Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T17:24:50.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Biased movement at a boundary and conditional occupancy times for diffusion processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2016

Otso Ovaskainen*
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Stephen J. Cornell*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
*
Postal address: Department of Ecology and Systematics, PO Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1), University of Helsinki, FIN-00014, Finland. Email address: otso.ovaskainen@helsinki.fi
∗∗Postal address: Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK

Abstract

Motivated by edge behaviour reported for biological organisms, we show that random walks with a bias at a boundary lead to a discontinuous probability density across the boundary. We continue by studying more general diffusion processes with such a discontinuity across an interior boundary. We show how hitting probabilities, occupancy times and conditional occupancy times may be solved from problems that are adjoint to the original diffusion problem. We highlight our results with a biologically motivated example, where we analyze the movement behaviour of an individual in a network of habitat patches surrounded by dispersal habitat.

MSC classification

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Applied Probability Trust 2003 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, M., and Stegun, I. A. (1972). A Handbook of Mathematical Functions. Dover, New York.Google Scholar
Cantrell, R. S., and Cosner, C. (1998). Skew Brownian motion: a model for diffusion with interfaces? In Proc. Internat. Conf. Math. Models Medical Health Sci., Vanderbilt University Press, pp. 7478.Google Scholar
Cantrell, R. S., and Cosner, C. (1999). Diffusion models for population dynamics incorporating individual behaviour at boundaries: applications to refuge design. Theoret. Pop. Biol. 55, 189207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fagan, W. F., Cantrell, R. S., and Cosner, C. (1999). How habitat edges change species interactions. Amer. Naturalist 153, 165182.Google Scholar
Hanski, I. (1999). Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I., Alho, J., and Moilanen, A. (2000). Estimating the parameters of survival and migration of individuals in metapopulations. Ecology 81, 239251.Google Scholar
Harrison, J. M., and Shepp, L. A. (1981). On skew Brownian motion. Ann. Prob. 9, 309313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H. (1983). Small spatial scale heterogeneity influences predation success in an unexpected way: model experiments on the functional response of predatory mites ( Acarina). Oecologia 56, 249256.Google Scholar
Okubo, A., and Levin, S. A. (2001). Diffusion and Ecological Problems: Modern Perspectives. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redner, S. (2001). A Guide to First-Passage Processes. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricketts, T. (2001). The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Amer. Naturalist 158, 8799.Google Scholar
Ries, L., and Debinski, D. M. (2001). Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of Central Iowa. J. Anim. Ecol. 70, 840852.Google Scholar
Turchin, P. (1998). Quantitative Analysis of Movement: Measuring and Modeling Population Redistribution in Animals and Plants. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Walsh, J. B. (1978). A diffusion with discontinuous local time. Astérisque 52–53, 3745.Google Scholar