دانلود مقاله مدل های میکروپلاستیک های استوکیومتری
خلاصه
1. معرفی
2. فرمولاسیون مدل
3. تجزیه و تحلیل ریاضی
4. تحلیل عددی
5. بحث
بیانیه مشارکت نویسنده CRediT
اعلامیه منافع رقابتی
قدردانی ها
ضمیمه. مولفه های
منابع
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Model formulation
3. Mathematical analysis
4. Numerical analysis
5. Discussion
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Declaration of competing interest
Acknowledgments
Appendix. Parameters
References
چکیده
میکروپلاستیک ها تهدیدی جدی برای اکوسیستم های دریایی هستند. با این حال، مدل‌سازی و تحلیل ریاضی مرتبط وجود ندارد. این مقاله دو مدل استوکیومتری تولیدکننده-گریزر را برای بررسی اثرات متقابل میکروپلاستیک‌ها، مواد مغذی و نور بر روی پویایی جمعیت تحت تنظیمات مختلف، فرمول‌بندی می‌کند. یک مدل شامل جذب میکروپلاستیک بهینه و رفتار جستجوی غذا بر اساس در دسترس بودن مواد مغذی برای تنظیمات طبیعی است، در حالی که مدل دیگر شامل جستجوی غذا در تنظیمات آزمایشگاهی نمی شود. ما وضعیت مناسب مدل ها را مشخص می کنیم و رفتارهای بلندمدت آنها را بررسی می کنیم. نتایج ما نشان می‌دهد که در محیط‌های طبیعی، تولیدکنندگان و چرندگان حساسیت بالاتری نسبت به میکروپلاستیک‌ها نشان می‌دهند و سیستم ممکن است دوپایداری یا سه‌پایداری را نشان دهد. علاوه بر این، تأثیر میکروپلاستیک ها، مواد مغذی و شدت نور به شدت در هم تنیده شده اند. وجود میکروپلاستیک ها محدودیت های رشد چرنده مربوط به کیفیت و کمیت مواد غذایی را که توسط شدت نور شدید اعمال می شود، تقویت می کند، در حالی که ورودی فسفر بالا مقاومت سیستم را در برابر شرایط نور شدید افزایش می دهد. علاوه بر این، سطوح میکروپلاستیک محیطی بالاتر همیشه به معنی افزایش بار میکروپلاستیک بدن در موجودات نیست، زیرا موجودات نیز تحت تأثیر مواد مغذی و نور هستند. همچنین متوجه شدیم که چراگاه‌ها در مقایسه با تولیدکنندگان در برابر میکروپلاستیک‌ها آسیب‌پذیرتر هستند. اگر تولیدکنندگان بتوانند از میکروپلاستیک ها برای رشد استفاده کنند، سیستم انعطاف پذیری قابل توجهی در برابر میکروپلاستیک ها نشان می دهد.
Abstract
Microplastics pose a severe threat to marine ecosystems; however, relevant mathematical modeling and analysis are lacking. This paper formulates two stoichiometric producer-grazer models to investigate the interactive effects of microplastics, nutrients, and light on population dynamics under different settings. One model incorporates optimal microplastic uptake and foraging behavior based on nutrient availability for natural settings, while the other model does not include foraging in laboratory settings. We establish the well-posedness of the models and examine their long-term behaviors. Our results reveal that in natural environments, producers and grazers exhibit higher sensitivity to microplastics, and the system may demonstrate bistability or tristability. Moreover, the influences of microplastics, nutrients, and light intensity are highly intertwined. The presence of microplastics amplifies the constraints on grazer growth related to food quality and quantity imposed by extreme light intensities, while elevated phosphorus input enhances the system’s resistance to intense light conditions. Furthermore, higher environmental microplastic levels do not always imply elevated microplastic body burdens in organisms, as organisms are also influenced by nutrients and light. We also find that grazers are more vulnerable to microplastics, compared to producers. If producers can utilize microplastics for growth, the system displays significantly greater resilience to microplastics.
Introduction
Plastic pollution has steadily increased due to widespread plastic use, insufficient disposal practices, and limited waste management capacity over decades. Plastic wastes discharged into terrestrial and aquatic habitats are considered a serious threat to biodiversity, due to their resistance to decomposition (Gall and Thompson, 2015, Carbery et al., 2018). The small plastic particles, ranging from 0.1 to 5 mm in size, are called microplastics (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM), 2016). Microplastics are observed almost in all aquatic habitats (Eerkes-Medrano et al., 2015, Peeken et al., 2018). Chronic exposure to microplastics presents several challenges for aquatic organisms (Cui et al., 2017, Duis and Coors, 2016, Nolte et al., 2017, Zhang et al., 2017, Khoironi et al., 2019, Sjollema et al., 2016, Besseling et al., 2014).
Studies have shown that microplastics can be absorbed, concentrated, and transported into various organisms, such as algae. This process significantly hampers algal growth, chlorophyll levels, and photosynthetic activity (Cao et al., 2022, Liu et al., 2019, Chae et al., 2019, Wu et al., 2021, Jiao et al., 2022, Gray and Weinstein, 2017, Zhang et al., 2017, Sjollema et al., 2016, Yang et al., 2020, Ferguson, 2011, Wang et al., 2020, Khoironi et al., 2019, Rodrigues et al., 2019, Salman et al., 2016). This inhibition may occur due to physical factors, such as the blockage of light and airflow (Bhattacharya et al., 2010, Wang et al., 2020, Salman et al., 2016, Bhattacharya et al., 2010), or interactions between microplastics and algae, including adsorption, aggregation (Zhang et al., 2017), and the destruction of algal cell walls through surface absorption (Liu et al., 2019). However, it is worth noting that some laboratory studies suggest that certain algae species may increase in the presence of smaller-sized microplastics, possibly because microplastic particles can be utilized as substrates for the growth of algae (Yokota et al., 2017, Mao et al., 2018, Jiao et al., 2022, Canniff and Hoang, 2018).
Discussion
Microplastics can be mistakenly ingested or adhere to the surfaces of marine organisms, resulting in significant adverse effects (Zhang et al., 2017, Liu et al., 2019, Sazli et al., 2023, Gregory, 1996, Derraik, 2002, Blarer and Burkhardt-Holm, 2016, Alomar et al., 2017). This paper presents two stoichiometric models to investigate population dynamics in the presence of microplastics in both field and laboratory settings. The interactive effects of light, nutrients, and microplastics on population dynamics have been rigorously studied.
For natural ecosystems, the OMUF model reveals complex dynamics. When the microplastic concentration is relatively low, the behavior of the system is strongly influenced by the initial conditions and can exhibit bistability or tristability. Conversely, when microplastics in the environment become excessively abundant, the only outcome is the extinction of grazers. Furthermore, the tolerance to microplastics of the producer-grazer system described in OMUF model (3.5) is significantly lower, compared to that of the system defined in NM model (2.11). This discrepancy potentially arises from the fact that in the natural ecosystem, grazers have to face more challenges and pay significant feeding costs, such as food scarcity, nutrient deficiencies, predation risk, multiple toxins, and human impact, making them more susceptible to microplastics.
Extreme light condition, either too low or too high, restricts the growth of grazers. When light intensity is excessively low, producers can only survive at low densities due to weakened photosynthesis, and grazers go extinct because of insufficient food. When light intensity is excessively high, the P:C ratio in producers becomes very low, and grazers go extinct due to nutrient deficiency. However, when light intensity falls within a moderate range, coexistence of both species may occur, and the system demonstrates a greater ability to withstand microplastics.