Abstract
This paper deals with the long time behavior of a reaction–diffusion system modeling the spatio-temporal interaction of two preys and one predator in a shifting environment. Here the prey populations weakly compete, and the environment becomes hostile for the three species with a constant positive speed. We investigate the survival of the species and describe the spreading speeds of different species. The dynamical behavior exhibits various regions composed of different combinations of species, which propagate with different wave speeds.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Global climate change has led to the shift in the habitat of many ecological species, which causes to influence the survival and spreading of species. Mathematical models with an environmental shift represented by reaction-diffusion equations have attracted a lot of attentions in the last decades. A single species model in shifting environment is given by
where the function f represents the shifting environment with a changing speed s. We refer the reader to [1, 3,4,5, 17, 18, 22] for single equation models. For multi-species interaction systems in shifting environments, we refer the reader to [16, 30, 31, 34, 35] for 2-species competition systems, [33] for a cooperative model and [10, 11] for predator-prey models. See also [6,7,8, 21, 23, 26, 36] and references therein for more related works on models in shifting environments.
In this paper, we consider the following diffusive predator-prey model with two preys and one predator:
where the unknown functions u, v and w, respectively, stand for the population densities of two preys and predator species at position x and time t. Parameters \(d_i\), \(r_i\), \(i=1,2,3\), h, k, a, b are positive and represent the diffusion coefficients, intrinsic growth rates, competing rates, predation rate and conversion rate, respectively. In this work, we assume that the competition between the two preys is weak, i.e., \(0<h,k<1\).
In system (1.1)–(1.3), the term \(\alpha (x-st)\) represents an environmental shift. Here the constant \(s>0\) denotes the shifting speed of the environment while the function \(\alpha (\cdot )\) describes the environmental change. We assume that it models a gradual deterioration of the environment, propagating from left to right at the speed s. More precisely, we always assume that \(\alpha \) is a continuously differentiable and nondecreasing function in \(\mathbb {R}\) such that
Here \(\alpha (\infty )=0\) is imposed so that the maximal carrying capacities of both preys are normalized to be 1. Moreover, due to (1.4), the growth rates of two preys, \(r_1(1+\alpha (x-st))\) and \(r_2(1+\alpha (x-st))\), are positive in the region \(x-st\gg 1\) (ahead the climate change) and negative for \(x-st\ll -1\). This means that the environment is favorable to the preys ahead of the climate change, then gradually deteriorates until it becomes hostile to the species. Note also that the predator species can feed on both prey populations but cannot survive without any prey due to the negative constant \(-1\) in (1.3). See also Remark 4.1 in §4. As far as the predator is concerned, we assume that \(b>1\), which means that the predator can survive when the total populations of these two preys stay at a certain high level in the favorable region \(x-st\gg 1\).
Less work is done for the predator-prey interaction system with climate change because of some mathematical difficulties arising from the lack of a comparison principle. Also, an indirect influence of climate change on predators has been considered so far [10, 11], in which the predators are only affected by the ecological change of their food in shifting environments. Unlike the previous works, this paper considers a situation where climate change directly affects the predator. Such direct effects of climate change on both prey and predator can happen in nature; for example, the habitat of both predator and prey is lost through desertification or rising sea levels due to climate change; the polar bears’ habitat shrinks due to the melting sea ice. Our goal is to investigate the propagation of species in such a shifting environment.
To this aim, we investigate the long time behavior of the solutions of (1.1)–(1.3), equipped with suitable initial data, typically compactly supported or with support bounded above, that is mostly concentrated in the unfavorable region \(x\ll -1\). Here we study the persistence of the different populations under the forced environmental shift and describe the spreading properties. As far as the spreading property is concerned, homogeneous reaction-diffusion systems in which the comparison principle does not hold have attracted much attention in recent years. We refer the reader to [15, 25, 27, 29] for arguments based on refined estimates of the heat kernel, to [9] for arguments based on local comparison, and to [12,13,14, 28, 32] for ideas based on uniform persistence like arguments in dynamical systems.
In this paper, we analyze the long time behavior for the solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) by using partial comparison arguments and some ideas based on dynamical system theory. This long time asymptotic behavior will strongly depend upon the constant equilibria of the problem in the favorable region, that when \(\alpha =0\). One may observe that these constant equilibria without the \(\alpha \)-term are given by
where
As will be seen later, the boundary equilibria will have a strong impact for the dynamical behavior of the problem, yielding various propagation regions.
In order to describe this dynamical behavior, we introduce various linear speeds associated to these boundary equilibria by setting
where
Note that
due to \(0<h,k<1\) and \(b>1\).
Let (u, v, w) be a solution of system (1.1)–(1.3) with initial data \((u_0,v_0,w_0)\). Set
for a positive constant K. It is easy to see that \((u,v,w)(\cdot ,t) \in X_1 \times X_1\times X_{2b-1}\) for \(t>0\), when \((u_0,v_0,w_0) \in X_1 \times X_1\times X_{2b-1}\).
Now, we state the main results of this paper as follows.
First, we have the following extinction results, when the spreading of the preys cannot follow the environmental shift.
Theorem 1.1
Assume that \((u_0,v_0,w_0) \in X_1 \times X_1\times X_{2b-1}\) and all supports of \(u_0,v_0\) and \(w_0\) are bounded above. Then
Moreover, if \(u_0\) and \(v_0\) have compact supports and the support of \(w_0\) is bounded above, then
Theorem 1.2
Assume that \((u_0,v_0,w_0) \in X_1 \times X_1\times X_{2b-1}\). The following statements hold.
(i) For any small \(\zeta >0\), we have
(ii) If \(u_0(x)=v_0(x)=w_0(x)=0\) for \(x\ge K\) for some constant K, then
for any \(\tau >0\).
Next, for the spreading behaviors we have
Theorem 1.3
Let \(s_2^*<s_1^*\). Assume that \((u_0,v_0,w_0) \in X_1 \times X_1\times X_{2b-1}\), \(u_0\ne 0\), and the supports of \(v_0\) and \(w_0\) are bounded above. Suppose that \(s_3^*<s_1^*\). If \(s\in (\max \{s_2^*,s_3^*\},s_1^*)\), then
for all \(\varepsilon \in (0,(s_1^*-s)/2)\).
A similar result to Theorem 1.3 holds for \(E_2\), by interchanging the roles of u and v.
Theorem 1.4
Let \(s_2^*<s_1^*\). Assume that \((u_0,v_0,w_0) \in X_1 \times X_1\times X_{2b-1}\) and \(u_0,v_0\) and \(w_0\) have nonempty supports which are bounded above. Suppose that \(s_2^*<s_3^{***}\). If \(s\in (s_2^*,s_{**})\), \(s_{**}:=\min \{s_1^*,s_3^{***}\}\), then
for all \(\varepsilon \in (0,(s_{**}-s)/2)\)
A similar result to Theorem 1.4 holds for \(E_v\), by interchanging the roles of u and v.
Theorem 1.5
Assume that \((u_0,v_0,w_0) \in X_1 \times X_1\times X_{2b-1}\), \(u_0\ne 0\), \(v_0\ne 0\) and the support of \(w_0\) is bounded above. Suppose that \(s_3^*<s_1^{**}\) and \(s_3^*<s_2^{**}\). If \(s\in (s_3^*,s^{**})\), \(s^{**}:=\min \{s_1^{**},s_2^{**}\}\), then
for all \(\varepsilon \in (0,({ s^{**}}-s)/2)\).
Lastly, for the co-existence case, we have
Theorem 1.6
Assume that \((u_0,v_0,w_0) \in X_1 \times X_1\times X_{2b-1}\) such that \(u_0\ne 0\), \(v_0\ne 0\) and \(w_0\ne 0\). Set \(\underline{s}:=\min \{s_1^{***},s_2^{***},s_3^{***}\}\). If \(s<\underline{s}\), then
for all \(\varepsilon \in (0,(\underline{s}-s)/2)\).
The above theorems describe the spreading speeds and the spreading region for the different species: a single prey in Theorem 1.3, a single prey and the predator in Theorem 1.4, the two preys without predator in Theorem 1.5 and the three species in Theorem 1.6. As in [13], the long time behavior of three species problem without climate shift is not fully understood. It can be expected that the weak competition between the two preys may produce the spreading speed of invasion which is non-linearly determined (see [19, 24] for the purely competitive case). Roughly speaking, when the climate shift is included, these spreading speeds should be compared with the forced speed for the environmental shift since no species can survive in the hostile region \(x-st\ll -1\) in the large times \(t\gg 1\).
Consequently, due to the weak competition between the two preys, the spreading regions mentioned in the above results are sometimes not optimal. For instance one may expect that the optimal result for the spreading to \(E_c\) in Theorem 1.5 is the range \(s\in (s_3^*,\min \{s_1^*,s_2^*\})\). However, due to the best known result for the spreading result of the two weak species competition system (see [30] or Proposition 3.7), we can only derive the spreading to \(E_c\) for \(s\in (s_3^*,s^{**})\).
In the absence of the slow prey v, i.e., when \(s_2^*<s<s_1^*\), the survival of both fast prey u and the predator w can be obtained similarly to that in [10] for a predator-prey system with a single prey. However, when \(s<\min \{s_1^*,s_2^*,s_3^*\}\), the description of the spreading speed and region for the predator w is very difficult to obtain. Roughly speaking, for the survival of the predator, its growth rate has to be positive, that is, \(u+v>1/b\) in the favorable region \(x-st\gg 1\). While the property \(u+v\) uniformly positive in some regions can be achieved, proving that \(u+v\) reaches a suitable level turns out to be a complicated issue. We can only derive some sufficient conditions to ensure such a property. As mentioned above, our proofs are mostly based on dynamical systems arguments. One of the difficulties to overcome is to derive some positive lower bounds estimation of solutions. Although the upper bound \(\underline{s}\) of shifting speed to the co-existence state \(E_*\) is far from optimal, the proof of Theorem 1.6 is quite intricate.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we prove our extinction results, namely Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2. The proofs are very similar to that in [10]. To be self-contained, we provide the details here for the reader’s convenience. One should note that the shifting effect is taken directly in each species in system (1.1)–(1.3), while it was imposed only for the prey species in [10]. Section 3 is devoted to the spreading dynamics. We prove Theorems 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 in Sect. 3. Finally, in §4, we provide some numerical simulations for readers to better understand the spreading dynamics of system (1.1)–(1.3).
2 Extinction
In this section, we show the extinction of species as \(t\rightarrow +\infty \) when the species cannot keep pace with the environmental shifting speed.
2.1 Complete Extinction: Theorem 1.1
Proof of Theorem 1.1
First we assume that \(s > s_1^*\). Then, by the comparison principle for the scalar equation, we get that \(u(x,t)\le \overline{u}(x,t)\) for \(x\in \mathbb {R}\), \(t>0\), where \(\overline{u}\) is the solution of the initial value problem
From [23, Theorem 2.1] and \(u_0 \le 1\), we have that \(\lim _{t\rightarrow \infty }\overline{u}(x,t)=0\) uniformly for \(x\in \mathbb {R}\) when \(s>s_1^*\). Hence (1.5) follows. The case for v in (1.6) is similar, by comparing v with \(\overline{v}\), where \(\overline{v}\) is the solution of
Next, let \(s>{\hat{s}}=\max \{s_1^*,s_2^*\}\). Then, by (1.5) and (1.6), for a given \(\varepsilon \in (0,1/(2b))\) there exists \(T_0>0\) such that \(u(x,t)\le \varepsilon \) and \(v(x,t)\le \varepsilon \) for \(x\in \mathbb {R}\), \(t>T_0\). Consider the function
Then
By comparison, \(w(x,t)\le W(x,t)\) for \(x\in \mathbb {R},\;t\ge T_0\), since \(W(x,T_0)= 2b-1\ge w(x,T_0)\). Thus \(\lim _{t\rightarrow \infty }w(x,t)= 0\) uniformly for \(x\in \mathbb {R}\), when \(s>{\hat{s}}\).
Finally, we assume that \(s > s_3^{*}\). Choose \(\delta >0\) so small that \(s>2\sqrt{r_3(2b+2b\delta -1)}\), and consider the scalar equation for \(i=1,2\) that
From [22, Theorem 1.1], (2.1) has a forced traveling wave solution \(\phi _{i,\delta }(x-st)\) such that \(\phi _{i,\delta }\) is nondecreasing, \(\phi _{i,\delta }(-\infty )=0\) and \(\phi _{i,\delta }(\infty )=1+\delta \). Since \(u_0\) and \(v_0\) are compactly supported with \(u_0\le 1\) and \(v_0\le 1\), we can choose \(L>0\) such \(u_0(x)<\phi _{1,\delta }(x+L)\) and \(v_0(x)<\phi _{2,\delta }(x+L)\) for \(x\in \mathbb {R}\). Then, by comparison principle, \(u(x,t)\le \phi _{1,\delta }(x-st+L)\) and \(v(x,t)\le \phi _{2,\delta }(x-st+L)\) for \(x\in \mathbb {R},\,t>0\).
Now, let
Then f is nondecreasing with \(f(-\infty )=-1+\alpha (-\infty )<0\) and \(f(\infty )=2b+2b\delta -1>0\). Let \(\overline{w}\) be the solution of the initial value problem
From the comparison principle, \(w(x,t)\le \overline{w}(x,t)\) for \(x\in \mathbb {R},\, t>0\). Then it follows from [23, Theorem 2.1] that w(x, t) converges to 0 uniformly for \(x\in \mathbb {R}\) as \(t\rightarrow \infty \). The theorem is thus proved. \(\square \)
2.2 Partial Extinction: Theorem 1.2
Next, we give a proof of Theorem 1.2 as follows.
Proof of Theorem 1.2
By a comparison with suitable supersolutions as defined in the proof of Theorem 1.1 (see (2.1), (2.2) and (2.4)), part (i) and (1.8) in part (ii) follow from [23, Theorem 2.2 (i)] and [23, Theorem 2.2 (ii)], respectively.
It remains to prove (1.9) when \(s_3^*>{\hat{s}}\). Without loss of generality we may assume that \({\hat{s}}=s_1^*\). For this, let \(\tau >0\) be given and let \(\lambda _i\) the smaller positive root of
for \(i=1,2\). Then \(z_i(x,t):=A_i e^{-\lambda _i[x-(s_i^*+\tau /2)t]}\) is a solution of the following linear equation
for any positive constant \(A_i\). Since \(u_0(x)=v_0(x)=0\) for \(x\ge K\), we can choose \(A_i\) large such that
for all \(x\in \mathbb {R}\). Then, by the comparison principle,
for \(x\in \mathbb {R}\), \(t\ge 0\).
Now, we consider a function \(W(x,t) := \min \left\{ 2b-1,B e^{-\lambda _{3} [x-(s_1^*+\tau /2)t]}\right\} \), where \(\lambda _3>0\) is chosen small enough such that
and \(B>0\) will be chosen later. Note that, for (x, t) with \(W(x,t)=B e^{- \lambda _3 [x - (s_1^* + \tau /2) t]}\),
Then, for such (x, t), W(x, t) satisfies
if we choose B large enough. For (x, t) with \(W(x,t)=2b-1\), it is clear that
Hence W is a supersolution of
Recall from (2.5) that
Using \(\alpha \le 0\), it follows from the comparison principle that
for some large \(T_0\). This proves (1.9) and so Theorem 1.2 is proved. \(\square \)
3 Spreading Dynamics
3.1 Spreading to \(E_1\)
We assume that \(s_2^*<s_1^*\), \(s_3^*<s_1^*\) and \(s\in (\max \{s_2^*,s_3^*\},s_1^*)\).
Proof of Theorem 1.3
Let \(s_1^*(\delta ):=2\sqrt{d_1r_1(1-\delta )}\), \(\delta \in (0,1)\). Fix \(s\in (\max \{s_2^*,s_3^*\},s_1^*)\) and \(\varepsilon \in (0,(s_1^*-s)/2)\). Choose \(\delta _0>0\) small enough such that
Since \(s>\max \{s_2^*,s_3^*\}\), by Theorem 1.1, both v and w converge to zero uniformly on \(\mathbb {R}\) as \(t\rightarrow \infty \).
For a \(\delta \in (0,\delta _0)\), there is \(T_0\gg 1\) such that \((hv+aw)(x,t)\le \delta \) for all \(x\in \mathbb {R}\), \(t\ge T_0\). Let \(\underline{u}\) and \(\overline{u}\) be the solutions of
and
respectively. Then \(\underline{u}(x,t)\le u(x,t)\le \overline{u}(x,t)\) for \(x\in \mathbb {R}\), \(t\ge T_0\), by comparison.
On the other hand, from [23, Theorem 2.2 (iii)], we have
since \(\varepsilon \in (0,(s_1^*(\delta )-s))\). Hence we deduce that
Letting \(\delta \downarrow 0\), we have the desired result. \(\square \)
3.2 Spreading to \(E_u\)
Throughout this section we fix (u, v, w) a solution of (1.1)–(1.3) equipped with an initial data \((u_0,v_0,w_0)\) such that all components have nonempty supports which are bounded above.
For \(s<c_1<c_2\) we define \(\omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) as the set of the functions \(({\tilde{u}},{\tilde{v}},{\tilde{w}}):\mathbb {R}^2\rightarrow \mathbb {R}^3\) such that there exist sequences \(\{t_n\}\subset [0,\infty )\) and \(\{x_n\}\subset \mathbb {R}\) with \(t_n\rightarrow \infty \) and \(x_n\in [c_1t_n,c_2t_n]\) for all \(n\ge 0\) such that
Let us also observe that, since \(c_1>s\), any \(({\tilde{u}},{\tilde{v}},{\tilde{w}})\in \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) becomes an entire solution of the homogeneous problem
We start with the following lemma about a weak pointwise spreading lemma in the fast prey case. We assume \(s_2^*<s_1^*\), \(s_2^*<s_3^*\) and set \(s^*=\min \{s_1^*,s_3^*\}\).
Lemma 3.1
Suppose that \(s\in (s_2^*,s^*)\). Fix any \(c_1<c_2\) such that \(s<c_1<c_2<s^*\). Then for any \(c\in [c_1,c_2]\) there exists \(\mu _1(c)\in (0,1)\) such that the solution (u, v, w) satisfies
and for any \(({\tilde{u}},{\tilde{v}},{\tilde{w}})\in \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) with \({\tilde{u}}\ne 0\)
Proof
Fix \(s<c_1,c_2<s^*\). Here we focus on proving (3.5), that is for solutions in \(\omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\). The proof of (3.4), for the solution itself, follows from the same arguments.
First recalling that \(s>s_2^*\), Theorem 1.1 ensures as a special case that
this implies that:
Now to prove (3.5) we argue by contradiction by assuming that there are \(c\in [c_1,c_2]\), sequences \(\{t_n\}\) and \(\{({\tilde{u}}_{n},0,{\tilde{w}}_{n})\}\subset \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) with \({\tilde{u}}_n\ne 0\) for all \(n\ge 0\) and \(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }t_n=\infty \) such that
Then we claim that
Otherwise, there exist sequences \(\{x_n\}\subset [-R,R]\) and \(\{\tau _n\}\) with \(\tau _n\ge t_n\) such that
Without loss of generality (up to a subsequence) we may assume that \(x_n\rightarrow x_0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) for some \(x_0\in [-R,R]\). By the standard parabolic estimates and using \(c>s\), up to the extraction of a subsequence, we have
locally uniformly in \(\mathbb {R}\times \mathbb {R}\), where \((u_\infty ,w_\infty )\) is a nonnegative bounded entire solution of
Since \(u_\infty (0,0)=0\) by (3.6), the strong maximum principle implies that \(u_\infty \equiv 0\). However, \(u_\infty (x_0,0)>0\), a contradiction. Hence (3.7) holds.
Next, we derive that
Indeed, taking any sequence \(\{x_n\}\subset [-R,R]\) and \(\{\tau _n\}\) with \(\tau _n\ge t_n\) for all n, set
Then \(u_\infty \equiv 0\), by (3.7), and \(w_\infty \) is a nonnegative bounded entire solution of
This leads to \(w_\infty \equiv 0\). Hence (3.9) follows.
Now, let
Then \((\lambda _R,\phi )\) satisfies
Since \(c<s_1^*\), we can find constants \(0<\delta \ll 1\) and \(R\gg 1\) such that \(c^2/(4d_1)<\lambda _R<r_1(1-2\delta )\). Note that \(c>s\) and v tends to zero uniformly in \(\mathbb {R}\). Hence, by (1.1), (3.7) and (3.9), for large enough n the function \({\tilde{u}}_n(x,t)\) satisfies
Then \({\hat{u}}_n(x,t):={\tilde{u}}_n(x+ct,t)\) satisfies
Note that \({\tilde{u}}_n>0\) by the strong maximum principle. We can choose a positive constant \(\gamma \) such that \({\hat{u}}_n(x,t_n)\ge \gamma e^{r_1\delta t_n}\phi (x)\) for all \(x\in [-R,R]\). Then a comparison principle gives that
This implies that \({\tilde{u}}_n(ct,t)\!\rightarrow \!\infty \) as \(t\!\rightarrow \!\infty \), a contradiction. Hence the lemma is proved. \(\square \)
Next, we derive a pointwise spreading lemma for the fast prey.
Lemma 3.2
Suppose that \(s\in (s_2^*,s^*)\). For any \(c\in (s,{s}^*)\) there exists \(\mu _2(c)\in (0,1)\) such that
where (u, v, w) is the fixed solution of (1.1)–(1.3).
Proof
Again, proceed by a contradiction by assuming that there are \(c\in (s,s^*)\) and a sequence \(\{t_n\}\) with \(t_n\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) such that
Fix \(s<c_1<c<c_2<s^*\). By (3.4), we can choose a sequence \(\{t_n'\}\) with \(t_n'<t_n\) and \(t_n'\rightarrow \infty \) such that
Then we claim that \(t_n-\tau _n\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), wherein we have set
Indeed, by taking the limit and using \(c>s>s_2^*\), we have due to Theorem 1.1 (up to extraction of a subsequence)
locally uniformly in \(\mathbb {R}\times \mathbb {R}\), where \((u_\infty ,0,w_\infty )\in \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\).
If the sequence \(\{t_n-\tau _n\}\) has a bounded subsequence then, up to a subsequence, one may assume that \(t_n-\tau _n\rightarrow t_0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) for some \(t_0\in \mathbb {R}\). Moreover, we have
by (3.11). It then follows from the strong maximum principle that \(u_\infty \equiv 0\). This is a contradiction to \(u_\infty (0,0)=\gamma _1(c)\), since \(u(c\tau _n,\tau _n)=\gamma _1(c)\) for all n. Hence \(t_n-\tau _n\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \).
Furthermore, since
or equivalently
and since \(t_n-\tau _n\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) we obtain by letting \(n\rightarrow \infty \) that
However, as already observed, \((u_\infty ,0,w_\infty )\in \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) with \(u_\infty \ne 0\) so that (3.12) contradicts (3.5) and this completes the proof of the lemma. \(\square \)
Now we show the uniform spreading of the fast prey u as follows.
Proposition 3.3
Suppose that \(s\in (s_2^*,s^*)\). Then for any \(\varepsilon \in (0,({s}^*-s)/2)\) there is a positive constant \(\kappa _1=\kappa _1(\varepsilon )\) such that
Proof
Fix \(\varepsilon \in (0,({s}^*-s)/2)\) and set \(c_1=s+\varepsilon \) and \(c_2=s^*-\varepsilon \). Consider the shifted function
By contradiction, we assume that there exist \({\tilde{c}}\in [0,c_2-c_1)\) and a sequence \(\{(c_{k},t_{k})\}\) with \(c_{k}\in [0,c_2-c_1)\) such that \(c_k\rightarrow {\tilde{c}}\), \(t_{k}\rightarrow \infty \) as \(k\rightarrow \infty \), and
Next, define the sequence \(\{t_k'\}\) by
so that we have \(t_{k}'<t_{k}\). One may observe that \(t_{k}'\rightarrow \infty \) as \(k\rightarrow \infty \). Indeed, suppose that one has (at least along a subsequence) \(c_kt_k\rightarrow x_\infty \) as \(k\rightarrow \infty \) for some \(x_\infty \in [0,\infty )\). Consider the sequence of functions \((u_k,v_k,w_k)(x,t)=(u,v,w)(x+c_1t_k,t+t_k)\) that converges (possibly along a subsequence) to \((u_\infty ,v_\infty ,w_\infty )\in \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\). Then, due to (3.14),
The strong maximum principle gives that \(u_\infty \equiv 0\). On the other hand, from Lemma 3.2 one has
which implies that \(u_\infty (0,0)\ge \mu _2(c_1)/2>0\), a contradiction. This proves that \(c_kt_k\rightarrow \infty \), or equivalently \(t_k'\rightarrow \infty \) as \(k\rightarrow \infty \).
Now we observe from Lemma 3.2 that
This rewrites as
Then let us introduce
Note that \(\tau _k<t_k\) for all large k. We claim that \(t_{k}-\tau _k\rightarrow \infty \) as \(k\rightarrow \infty \). Indeed, to see this, we assume by contradiction that (at least for a subsequence) \(t_k-\tau _k\rightarrow t_0\) as \(k\rightarrow \infty \) for some \(t_0\in \mathbb {R}\). Consider the sequence of functions
Then, by (3.14), \(u_\infty (0,0)=0\) and so \(u_\infty \equiv 0\) due to the strong maximum principle. On the other hand, due to the definition of \(\tau _k\) (together with (3.14)) one also has
This yields, letting \(k\rightarrow \infty \),
a contradiction with \(u_\infty \equiv 0\). This proves that \(t_n-\tau _n\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \).
Finally, to complete the proof of the proposition, note that for all k large enough one has
Consider the sequence of functions
and possibly along a subsequence, one may assume that
Now let us observe that (3.15) coupled with \(t_k-\tau _k\rightarrow \infty \) as \(k\rightarrow \infty \) ensures that
To reach a contradiction, let us further note that for all k one has
so that \((u_\infty ,v_\infty ,w_\infty )\in \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) together with \(u_\infty \ne 0\). Hence Lemma 3.1 (see (3.5)) ensures that
a contradiction with (3.16), that completes the proof of the proposition. \(\square \)
Remark 3.1
From Proposition 3.3, we obtain an important lower estimate for the functions in \(\omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) with \(s_2^*<s<c_1<c_2<s^*\). More precisely, fix \(c_1<c_2\) and \(\varepsilon >0\) small enough such that
then for all \(({\tilde{u}},{\tilde{v}},{\tilde{w}})\in \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) one has:
where \(\kappa _1(\varepsilon )>0\) is the constant provided in Proposition 3.3.
Recall \(s_{**}=\min \{s_1^*,s_3^{***}\}<s^*\) and \(s_3^{***}=2\sqrt{d_3r_3(b-1)}\). Assume now \(s_2^*<s_{**}\).
For the predator, we first derive the following weak pointwise spreading property.
Lemma 3.4
Assume that \(s\in (s_2^*,s_{**})\) and let \(\varepsilon >0\) small enough such that
Set \(c_1:=s+\varepsilon \) and \(c_2=s_{**}-\varepsilon \). Then for any \(c \in [c_1, c_2]\) there is a positive constant \(\mu _3(c)=\mu _3^\varepsilon (c)\) such that
and for all \(({\tilde{u}},{\tilde{v}},{\tilde{w}})\in \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) with \({\tilde{w}}\ne 0\)
Proof
As before, we only prove the second statement of the lemma. The proof for the solution itself follows from the same arguments.
Let \(c\in [c_1,c_2]\) be given. By contradiction, we assume that there exist a sequence \(\{t_n\}\) with \(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }t_n=\infty \) and a sequence \(\{({\tilde{u}}_{n},{\tilde{v}}_{n},{\tilde{w}}_{n})\}\subset \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) such that
By passing to the limit as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), and applying the strong maximum principle, we have
for any \(R>0\) (as in the proof of Lemma 3.1). Then we claim
for any \(R>0\).
To this aim, for contradiction, we assume that there is a sequence \(\{(x_n,t'_n)\}\) with \(t'_n\ge t_n\) and \(x_n\in [ct'_n-R,ct'_n+R]\) such that \(\limsup _{n\rightarrow \infty }\tilde{u}_n(x_n,t'_n)<1\). Then, by standard parabolic estimates and extracting a subsequence, we have that \((\tilde{u}_n,\tilde{v}_n,{\tilde{w}}_n)(x+x_n,t+t'_n)\) converges to \((u_\infty ,v_\infty ,w_\infty )\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). According to Remark 3.1, one has
so that
In addition, since \(w_\infty (0,t)=0\) for all \(t>0\), by the strong maximum principle we see that \(w_\infty \equiv 0\). Hence \(u_\infty \) satisfies
This implies that \(u_\infty \equiv 1\), a contradiction to \(u_\infty (0,0)<1\). Hence (3.18) is proved.
Now, for any small \(\delta \in (0,(b-1)/2)\) and large \(R>0\), we have
for n large enough. Proceed as in the proof of Lemma 3.1, using \(c<2\sqrt{d_3r_3(b-1)}\), we reach a contradiction to (3.17). The lemma is thus proved. \(\square \)
Next, we derive the pointwise spreading property of the predator.
Lemma 3.5
Assume that \(s\in (s_2^*,s_{**})\). Then for any \(c \in (s, s_{**})\) there exists \(\mu _4 (c)>0\) such that the solution (u, v, w) satisfies
Proof
Fix \(c \in (s, s_{**})\) and let us proceed by contradiction as in the proof of Lemma 3.2. Fix \(\varepsilon >0\) small enough such that \(c\in [s+\varepsilon ,s_{**}-\varepsilon ]\). Then as in the proof of Lemma 3.2 there exists an entire solution \((u_\infty , 0, w_\infty )\in \omega _{[s+\varepsilon ,s_{**}-\varepsilon ]}\) of (3.1)-(3.3) such that
so that \(w_\infty \ne 0\) and the second condition provides a contradiction with Lemma 3.4. Thus the lemma follows. \(\square \)
The last step is to show the uniform spreading of the predator w.
Proposition 3.6
Suppose that \(s\in (s_2^*,s_{**})\). Then for any \(\varepsilon \in (0,({s}_{**}-s)/2)\) there is a positive constant \(\kappa _2=\kappa _2(\varepsilon )\) such that the solution (u, v, w) satisfies
Proof
The proof is exactly the same as that of Proposition 3.3, using Lemma 3.5 instead of Lemma 3.2. We omit it safely. \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 1.4
Note that v tends to zero uniformly on \(\mathbb {R}\) as \(t\rightarrow \infty \), since \(s>s_2^*\). Along with Propositions 3.3 and 3.6, the theorem follows by a similar argument to the proof of [10, Theorem 2.7]. We also omit the details here. \(\square \)
Remark 3.2
From the above discussions, it is easy to see that [10, Theorem 2.7] holds for the system
in which the predator is directly affected by the shifting environment.
3.3 Spreading to \(E_c\)
We assume that \(s_3^*<s_1^{**}\), \(s_3^*<s_2^{**}\) and \(s\in (s_3^*,s^{**})\), where \(s^{**}=\min \{s_1^{**},s_2^{**}\}\).
To prove Theorem 1.5, we first consider the following competition system
Recall the following spreading theorem on (3.21) from [30] (see also [34, Theorem 2.7] when \(r_1=r_2\)).
Proposition 3.7
Let (u, v) be a solution of (3.21) with initial data \((u_0,v_0)\in X_{1}\times X_1\) such that \(u_0\ne 0\) and \(v_0\ne 0\). Then for any \(s\in (0,s^{**})\) we have
for all \(\varepsilon \in (0,(s^{**}-s)/2)\).
Proof of Theorem 1.5
Since \(s>s_3^*\), w tends to zero uniformly on \(\mathbb {R}\) as \(t\rightarrow \infty \). Given \(\delta \in (0,\min \{1-h,1-k\})\). There exists \(T\gg 1\) such that \(aw(x,t)\le \delta \) for all \(x\in \mathbb {R}\), \(t\ge T\). Let \(V=1-v\). Then (u, V) satisfies
Hence
It follows from the comparison principle for cooperative systems that \(u(x,t)\le \overline{u}(x,t)\) and \(V(x,t)\le \overline{V}(x,t)\) for \(x\in \mathbb {R}\), \(t\ge T\), where \((\overline{u},\overline{V})\) is the solution of
Set \(\underline{v}=1-\overline{V}\). Then it follows from (3.22) that \((\overline{u},\underline{v})\) satisfies
Since \(u_0\not \equiv 0\) and \(v_0\not \equiv 0\), both u(x, T) and v(x, T) are positive by the strong maximum principle. It follows from Proposition 3.7 that for any \(s\in (s_3^*,s^{**}_\delta )\),
we have
for all \(\varepsilon \in (0,(s_\delta ^{**}-s))\), where
Similarly, \(u(x,t)\ge \underline{u}(x,t)\) and \(V(x,t)\ge \underline{V}(x,t)\) for \(x\in \mathbb {R}\), \(t\ge T\), where \((\underline{u},\underline{V})\) is the solution of
Set \(\overline{v}=1-\underline{V}\). Then \((\underline{u},\overline{v})\) satisfies
It follows from Proposition 3.7 again that for any \(s\in (s_3^*,s_{**}^\delta )\),
we have
for all \(\varepsilon \in (0,(s_{**}^\delta -s))\), where
Finally, using \(\underline{u}\le u\le \overline{u}\) and \(\underline{v}\le v\le \overline{v}\) in \(\mathbb {R}\times [T,\infty )\), it follows from (3.23) and (3.24) that
for all \(\varepsilon \in (0,(s^{**}-s)/2)\), by letting \(\delta \downarrow 0\), since
Hence Theorem 1.5 is proved. \(\square \)
3.4 Spreading to \(E_*\)
In the sequel, we let \(s_*:=\min \{s_1^*,s_2^*\}\).
First, we prove the following lemma on the weak pointwise persistence of \(u+v\).
Lemma 3.8
Suppose that \(s<s_*\). Then for any \(c\in \left( s,s_*\right) \) there exists \(\nu _1(c)>0\) such that for each \((u_0,v_0,w_0)\in X_1 \times X_1 \times X_{2b-1}\) with \(u_0+v_0\ne 0\) the solution (u, v, w) of (1.1)-(1.3) satisfies
Proof
We assume for contradiction that there are \(c\in \left( s,s_*\right) \), sequences
with \(u_{0n}+v_{0n}\ne 0\) for all \(n\ge 0\) and \(\{t_n\}\) with \(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }t_n=\infty \) such that
wherein \((u_n,v_n,w_n)\) denotes the solution of (1.1)-(1.3) with the initial datum \((u_{0,n},v_{0,n},w_{0,n})\). Then we have
By the same argument as before, we also obtain that
From (3.28), we can further derive that
Indeed, by the same limiting argument, the limit function \(w_\infty \) satisfies (using also \(u_\infty =v_\infty \equiv 0\))
Since \(w_\infty \) is nonnegative and bounded, it must be identically zero. Hence (3.29) follows.
To conclude we argue as above by setting for \(i=1,2\) and \(R>0\)
Then \((\lambda ^i_R,\phi ^i)\) satisfies
Since \(c<s_i^*\) for \(i=1,2\), one can find constants \(0<\delta \ll 1\) and \(R\gg 1\) such that
With such R, due to (3.28) and (3.29), choose \(n\ge 0\) large enough such that
Since \(u_{0n}+v_{0n}\ne 0\), either \(u_{0n}\ne 0\) or \(v_{0n}\ne 0\). If \(u_{0n}\ne 0\), then for some constant \(\kappa _{1,n}\) we have
This implies that \(u_n(ct,t)\rightarrow \infty \) as \(t\rightarrow \infty \), a contradiction. Similarly, if \(v_{0n}\ne 0\), then for some constant \(\kappa _{2,n}\) we have
and we also reach a contradiction. Hence the lemma is proved. \(\square \)
Remark 3.3
It is easy to see that the same argument as in Lemma 3.8 also leads to the following results: Given any \(c\in \left[ 0,s_*\right) \) there exists \({\hat{\nu }}_0(c)>0\) such that for any nontrivial nonnegative solution \((u,v,w)=(u,v,w)(\cdot ,t)\in X_1\times X_1\times X_{2b-1}\) with \(u+v\ne 0\) of the system
satisfies
Next, we prove the pointwise persistence for \(u+v\).
Lemma 3.9
Assume that \(s<s_*\). Let \((u_0,v_0,w_0)\in X_1\times X_1\times X_{2b-1}\) be a given initial data with \(u_0+v_0\ne 0\). Then for any \(c\in (s,s_*)\) there exists \(\nu _2(c)>0\) such that the solution (u, v, w) of (1.1)-(1.3) starting from \((u_0,v_0,w_0)\) satisfies
Proof
Again, proceed by a contradiction. Assume that there is a sequence \(\{t_n\}\) with \(t_n\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) such that the solution (u, v, w) satisfies
This implies that
Since \(u_0+v_0\ne 0\), by using (3.26) we can choose a sequence \(\{t_n'\}\) with \(t_n'<t_n\) and \(t_n'\rightarrow \infty \) such that
Next, define
Note that for n large enough one has \(\tau _n<t_n\) and \((u+v)(c\tau _n,\tau _n)=\rho _1\). It also follows from a limiting argument and the strong maximum principle that \(t_n-\tau _n\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). Indeed, by taking the limit, we have (up to extraction of a subsequence)
locally uniformly in \(\mathbb {R}\times \mathbb {R}\), where \((u_\infty ,v_\infty ,w_\infty )\) is an entire solution of system (3.30). If (up to a subsequence) \(t_n-\tau _n\rightarrow t_0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) for some \(t_0\in \mathbb {R}\), then
by (3.32). It then follows from the strong maximum principle that \(u_\infty \equiv 0\). Similarly, we have \(v_\infty \equiv 0\). This is a contradiction to \((u_\infty +v_\infty )(0,0)=\rho _1\), since \((u+v)(c\tau _n,\tau _n)=\rho _1\) for all n. Hence \(t_n-\tau _n\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \).
Furthermore, since
we obtain
due to \(t_n-\tau _n\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). On the other hand note that \((u_\infty ,v_\infty ,w_\infty )\) is a solution of (3.30) in \(X_1\times X_1\times X_{2b-1}\) with \(u_\infty +v_\infty \ne 0\). Hence the second condition in (3.33) contradicts Remark 3.3. This completes the proof of the lemma. \(\square \)
With Lemma 3.9, we can show the uniform persistence of \(u+v\).
Proposition 3.10
Assume that \(s<s_*\). Let \((u_0,v_0,w_0)\in X_1\times X_1\times X_{2b-1}\) be a given initial data with \(u_0+v_0\ne 0\). Then the solution (u, v, w) of (1.1)-(1.3) starting from \((u_0,v_0,w_0)\) satisfies for any \(\varepsilon \in (0,(s_*-s)/2)\) there is a positive constant \(\theta _\varepsilon \) such that
Proof
Again to prove this proposition we argue by contradiction by assuming that for some given \(\varepsilon \in (0,(s_*-s)/2)\), there is a sequence \(\{(x_{n},t_{n})\}\) such that \(t_{n}\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \),
First, by Lemma 3.9, we have
Then, for the sequence \(\{t_{n}':=x_{n}/c_1\}\), we have \(t_{n}'<t_{n}\), \(t_{n}'\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) and
Now introduce for all n
where \(\rho _2\) is given by
Here \({\hat{\nu }}_0(0)\) is defined in Remark 3.3. Note that \(\tau _n<t_n\) and \((u+v)(c_1t_n',\tau _n)=\rho _2\) for all large n, due to (3.35).
Claim that \(t_{n}-\tau _n\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). For this, we let
Note that
Hence \((u_\infty ,v_\infty ,w_\infty )\) is a nonnegative bounded entire solution of (3.30). If, for a subsequence, \(t_n-\tau _n\rightarrow t_0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) for some \(t_0\in \mathbb {R}\), then
by (3.35). Hence \(u_\infty (0,t_0)=v_\infty (0,t_0)=0\). It follows from the strong maximum principle that \(u_\infty =v_\infty \equiv 0\), a contradiction to
This shows that \(t_n-\tau _n\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). Hence we obtain that \((u_\infty ,v_\infty ,w_\infty )\) is a solution of (3.30) with \((u_\infty +v_\infty )(0,0)=\rho _2\ne 0\) and
This contradicts Remark 3.3 and completes the proof of the proposition. \(\square \)
We now investigate the spreading for the predator w. Here we fix an initial data \((u_0,v_0,w_0)\) in \(X_1\times X_1\times X_{2b-1}\) with
We denote by (u, v, w) the solution of (1.1)-(1.3) starting at time \(t=0\) from \((u_0,v_0,w_0)\). As before for \(s<c_1<c_2\) we define \(\omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) as the set of the functions \(({\tilde{u}},{\tilde{v}},{\tilde{w}}):\mathbb {R}^2\rightarrow \mathbb {R}^3\) such that there exists \(\{(x_n,t_n)\}\) with
such that
Moreover, according to Proposition 3.10, when \(s<s_*\) for each \(\varepsilon \in (0,(s_*-s)/2)\) we have for any \(({\tilde{u}},{\tilde{v}},{\tilde{w}})\in \omega _{[s+\varepsilon ,s_*-\varepsilon ]}\)
Here the constant \(\theta _\varepsilon \) is provided by Proposition 3.10.
We now derive the following lemma on the weak pointwise persistence of w. Recall \(s^{**}=\min \{s_1^{**},s_2^{**}\}<s_*\).
Lemma 3.11
Suppose that \(s<{\bar{s}}:=\min \{s^{**},s_3^{***}\}\). Fix \(\varepsilon \in (0,{\bar{s}}-s)/2)\) and let \(c_1=s+\varepsilon \), \(c_2={{\bar{s}}}-\varepsilon \). Then for any \(c\in [c_1,c_2]\) there is a constant \(\nu _3(c)>0\) such that
and for any solution \(({\tilde{u}},{\tilde{v}},{\tilde{w}})\in \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) with \({\tilde{w}}\ne 0\) one has
Proof
Here again we prove (3.40) while the proof of (3.39) for the solution itself is similar.
To prove (3.40) we argue by contradiction and assume that for some \(c\in [c_1,c_2]\) there exist a sequence \(\{t_n\}\) with \(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }t_n=\infty \) and a sequence \(\{({\tilde{u}}_{n},{\tilde{v}}_{n},{\tilde{w}}_{n})\}\in \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) with \({\tilde{w}}_n\ne 0\) such that
The same argument as before leads
Next, fix \(\eta >0\) small enough and \(R>0\) large enough. Then, using (3.42), for all \(n\gg 1\) one has
Since \(u\le 1\) and \(v\le 1\), \(({\tilde{u}}_n, {\tilde{v}}_n)\) satisfies
We also have
As a consequence, since \(c<s_1^{**}\), if \({\tilde{u}}_n\ne 0\), then using the same arguments as for [14, Lemma 5.2] one has
where \(q^1_{\eta ,R}\) denotes a positive solution of the problem
Note that this is true when \(R>0\) is large enough and \(\eta >0\) small enough so that \(c<2\sqrt{d_1r_1(1-(h+a\eta ))}\). Moreover, we have
As a consequence, one obtains that
Similarly, since \(c<s_2^{**}\), either \({\tilde{v}}_n=0\) or \({\tilde{v}}_n\ne 0\) and
As a consequence of [20] (see also [13]), we obtain
-
(1)
If \({\tilde{v}}_n\ne 0\) and \({\tilde{u}}_n= 0\), then
$$\begin{aligned} {\tilde{v}}_n(x+ct,t)\rightarrow 1\text { locally uniformly.} \end{aligned}$$ -
(2)
If \({\tilde{u}}_n\ne 0\) and \({\tilde{v}}_n= 0\), then
$$\begin{aligned} {\tilde{u}}_n(x+ct,t)\rightarrow 1\text { locally uniformly.} \end{aligned}$$ -
(3)
If \({\tilde{u}}_n\ne 0\) and \({\tilde{v}}_n\ne 0\), then
$$\begin{aligned} ({\tilde{u}}_n,{\tilde{v}}_n)(x+ct,t)\rightarrow (u_c,v_c)\text { locally uniformly}. \end{aligned}$$
In any case, for all \(R>0\) there exists a sequence \(\{t_n'\}\) with \(t_n'\ge t_n\) for all \(n\ge 0\) such that
Using (3.43), we complete the proof of the result. Indeed, for any small \(\delta >0\) and large \(R>0\), the function \({\tilde{w}}_n\) satisfies
for any n large enough. As before, since \({\tilde{w}}_n\ne 0\) and using \(s<c<s_3^{***}\), we construct for \(R\gg 1\) an unbounded sub-solution and reach a contradiction.
Thereby the lemma is proved. \(\square \)
With Lemma 3.11, a similar argument to the proof of Lemma 3.2 we can prove the following lemma. We omit its proof.
Lemma 3.12
Suppose that \(s<{\bar{s}}\). Then for any \(c\in (s,{\bar{s}})\) there is a constant \(\nu _4(c)>0\) such that
Then, similar to that of Proposition 3.3, we have the following uniform persistence of w.
Proposition 3.13
Suppose that \(s<{\bar{s}}\). Then for any \(\varepsilon \in (0,({\bar{s}}-s)/2)\) there is a positive constant \(\theta _1^\varepsilon \) such that the solution (u, v, w) satisfies
Now, we come to the question of the persistence of the fast prey. Here recall that (u, v, w) is a fixed solution of (1.1)–(1.3) equipped with the initial data \((u_0,v_0,w_0)\) with \(u_0\ne 0\), \(v_0\ne 0\) and \(w_0\ne 0\).
Lemma 3.14
Set
and suppose that \(s<\underline{s}_1\). Fix \(s<c_1<c_2<\underline{s}_1\). Then for each \(c\in [c_1,c_2]\) there exists \(\nu _5(c)>0\) such that the solution (u, v, w) satisfies
and for any \(({\tilde{u}},{\tilde{v}},{\tilde{w}})\in \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) with \({\tilde{u}}\ne 0\)
Proof
Fix \(\varepsilon >0\) small such that
First note that Propositions 3.10 and 3.13 ensure that for all \(({\tilde{u}},{\tilde{v}},{\tilde{w}})\in \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) one has
Now as before to prove the lemma we only prove (3.48). We argue by contradiction assuming that there are sequences \(\{({\tilde{u}}_{n},{\tilde{v}}_{n},{\tilde{w}}_{n})\}\subset \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) with \({\tilde{u}}_n\ne 0\) for all \(n\ge 0\) and \(\{t_n\}\) with \(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }t_n=\infty \) such that
for some given \(c\in [c_1,c_2]\). Then, as before, we have
From (3.51), we can further derive that
Indeed, by a contradiction argument, assume that (3.52) does not hold for some \(R>0\). Then there is a sequence \(\{(x_n,\tau _n)\}\) with \(\tau _n\ge t_n\) and \(|x_n-c\tau _n|\le R\) for all n such that
for some \(\delta >0\). Let
Then \(u_\infty \equiv 0\) and due to (3.49), \((v_\infty ,w_\infty )\) satisfies
and it is a nonnegative bounded entire solution of
Hence [10, Theorem 2.7] ensures that \(\left( v_\infty ,w_\infty \right) \equiv (u_p,w_p)\) a contradiction with (3.53). Hence (3.52) is proved.
Now, it follows from (3.51) and (3.52) that there are positive constants \(\delta \) small and R large such that the positive function \({\tilde{u}}_n\) satisfies
for large enough n. The same argument as before leads to a contradiction, using \(s<c<s_1^{***}\). Hence the lemma is proved. \(\square \)
With Lemma 3.14, we show the pointwise persistence of u component.
Lemma 3.15
Recalling (3.46), suppose that \(s<\underline{s}_1\). Let \(\varepsilon >0\) be given such that \(\varepsilon <({\underline{s}}_1-s)/2\). For any \(c\in [s+\varepsilon ,\underline{s}_1-\varepsilon ]\) there exists \(\nu _6(c)=\nu _6^\varepsilon (c)>0\) such that the solution (u, v, w) satisfies
Proof
Again, proceed by a contradiction. Assume that there exist \(c\in [c_1,c_2]\) with \(c_1=s+\varepsilon \) and \(c_2=\underline{s}_1-\varepsilon \) and a sequence \(\{t_n\}\) with \(t_n\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) such that
By (3.47), we can choose a sequence \(\{t_n'\}\) with \(t_n'<t_n\) and \(t_n'\rightarrow \infty \) such that
Recalling the definition of \({\hat{\nu }}_0(c)\) in Remark 3.3, we set
As above, it follows from a limiting argument and a strong maximum principle that \(t_n-\tau _n\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \).
Now, let
Note that \((u_\infty ,v_\infty ,w_\infty )\in \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) with
that contradicts Lemma 3.14 and proves the lemma. \(\square \)
Then, as before, we obtain the uniform persistence of prey u as follows.
Proposition 3.16
Suppose that \(s<\underline{s}_1\). Then for any \(\varepsilon \in (0,(\underline{s}_1-s)/2)\) there is a positive constant \(\theta _2^\varepsilon \) such that the solution (u, v, w) satisfies
Finally, we come to the question of the persistence of the slow prey v. In fact, a similar argument to that for Lemma 3.14 gives
Lemma 3.17
Set
and suppose that \(s<\underline{s}_2\). Fix \(s<c_1<c_2<\underline{s}_2\). Then for each \(c\in [c_1,c_2]\) there exist \(\nu _7(c)>0\) such that the solution (u, v, w) satisfies
and for any \(({\tilde{u}},{\tilde{v}},{\tilde{w}})\in \omega _{[c_1,c_2]}\) with \({\tilde{v}}\ne 0\) one has
Then as before, we obtain the following result.
Lemma 3.18
Recalling (3.56), assume that \(s<\underline{s}_2\). Fix \(\varepsilon \in (0,{\bar{s}}-s)/2)\) and let \(c_1=s+\varepsilon \), \(c_2={{\bar{s}}}-\varepsilon \). Then for any \(c\in [c_1,c_2]\) there is a constant \(\nu _8(c)>0\) such that the solution (u, v, w) satisfies
Hence we obtain the following uniform persistence of prey v.
Proposition 3.19
Suppose that \(s<\underline{s}_2\). Then for any \(\varepsilon \in (0,(\underline{s}_2-s)/2)\) there is a positive constant \(\theta _3^\varepsilon >0\) such that the given solution (u, v, w) satisfies
Therefore, Theorem 1.6 follows from Propositions 3.13, 3.16 and 3.19, by a similar proof to that of Theorem 1.4 using a Lyapunov functional approach of [13, Lemma 4.3] and [20, Theorem 1.1].
4 Some Numerical Simulations
In this section, we first present some numerical simulations for the spreading dynamics of system (1.1)-(1.3) described in Theorems 1.3–1.6. The following parameters and functions are used in our numerical simulations.
The diffusion coefficients will be given for each case in Figs. , , , which represent the spreading of species for Theorem 1.3–1.6, respectively.
As we observe from these figures, both Figs. 1 and 2 have the same spatial ranges in (1.10) and (1.11) as stated in Theorems 1.3 and 1.4, respectively. However, the spatial ranges in Figs. 3 and 4 are larger than those in (1.12) and (1.13) stated in Theorems 1.5 and 1.6, respectively. This indicates that the upper bounds of s in Theorems 1.5 and 1.6 are not optimal. This is an open question to be explored in the future.
Finally, we add a remark on the spreading dynamics when condition \(\alpha (\infty )=0\) in (1.4) is replaced by \(\alpha (\infty )>0\).
Remark 4.1
In fact, when \(\alpha _0:=\alpha (\infty )>0\) in (1.4), since we assume that the predator cannot survive without any prey, we must have \(\alpha _0\in (0,1)\). Then, by setting
we end up with, after dropping the tilde, the system
in which \(\alpha (\infty )=0\). Note that \(\gamma >0\) and so the predator cannot survive without any prey.
On the other hand, we now assume \(b>\gamma \) to ensure that the predator can survive if there is enough supply from the preys, namely, \(u+v>\gamma /b\) which is possible since \(\gamma /b<1\) (recalling that the maximal carrying capacity of u (or v) is 1). Then the spreading dynamics described in Theorems 1.1–1.6 hold with the following changes.
-
(1)
The constant equilibria:
$$\begin{aligned} {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} v_p=u_p=\frac{1+a\gamma }{1+ab},\; w_p=\frac{b-\gamma }{1+ab},\\ u_*=\frac{(1+a\gamma )(1-h)}{1-hk+ab(2-h-k)},\;v_*=\frac{(1+a\gamma )(1-k)}{1-hk+ab(2-h-k)},\; w_*=\frac{b(2-h-k)-\gamma (1-hk)}{1-hk+ab(2-h-k)},\; \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$ -
(2)
The linear speeds:
$$\begin{aligned} s_3^*=2\sqrt{d_3r_3(2b-\gamma )},\; s_3^{**}=2\sqrt{d_3r_3[b(u_c+v_c)-\gamma ]},\; s_3^{***}=2\sqrt{d_3r_3(b-\gamma )}. \end{aligned}$$ -
(3)
The function space \(X_1\times X_1\times X_{2b-1}\) is replaced by \(X_1\times X_1\times X_{2b-\gamma }\).
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable
References
Alfaro, M., Berestycki, H., Raoul, G.: The effect of climate shift on a species submitted to dispersion, evolution, growth, and nonlocal competition. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 49, 562–596 (2017)
Aronson, D.G., Weinberger, H.F. Nonlinear diffusion in population genetics, combustion, and nerve pulse propagation, in: J.A. Goldstein(Ed.), Partial Differential Equations and Related Topics, in: Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 446, Springer, Berlin, pp. 5-49(1975)
Berestycki, H., Desvillettes, L., Diekmann, O.: Can climate change lead to gap formation? Ecol. Complex. 20, 264–270 (2014)
Berestycki, H., Diekmann, O., Nagelkerke, C.J., Zegeling, P.A.: Can a species keep pace with a shifting climate? Bull. Math. Biol. 71, 399–429 (2009)
Berestycki, H., Fang, J.: Forced waves of the Fisher-KPP equation in a shifting environment. J. Differen. Equ 264, 2157–2183 (2018)
Berestycki, H., Rossi, L.: Reaction-diffusion equations for population dynamics with forced speed, I - the case of the whole space. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 21, 41–67 (2008)
Berestycki, H., Rossi, L.: Reaction-diffusion equations for population dynamics with forced speed, II - cylindrical type domains. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 25, 19–61 (2009)
Bouhours, J., Giletti, T.: Spreading and vanishing for a monostable reaction-diffusion equation with forced speed. J. Dynam. Diff. Equations 31, 247–286 (2019)
Chen, X., Tsai, J.C.: Spreading speed in a farmers and hunter-gatherers model arising from Neolithic transition in Europe. J. Math. Pures Appl. 143, 192–207 (2020)
Choi, W., Giletti, T., Guo, J.-S.: Persistence of species in a predator-prey system with climate change and either nonlocal or local dispersal. J. Differen. Equ. 302, 807–853 (2021)
Choi, W., Guo, J.-S.: Forced waves of a three species predator-prey system in a shifting environment. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 514, 126283 (2022)
Ducrot, A.: Spatial propagation for a two component reaction-diffusion system arising in population dynamics. J. Differen. Equ. 260, 8316–8357 (2016)
Ducrot, A., Giletti, T., Guo, J.-S., Shimojo, M.: Asymptotic spreading speeds for a predator-prey system with two predators and one prey. Nonlinearity 34, 669–704 (2021)
Ducrot, A., Giletti, T., Matano, H.: Spreading speeds for multidimensional reaction-diffusion systems of the prey-predator type. Calc. Var. Partial Differen. Equ. 58, 34 (2019)
Ducrot, A., Guo, J.-S., Lin, G., Pan, S.: The spreading speed and the minimal wave speed of a predator-prey system with nonlocal dispersal. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 70, 25 (2019)
Dong, F.-D., Li, B., Li, W.-T.: Forced waves in a Lotka-Volterra competition-diffusion model with a shifting habitat. J. Differen. Equ. 276, 433–459 (2021)
Fang, J., Peng, R., Zhao, X.-Q.: Propagation dynamics of a reaction-diffusion equation in a time-periodic shifting environment. J. Math. Pures Appl. 147, 1–28 (2021)
Fang, J., Lou, Y., Wu, J.: Can pathogen spread keep pace with its host invasion? SIAM J. Appl. Math. 76, 1633–1657 (2016)
Girardin, L., Lam, K.-Y.: Invasion of open space by two competitors: spreading properties of monostable two-species competition-diffusion systems. Proc. London Math. Soc. 119, 1279–1335 (2019)
Guo, J.-S., Shimojo, M.: Stabilization to a positive equilibrium for some reaction-diffusion systems. Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl. 62, 12 (2021)
Hamel, F.: Reaction-diffusion problems in cylinders with no invariance by translation, part II: monotone perturbations. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 14, 555–596 (1997)
Hu, H., Zou, X.: Existence of an extinction wave in the Fisher equation with a shifting habitat. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 145, 4763–4771 (2017)
Li, B., Bewick, S., Shang, J., Fagan, W.F.: Persistence and spread of a species with a shifting habitat edge. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 5, 1397–1417 (2014)
Liu, Q., Liu, S., Lam, K.-Y.: Asymptotic spreading of interacting species with multiple fronts I: a geometric optics approach. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 40, 3683–3714 (2020)
Pan, S., Lin, G.: Invasion speed of the prey in a predator-prey system. Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 44, 3983–3990 (2021)
Vo, H.-H.: Persistence versus extinction under a climate change in mixed environments. J. Differen. Equ. 259, 4947–4988 (2015)
Wang, X., Lin, G., Ruan, S. Spreading speeds and traveling wave solutions of diffusive vector-borne disease models without monotonicity, Proc. Royal Soc. Edinburgh, Section A: Mathematics, https://doi.org/10.1017/prm.2021.76
Wang, X., Lin, G., Ruan, S.: Spatial propagation in a within-host viral infection model. Stud. Appl. Math. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/sapm.12490
Wu, C.-C.: The spreading speed for a predator-prey model with one predator and two preys. Appl. Math. Lett. 91, 9–14 (2019)
Wu, C.-C.: Persistence of two weak competing species in a shifting environment. Appl. Math. Lett. 129, 107973 (2022)
Wu, C., Wang, Y., Zou, X.: Spatial-temporal dynamics of a Lotka-Volterra competition model with nonlocal dispersal under shifting environment. J. Differen. Equ. 267, 4890–4921 (2019)
Xiao, D., Mori, R.: Spreading properties of a three-component reaction-diffusion model for the population of farmers and hunter-gatherers. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré C 38, 911–951 (2021)
Yang, Y., Wu, C., Li, Z.: Forced waves and their asymptotics in a Lotka-Volterra cooperative model under climate change. Appl. Math. Comput. 353, 254–264 (2019)
Yuan, Y., Wang, Y., Zou, X.: Spatial dynamics of a Lotka-Volterra competition model with a shifting habitat. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B 24, 5633–5671 (2019)
Zhang, Z., Wang, W., Yang, J.: Persistence versus extinction for two competing species under a climate change. Nonlinear Anal. Model. Control 22, 285–302 (2017)
Zhou, Y., Kot, M.: Life on the move: modeling the effects of climate-driven range shifts with integro-difference equations. In: Lewis, M.A., Maini, P.K., Petrovskii, S.V. (eds.) Dispersal, Individual Movement and Spatial Ecology, A Mathematical Perspective, pp. 263–292. Lecture Notes Math (2013)
Acknowledgements
This work was carried out by the CNRS-NCTS joint International Research Network ReaDiNet.
Funding
This work was supported in part by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2022R1F1A1063068), the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2021R1A6A3A01086879), and by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under the grant 108-2115-M-032-006-MY3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JSG wrote the main manuscript text after the completion of all proofs of theorems discussed by all authors. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
We declare that the authors have no competing interests as defined by Springer, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The results in this manuscript have not been published elsewhere, nor are they under consideration (from you or one of your Contributing Authors) by another publisher.
Consent for publication
We have read and understood the publishing policy, and submit this manuscript in accordance with this policy.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ahn, I., Choi, W., Ducrot, A. et al. Spreading Dynamics for a Three Species Predator–Prey System with Two Preys in a Shifting Environment. J Dyn Diff Equat (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10884-022-10237-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10884-022-10237-z