TY - JOUR
T1 - Anomalous spreading speeds of cooperative recursion systems
AU - Weinberger, Hans F.
AU - Lewis, Mark A.
AU - Li, Bingtuan
PY - 2007/8/1
Y1 - 2007/8/1
N2 - This work presents an example of a cooperative system of truncated linear recursions in which the interaction between species causes one of the species to have an anomalous spreading speed. By this we mean that this species spreads at a speed which is strictly greater than its spreading speed in isolation from the other species and the speeds at which all the other species actually spread. An ecological implication of this example is discussed in Sect. 5. Our example shows that the formula for the fastest spreading speed given in Lemma 2.3 of our paper (Weinberger et al. in J Math Biol 45:183-218, 2002) is incorrect. However, we find an extra hypothesis under which the formula for the faster spreading speed given in (Weinberger et al. in J Math Biol 45:183-218, 2002) is valid. We also show that the hypotheses of all but one of the theorems of (Weinberger et al. in J Math Biol 45:183-218, 2002) whose proofs rely on Lemma 2.3 imply this extra hypothesis, so that all but one of the theorems of (Weinberger et al. in J Math Biol 45:183-218, 2002) and all the examples given there are valid as they stand.
AB - This work presents an example of a cooperative system of truncated linear recursions in which the interaction between species causes one of the species to have an anomalous spreading speed. By this we mean that this species spreads at a speed which is strictly greater than its spreading speed in isolation from the other species and the speeds at which all the other species actually spread. An ecological implication of this example is discussed in Sect. 5. Our example shows that the formula for the fastest spreading speed given in Lemma 2.3 of our paper (Weinberger et al. in J Math Biol 45:183-218, 2002) is incorrect. However, we find an extra hypothesis under which the formula for the faster spreading speed given in (Weinberger et al. in J Math Biol 45:183-218, 2002) is valid. We also show that the hypotheses of all but one of the theorems of (Weinberger et al. in J Math Biol 45:183-218, 2002) whose proofs rely on Lemma 2.3 imply this extra hypothesis, so that all but one of the theorems of (Weinberger et al. in J Math Biol 45:183-218, 2002) and all the examples given there are valid as they stand.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34547299910&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34547299910&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00285-007-0078-6
DO - 10.1007/s00285-007-0078-6
M3 - Article
C2 - 17318629
AN - SCOPUS:34547299910
SN - 0303-6812
VL - 55
SP - 207
EP - 222
JO - Journal of Mathematical Biology
JF - Journal of Mathematical Biology
IS - 2
ER -