂ 2 f1 ∂ 2 f1 ∂ f2 ∂ 2 f2
g11 = + + i + ,
4 ∂z12 ∂z22 ∂z12 ∂z22
2
1 ∂ 2 f1 ∂ 2 f1 ∂ 2 f2 ∂ f2 ∂ 2 f2 ∂ 2 f1
g02 = − − 2 + i − + 2 ,
4 ∂z12 ∂z22 ∂z1 ∂z2 ∂z12 ∂z22 ∂z1 ∂z2
2
1 ∂ 2 f1 ∂ 2 f1 ∂ 2 f2 ∂ f2 ∂ 2 f2 ∂ 2 f1
g20 = − + 2 + i − − 2 ,
4 ∂z12 ∂z22 ∂z1 ∂z2 ∂z12 ∂z22 ∂z1 ∂z2

1 ∂ 3 f1 ∂ 3 f1 ∂ 3 f2 ∂ 3 f2
G21 = 3 + 2 + 2 +
8 ∂z1 ∂z1 ∂z2 ∂z1 ∂z2 ∂z23
3
∂ f2 ∂ 3 f2 ∂ 3 f1 ∂ 3 f1
+i + − 2 − ,
∂z13 ∂z1 ∂z22 ∂z1 ∂z2 ∂z23

1 ∂ 2 f3 ∂ 2 f3 1 ∂ 2 f3 ∂ 2 f3 ∂ 2 f3
h11 = + , h20 = − − 2i .
4 ∂z12 ∂z22 4 ∂z12 ∂z22 ∂z1 ∂z2
We solve the linear systems
α3 σ11 = −h11 , (α3 − 2iw0 )σ20 = −h20
for the one-dimensional vectors σ11 , σ21 , σ11 , and σ21 . Now, we calculate the expres-
sions
2
1 ∂ 2 f1 ∂ 2 f2 ∂ f2 ∂ 2 f1
G110 = + +i − ,
2 ∂z1 ∂z3 ∂z2 ∂z3 ∂z1 ∂z3 ∂z2 ∂z3
2
1 ∂ 2 f1 ∂ 2 f2 ∂ f1 ∂ 2 f2
G101 = − +i + ,
2 ∂z1 ∂z3 ∂z2 ∂z3 ∂z2 ∂z3 ∂z1 ∂z3
2nd Reading
g21 = G21 + 2G110 σ11 + G101 σ20 ,

i 2 1 2 1
C1 (0) = g11 g20 − 2|g11 | − |g02 | + g21
2w0 3 2
and compute the following quantities:
ReC1 (0) ImC1 (0) + μ2 σ (0)
μ2 = − , τ2 = − , β2 = 2ReC1 (0),
ω (0) w0
where ω (0) = d
dφ (Re(ξ1 (φ)))|φ=φc and σ (0) = d
dφ (Im(ξ1 (φ)))|φ=φc .

Akash JBS Published

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Akash JBS Published

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2nd Reading

December 30, 2022 20:34 WSPC/S0218-3390 129-JBS 2350003

Journal of Biological Systems, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2023) 1–31

MODELING THE EFFECTS OF INSECTICIDES

ARVIND KUMAR MISRA∗ and AKASH YADAV

Received 28 February 2022

Keywords: Mathematical Model; Crop Production; Insect Population; Insecticides; Sta-

2 Misra & Yadav

to minimize the loss in production because of insect population. In a report pre-

Modeling the Eﬀects of Insecticides on Crop Production 3

possible control mechanisms on the agricultural crop production. Mandal et al.21

4 Misra & Yadav

2. The Mathematical Model

In this section, we formulate a mathematical model to control the insect population

Modeling the Eﬀects of Insecticides on Crop Production 5

Fig. 2. Flowchart of model system (2.1).

Table 1. Values of the parameters used in the numerical simulation.

Parameter Description Unit Value

and α is crop consumption rate by insects. The parameter θ represents conversion

3. Positivity and Boundedness of the System

6 Misra & Yadav

For proof of above theorem, see Appendix A.

(2.1) with all t large enough 36 .

For proof of above theorem, see Appendix B.

4.1. Equilibrium analysis

Modeling the Eﬀects of Insecticides on Crop Production 7

The feasibility of equilibrium E ∗ can be shown by analyzing the following alge-

8 Misra & Yadav

4.2. Stability analysis

(1) Eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix J at the equilibrium E0 are obtained as

Modeling the Eﬀects of Insecticides on Crop Production 9

(3) At the interior equilibrium E ∗ , the Jacobian matrix J is

The characteristic polynomial for JE ∗ is obtained as

5.1. Transcritical bifurcation

10 Misra & Yadav

5.2. Pitchfork bifurcation

if the following conditions hold:

For proof of above theorem, see Appendix D.

5.3. Existence of Hopf-bifurcation

X 3 + A1 (φ)X 2 + A2 (φ)X + A3 (φ) = 0. (5.1)

Let us consider that at the critical value of φ, i.e., φc , we have

(A1 (φc )A2 (φc ) − A3 (φc )) = 0.

Thus, the characteristic equation (5.1) can be written as

α31 − 3α1 α22 + A1 (α21 − α22 ) + A2 α1 + A3 = 0, (5.3)

As α2 (φ) = 0, from Eq. (5.4), we have

α22 = 3α21 + 2A1 α1 + A2 . (5.5)

Modeling the Eﬀects of Insecticides on Crop Production 11

Using this value of α2 in Eq. (5.3), we get

8α31 + 8A1 α21 + 2α1 (A21 + A2 ) + A1 A2 − A3 = 0. (5.6)

Therefore, we have the following theorem for existence of Hopf-bifurcation.

(1) A1 (φc )A2 (φc ) − A3 (φc ) = 0;

From an agricultural point of view, periodic behavior is unpleasant. It implies

5.4. Direction and stability of Hopf-bifurcation

For proof of the above theorem, see Appendix E.

12 Misra & Yadav

6. The Optimal Control Problem

6.1. Existence of optimal control

For proof of this theorem, see Ref. 39.

6.2. Characterization of optimal control

Modeling the Eﬀects of Insecticides on Crop Production 13

14 Misra & Yadav

Fig. 3. Global stability of interior equilibrium, E ∗ .

7.1. Bifurcation results

As α2 (φ) = 0, from Eq. (5.4), we have

It is clear that W T [Dhφ (E ∗ , φ∗ )V ] = 0.