Long Term Behavior
In the lectures, we developed a model for the growth of a population based on the assumption that the growth rate over a period is based on the current size of the population.
$$\Delta a_{n+1} = ka_n$$ $$a_{n+1} = (1+k)a_n = ra_n$$ $$a_n = a_0 r^n$$When we're thinking about models like this, it's useful to think about how it behaves in the long term, i.e. for large values of $n$, for different values of its parameters.
$a_0$, the initial population has size is constant and has to be greater than or equal to 1 so it's affect is only going to scale the results. For example, a value of 100 will make the population values change 10 times faster than a value of 10 but it won't change the over all direction or behavior. Since all we're interested in is that behavior, we can chose a reasonable value for $a_0$, say 50, and start analyzing the behavior for different values of $r$ from there.
For each of the following ranges of $r$, pick several values (where appropriate), come up with a numeric solution, graph each one then suggest what the long term behavior is for values in that range.
The results are summarized below. Click on the box to display the text once you're done with your calculations.
I choose $r=1.5, 3\text{ and } 5$ and got the following results. In the first table, I left out the larger values for $r= 3$ and $r=5$ since those graphs grow so fast it quickly became impossible to see the behavior of the $r=1.5$ scenario. The second graph shows the complete sequences for all three options. This is enough for us to conclude that the population becomes unbounded for values of $r > 1$.
| n \ r | 1.5 | 3 | 5 |
| 0 | 50 | 50 | 50 |
| 1 | 75 | 150 | 250 |
| 2 | 112.5 | 450 | 1250 |
| 3 | 168.75 | 1350 | 6250 |
| 4 | 253.125 | 4050 | 31250 |
| 5 | 379.6875 | 12150 | 156250 |
| 6 | 569.53125 | 36450 | 781250 |
| 7 | 854.296875 | 109350 | 3906250 |
| 8 | 1281.4453125 | 328050 | 19531250 |
When $r=1$, the sequence becomes $a_n=a_0$ for all $n$ and when $r=0$, it becomes $a_n=0$ also for all $n$, i.e. it's constant in both cases.
I choose $r=.75, .5\text{ and } .25$ and got the following results. You can see in all three cases that the population is dropping off to 0 so we've found a circumstance where it will eventually go extinct.
| n \ r | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 |
| 0 | 50.000 | 50.000 | 50.000 |
| 1 | 12.500 | 25.000 | 37.500 |
| 2 | 3.125 | 12.500 | 28.125 |
| 3 | 0.781 | 6.250 | 21.094 |
| 4 | 0.195 | 3.125 | 15.820 |
| 5 | 0.049 | 1.563 | 11.865 |
| 6 | 0.012 | 0.781 | 8.899 |
| 7 | 0.003 | 0.391 | 6.674 |
| 8 | 0.001 | 0.195 | 5.006 |
I choose $r=-1.5, -1\text{ and } -0.5$ and got the following results. I added lines connecting the points to make the behavior clearer. In all three cases, we're seeing the same general behavior that we saw with the corresponding positive $r$ values only oscillating between positive and negative. This is clearly an unrealistic behavior for a physical population so we would normally not allow $r$ values in this range.
| n \ r | -0.5 | -1.0 | -1.5 |
| 0 | 50.000 | 50.000 | 50.000 |
| 1 | -25.000 | -50.000 | -75.000 |
| 2 | 12.500 | 50.000 | 112.500 |
| 3 | -6.250 | -50.000 | -168.750 |
| 4 | 3.125 | 50.000 | 253.125 |
| 5 | -1.563 | -50.000 | -379.688 |
| 6 | 0.781 | 50.000 | 569.531 |
| 7 | -0.391 | -50.000 | -854.297 |
| 8 | 0.195 | 50.000 | 1281.445 |




