In the evolving field of solar energy, precise forecasting of Solar Irradiance (SI) stands as a pivotal challenge for the optimization of photovoltaic (PV) systems. Addressing the inadequacies in current forecasting techniques, we introduced advanced machine learning models, namely the Rectified Linear Unit Activation with Adaptive Moment Estimation Neural Network (RELAD-ANN) and the Linear Support Vector Machine with Individual Parameter Features (LSIPF). These models broke new ground by striking an unprecedented balance between computational efficiency and predictive accuracy, specifically engineered to overcome common pitfalls such as overfitting and data inconsistency. The RELAD-ANN model, with its multi-layer architecture, sets a new standard in detecting the nuanced dynamics between SI and meteorological variables. By integrating sophisticated regression methods like Support Vector Regression (SVR) and Lightweight Gradient Boosting Machines (Light GBM), our results illuminated the intricate relationship between SI and its influencing factors, marking a novel contribution to the domain of solar energy forecasting. With an R2 of 0.935, MAE of 8.20, and MAPE of 3.48%, the model outshone other models, signifying its potential for accurate and reliable SI forecasting, when compared with existing models like Multi-Layer Perceptron, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Multilayer-LSTM, Gated Recurrent Unit, and 1-dimensional Convolutional Neural Network, while the LSIPF model showed limitations in its predictive ability. Light GBM emerged as a robust approach in evaluating environmental influences on SI, outperforming the SVR model. Our findings contributed significantly to the optimization of solar energy systems and could be applied globally, offering a promising direction for renewable energy management and real-time forecasting.
Citation: Muhammad Farhan Hanif, Muhammad Sabir Naveed, Mohamed Metwaly, Jicang Si, Xiangtao Liu, Jianchun Mi. Advancing solar energy forecasting with modified ANN and light GBM learning algorithms[J]. AIMS Energy, 2024, 12(2): 350-386. doi: 10.3934/energy.2024017
[1] | Yong Luo . Global existence and stability of the classical solution to a density-dependent prey-predator model with indirect prey-taxis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 6672-6699. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021331 |
[2] | Yongli Cai, Malay Banerjee, Yun Kang, Weiming Wang . Spatiotemporal complexity in a predator--prey model with weak Allee effects. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2014, 11(6): 1247-1274. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2014.11.1247 |
[3] | Paulo Amorim, Bruno Telch, Luis M. Villada . A reaction-diffusion predator-prey model with pursuit, evasion, and nonlocal sensing. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 5114-5145. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019257 |
[4] | Yuxuan Zhang, Xinmiao Rong, Jimin Zhang . A diffusive predator-prey system with prey refuge and predator cannibalism. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(3): 1445-1470. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019070 |
[5] | Raimund Bürger, Gerardo Chowell, Elvis Gavilán, Pep Mulet, Luis M. Villada . Numerical solution of a spatio-temporal predator-prey model with infected prey. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(1): 438-473. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019021 |
[6] | Tingfu Feng, Leyun Wu . Global dynamics and pattern formation for predator-prey system with density-dependent motion. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(2): 2296-2320. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023108 |
[7] | Jin Zhong, Yue Xia, Lijuan Chen, Fengde Chen . Dynamical analysis of a predator-prey system with fear-induced dispersal between patches. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2025, 22(5): 1159-1184. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025042 |
[8] | Ilse Domínguez-Alemán, Itzel Domínguez-Alemán, Juan Carlos Hernández-Gómez, Francisco J. Ariza-Hernández . A predator-prey fractional model with disease in the prey species. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(3): 3713-3741. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024164 |
[9] | Muhammad Shoaib Arif, Kamaleldin Abodayeh, Asad Ejaz . On the stability of the diffusive and non-diffusive predator-prey system with consuming resources and disease in prey species. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(3): 5066-5093. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023235 |
[10] | Yuanshi Wang, Donald L. DeAngelis . A mutualism-parasitism system modeling host and parasite with mutualism at low density. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2012, 9(2): 431-444. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2012.9.431 |
In the evolving field of solar energy, precise forecasting of Solar Irradiance (SI) stands as a pivotal challenge for the optimization of photovoltaic (PV) systems. Addressing the inadequacies in current forecasting techniques, we introduced advanced machine learning models, namely the Rectified Linear Unit Activation with Adaptive Moment Estimation Neural Network (RELAD-ANN) and the Linear Support Vector Machine with Individual Parameter Features (LSIPF). These models broke new ground by striking an unprecedented balance between computational efficiency and predictive accuracy, specifically engineered to overcome common pitfalls such as overfitting and data inconsistency. The RELAD-ANN model, with its multi-layer architecture, sets a new standard in detecting the nuanced dynamics between SI and meteorological variables. By integrating sophisticated regression methods like Support Vector Regression (SVR) and Lightweight Gradient Boosting Machines (Light GBM), our results illuminated the intricate relationship between SI and its influencing factors, marking a novel contribution to the domain of solar energy forecasting. With an R2 of 0.935, MAE of 8.20, and MAPE of 3.48%, the model outshone other models, signifying its potential for accurate and reliable SI forecasting, when compared with existing models like Multi-Layer Perceptron, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Multilayer-LSTM, Gated Recurrent Unit, and 1-dimensional Convolutional Neural Network, while the LSIPF model showed limitations in its predictive ability. Light GBM emerged as a robust approach in evaluating environmental influences on SI, outperforming the SVR model. Our findings contributed significantly to the optimization of solar energy systems and could be applied globally, offering a promising direction for renewable energy management and real-time forecasting.
In 1987, Karevia and Odell [1] first proposed the following one-predator and one-prey model with prey-taxis in order to explain that an area-restricted search creates the following predator aggregation phenomenon
{ut=∇⋅(d(w)∇u)−∇⋅(uχ(w)∇w)+G1(u,w),wt=DΔw+G2(u,w), | (1.1) |
where D>0 is the diffusivity coefficient of preys, d(w) denotes the motility function of predators, χ(w) represents the prey-taxis sensitivity coefficient, and the term −∇⋅(uχ(w)∇w) stands for the tendency of the predator moving towards the increasing direction of the prey gradient, and it is viewed as the prey-taxis term. The functions G1(u,w) and G2(u,w) describe the predator-prey interactions, which include both intra-specific and inter-specific interactions. Generally the predator-prey interaction functions G1(u,w) and G2(u,w) possess the following prototypical forms.
G1(u,w)=γuF(w)−uh(u),G2(u,w)=−uF(w)+f(w), | (1.2) |
where γ>0 denotes the intrinsic predation rate, uF(w) represents the inter-specific interaction and uh(u) and f(w) stand for the intra-specific interaction. Specifically, F(w) is the functional response function accounting for the intake rate of predators as a function of prey density; it is often used in the following form in the literature [2,3,4]
F(w)=w(Holling type I),F(w)=wλ+w(Holling type II),F(w)=wmλm+wm(Holling type III),F(w)=1−e−λw(Ivlev type) | (1.3) |
with constants λ>0 and m>1; other types of functional response functions (e.g., Beddington-DeAngelis type in [5], Crowley-Martin type in [6]) and more predator-prey interactions can be found in [7,8,9,10]. The predator mortality rate function h(u) is typically of the form
h(u)=θ+αu, | (1.4) |
where θ>0 accounts for the natural death rate and α≥0 denotes the rate of death resulting from the intra-specific competition, which is also called the density-dependent death [11]. The prey growth function f(w) is usually assumed to be negative for large w due to the limitation of resources (or crowding effect), and its typical forms are
f(w)=μw(1−wK)(Logistic type),orf(w)=μw(1−wK)(wk−1)(Bistable or Allee effect type), | (1.5) |
where μ>0 is the intrinsic growth rate of prey, K>0 is called the carrying capacity and 0<k<K. Now there exist many interesting results about global existence, uniform boundedness, asymptotic behavior, traveling waves and pattern formation of solutions to System (1.1) or its variants in [11,12,13,14,15]. When d(w)=d>0 and χ(w)=χ>0, G1(u,v) and G2(u,v) have the forms of (1.2), Wu et al. [15] obtained the global existence and uniform persistence of solutions to (1.1) in any dimension provided that χ is suitably small. Then, Jin and Wang[13] derived the global boundedness and asymptotic stability of solutions for System (1.1) without the smallness assumption on χ in a two-dimensional bounded domain. Moreover, Wang et al. [16] studied the nonconstant positive steady states and pattern formation of (1.1) in a one-dimensional bounded domain. Under the conditions that d(w) and χ(w) are not constants and h(u) is given by (1.4), Jin and Wang[14] established the global boundedness, asymptotic behavior and spatio-temporal patterns of solutions for (1.1) under some conditions on the parameters in a two-dimensional smooth bounded domain. For more related results in predator-prey models, we refer the readers to [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29] and the references therein.
However, all the aforementioned works are devoted to studying prey-taxis models with one-predator and one prey. Now let us mention some predator-prey models with two-predator and one-prey. Recently, the following general two-predator and one-prey model with prey-taxis has attracted a lot of attention.
{ut=∇⋅(d1(w)∇u)−∇⋅(uχ1(w)∇w)+γ1uF1(w)−uh1(u)−β1uv,vt=∇⋅(d2(w)∇v)−∇⋅(vχ2(w)∇w)+γ2vF2(w)−vh2(v)−β2uv,wt=DΔw−uF1(w)−vF2(w)+f(w), | (1.6) |
as applied in a smooth bounded domain Ω⊂Rn, n≥1. Given d1(w)=d2(w)=1 and β1=β2=0, Wang et al. [30] derived the global boundedness, nonconstant positive steady states and time-periodic patterns of solutions for System (1.6). Wang and Wang [31] studied the uniform boundedness and asymptotic stability of nonnegative spatially homogeneous equilibria for (1.6) in any dimension. Given d1(w)=d2(w)=1, χi(w)=χi>0(i=1,2) and β1=β2=β>0, Mi et al. [32] obtained the global boundedness and stability of classical solutions in any dimension under suitable conditions of parameters. Under the conditions that d1(w) and d2(w) are non-constants and β1=β2=0, Qiu et al.[33] rigorously proved the global existence, uniform boundedness and stabilization of classical solutions in any dimension with suitable conditions on motility functions and the coefficients of the logistic source. However, when β1,β2≠0, the global existence and stabilization of solutions for (1.6) are still open. Given χi(w)=−d′i(w)≥0 if d′i(w)≤0(i=1,2), the diffusion-advection terms in (1.6) can respectively become the forms Δ(d1(w)u) and Δ(d2(w)v), which could be interpreted as "density-suppressed motility" in [34,35]. This means that the predator will reduce its motility when encountering the prey, which is a rather reasonable assumption that has very sound applications in the predator-prey systems. Since the possible degeneracy caused by the density-suppressed motility brings considerable challenges for mathematical analysis, many works have showed various interesting results, which can be found in [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. Given χi(w)=−d′i(w)≥0(i=1,2), F1(w)=F2(w)=w, h1(u)=u,h2(v)=v and f(w)=μw(m(x)−w), System (1.6) can be simplified as
{ut=Δ(d1(w)u)+u(γ1w−u−β1v),vt=Δ(d2(w)v)+v(γ2w−v−β2u),wt=DΔw−(u+v)w+μw(m(x)−w), | (1.7) |
where the parameters D,μ,γi,βi(i=1,2) are positive, the dispersal rate functions di(w)(i=1,2) satisfy following the hypothesis: di(w)∈C2([0,∞)),d′i(w)≤0 on [0,∞) and di(w)>0. Wang and Xu [45] have found some interesting results for System (1.7) in a two-dimensional smooth bounded domain. More specifically, when D=1 and m(x)=1, System (1.7) has a unique globally bounded classical solution. By constructing appropriate Lyapunov functionals and using LaSalle's invariant principle, the authors proved that the global bounded solution of (1.7) converges to the co-existence steady state exponentially or competitive exclusion steady state algebraically as time tends to infinity in different parameter regimes. For a prey's resource that is spatially heterogeneous (i.e., m(x) is non-constant), the authors used numerical simulations to demonstrate that the striking phenomenon "slower diffuser always prevails" given in [46,47] fails to appear if the non-random dispersal strategy is employed by competing species (i.e., either d1(w) or d2(w) is non-constant) while it still holds if both d1(w) and d2(w) are constants. However, there are few results about global boundedness and large time behavior of solutions for (1.7) in the general form.
Inspired by the above works, this paper is concerned with the following two-species competitive predator-prey system with the following density-dependent diffusion
{ut=Δ(d1(w)u)+γ1uF1(w)−uh1(u)−β1uv,(x,t)∈Ω×(0,∞),vt=Δ(d2(w)v)+γ2vF2(w)−vh2(v)−β2uv,(x,t)∈Ω×(0,∞),wt=DΔw−uF1(w)−vF2(w)+f(w),(x,t)∈Ω×(0,∞),∂u∂ν=∂v∂ν=∂w∂ν=0,(x,t)∈∂Ω×(0,∞),(u,v,w)(x,0)=(u0,v0,w0)(x),x∈Ω, | (1.8) |
where Ω⊂R2 is a bounded domain with a smooth boundary ∂Ω, ∂∂ν denotes the derivative with respect to the outward normal vector ν of ∂Ω, and the parameters D and γi, βi (i=1,2) are positive. The unknown functions u=u(x,t) and v=v(x,t) denote the densities of two-competing species (e.g., predators), and w=w(x,t) represents the density of predators' resources (e.g., the prey) at a position x and time t>0. When d1(w)=d1>0 and d2(w)=d2>0, System (1.8) becomes the well-known diffusive predator-prey system, which has been widely studied in [48,49,50,51]. However, to the best of our knowledge, the results of the two-predator and one-prey system given by (1.8) with density-suppressed motility (i.e., d1(w) and d2(w) are non-constants) indicate that the competition and general predator mortality rate hi(u) are almost vacant. The main aim of this paper is to explore the influence of the predation interaction, competition and general predator mortality on the dynamical behavior of System (1.8). Throughout this paper, we assume that the functions di(s),Fi(s),hi(s),(i=1,2),f(s) and initial data (u0,v0,w0) mentioned in (1.8) satisfy the following hypotheses:
(H1) di(s)∈C2([0,∞)) with di(s)>0 and d′i(s)≤0, i=1,2 on [0,∞). The typical example is di(s)=1(1+s)κi or di(s)=exp(−κis) with κi>0, i=1,2.
(H2) Fi(s)∈C1([0,∞)), Fi(0)=0, Fi(s)>0 and F′i(s)>0, i=1,2 in (0,∞).
(H3) hi(s)∈C2([0,∞)) and there exist constants θi>0 and αi≥0 such that hi(s)≥θi and h′i(s)≥αi, i=1,2 for all s>0.
(H4) f(s)∈C1([0,∞)) with f(0)=0, and there exist positive constants μ and K such that f(s)≤μs for all s≥0, f(K)=0 and f(s)<0 for s>K.
(H5) (u0,v0,w0)∈(W1,p(Ω))3 with p>2 and u0,v0,w0≥0.
Here, we note that there are many candidates for the above functions Fi(s), hi(s) and f(s) as in (1.3)–(1.5). Due to the presence of the prey's density dependent diffusion coefficient, Model (1.8) is a cross-diffusion system and the parabolic comparison principle is no longer applicable. Moreover, when α1=α2=0, the key L2-spatiotemporal estimates of u and v cannot be directly derived; thus, the uniform boundedness of solutions is not an obvious result and needs to be justified. Based on the above hypotheses, the first main result of this paper asserts the global existence and boundedness of solutions for System (1.8) as follows.
Theorem 1.1. Let D,γi,βi>0(i=1,2), Ω⊂R2 be a smooth bounded domain and the hypotheses (H1)–(H5) hold. Then System (1.8) has a unique global nonnegative classical solution (u,v,w)∈(C(¯Ω×[0,∞))∩C2,1(¯Ω×(0,∞)))3, which is uniformly bounded in time, i.e., there exists a constant C>0 independent of t such that
‖u(⋅,t)‖L∞(Ω)+‖v(⋅,t)‖L∞(Ω)+‖w(⋅,t)‖W1,∞(Ω)≤Cforallt>0. | (1.9) |
In particular, one has 0≤w(x,t)≤K0 for all (x,t)∈Ω×(0,∞), where
K0:=max{||w0||L∞(Ω),K}. | (1.10) |
Remark 1.1. For the special case F1(w)=F2(w)=w, h1(u)=u,h2(v)=v and f(w)=μw(1−w), the results of Theorem 1.1 have been obtained in [45]. However, since α1 and α2 may be equal to zero in the hypotheses of this paper, the L2-spatiotemporal estimates of u and v cannot be directly obtained by using the method in [45]. By means of the mechanism "density-suppressed motility", we invoke some ideas used in [14] and apply the self-adjoint realization of Δ+δ with some δ>0 in L2(Ω) to establish the key L2-spatiotemporal estimates of u and v.
The second main aim of this paper is to study the role of non-random dispersal and competition between two predators in the asymptotic properties of the nonnegative spatial homogeneous equilibria of System (1.8). For simplicity, we let F1(w)=F2(w)=w, h1(u)=θ1+α1u, h2(v)=θ2+α2v and f(w)=μw(1−w), where θ1=θ2=θ>0 and α1,α2,μ>0; then, System system (1.8) can be simplified as
{ut=Δ(d1(w)u)+γ1uw−u(θ+α1u)−β1uv,(x,t)∈Ω×(0,∞),vt=Δ(d2(w)v)+γ2vw−v(θ+α2v)−β2uv,(x,t)∈Ω×(0,∞),wt=DΔw−(u+v)w+μw(1−w),(x,t)∈Ω×(0,∞),∂u∂ν=∂v∂ν=∂w∂ν=0,(x,t)∈∂Ω×(0,∞),(u,v,w)(x,0)=(u0,v0,w0)(x),x∈Ω. | (1.11) |
Theorem 1.1 ensures that System (1.11) possesses a unique global bounded nonnegative classical solution (u,v,w) such that 0≤w(x,t)≤K0:=max{||w0||L∞(Ω),1} for all (x,t)∈Ω×(0,∞). Now we find some sufficient conditions of parameters so that (1.11) admits a positive constant solution (u∗,v∗,w∗) satisfying
{γ1w∗−θ−α1u∗−β1v∗=0,γ2w∗−θ−α2v∗−β2u∗=0,−u∗−v∗+μ−μw∗=0, | (1.12) |
i.e.,
AX=B, | (1.13) |
where
A=[−α1−β1γ1−β2−α2γ211μ],X=[u∗v∗w∗],B=[θθμ]. |
If the determinant Φ of the coefficient matrix A in (1.13) does not equal zero, it follows from Cramer's rule that
u∗=ΦuΦ,v∗=ΦvΦ,w∗=ΦwΦ, | (1.14) |
where
{Φ=(γ1+β1μ)(α2−β2)+(γ2+α2μ)(α1−β1),Φu=α2μ(γ1−θ)−β1μ(γ2−θ)+θ(γ1−γ2),Φv=α1μ(γ2−θ)−β2μ(γ1−θ)+θ(γ2−γ1),Φw=(θ+β1μ)(α2−β2)+(θ+α2μ)(α1−β1). | (1.15) |
When β1<α1 and β2<α2, it follows that Φ>0 and Φw>0, and thus we know w∗>0. Next, we shall discuss the sign of Φu and Φv. For convenience, we let
β∗1:=l1μ(γ2−θ) | (1.16) |
and
β∗2:=l2μ(γ1−θ), | (1.17) |
where
l1:=α2μ(γ1−θ)+θ(γ1−γ2) | (1.18) |
and
l2:=α1μ(γ2−θ)+θ(γ2−γ1). | (1.19) |
It is not difficult to see that u∗=ΦuΦ, v∗=ΦvΦ and w∗=ΦwΦ are positive, if γi>θ, i=1,2 and one of the following conditions holds:
(H6) γ1<γ2, l1>0, β1<min{α1,β∗1} and β2<min{α2,β∗2};
(H7) γ1>γ2, l2>0, β1<min{α1,β∗1} and β2<min{α2,β∗2};
(H8) γ1=γ2 and max{β1,β2}<min{α1,α2}.
Now, we give our main results on the asymptotic stability properties of the nonnegative spatial homogeneous equilibria of System (1.11) as follows.
Theorem 1.2. Let Ω⊂R2 be a smooth bounded domain and the parameters γi,αi,βi, (i=1,2), θ, μ and D be positive. Assume that d1(w) and d2(w) satisfy (H1), and that (u,v,w) is a global bounded classical solution of System (1.11). Suppose that γi>θ,i=1,2,
(β1γ2+β2γ1)2<4γ1γ2α1α2 | (1.20) |
and
D>maxw∈[0,K0]w24w∗[u∗|d′1(w)|2γ1d1(w)+v∗|d′2(w)|2γ2d2(w)] | (1.21) |
as well as one of the conditions (H6)–(H8) holds. Then for all initial data (u0,v0,w0) satisfying (H5), there exist positive constants C and λ such that
||u(⋅,t)−u∗||L∞(Ω)+||v(⋅,t)−v∗||L∞(Ω)+||w(⋅,t)−w∗||L∞(Ω)≤Ce−λt | (1.22) |
for all t>0, where (u∗,v∗,w∗) is given by (1.14).
Remark 1.2. From a biological point of view, it is well known that the change of the predators comes from predation, competition and mortality in System (1.11). The parameters γi, βi, αi(i=1,2) and θ respectively stand for the predation rate, competition strength, density-dependent death and natural death rate of the predators, which play a collective role in studying the dynamical behavior of (1.11). More specifically, when γi>θ, it is called strong predation; otherwise, it is weak predation. Hence the results of Theorem 1.2 can tell us that if the predations of two predators are strong and the prey diffusion coefficient D is suitably large, all species can reach a coexistence state.
Theorem 1.3. Let Ω⊂R2 be a smooth bounded domain and the parameters γi,αi,βi, (i=1,2), θ, μ and D be positive. Assume that d1(w) and d2(w) satisfy (H1), and the (u,v,w) is a global bounded classical solution of System (1.11). Suppose that we have (1.20) and
D>maxw∈[0,K0]¯uw2|d′1(w)|24γ1¯wd1(w) | (1.23) |
as well as one of the following conditions holds:
(i) γ1>γ2>θ, l2≤0, β1<min{α1,β∗1} and β2<α2;
(ii) γ1>γ2>θ, l2>0, β1<min{α1,β∗1} and β2∈[β∗2,α2);
(iii) γ1>θ≥γ2,
where
¯u=μ(γ1−θ)α1μ+γ1and¯w=α1μ+θα1μ+γ1. | (1.24) |
Then for all initial data (u0,v0,w0) satisfying (H5), one has
||u(⋅,t)−¯u||L∞(Ω)+||v(⋅,t)||L∞(Ω)+||w(⋅,t)−¯w||L∞(Ω)→0ast→∞, | (1.25) |
exponentially if θ>γ2¯w−β2¯u or algebraically if θ=γ2¯w−β2¯u.
Theorem 1.4. Let Ω⊂R2 be a smooth bounded domain and the parameters γi,αi,βi, (i=1,2), θ, μ and D be positive. Assume that d1(w) and d2(w) satisfy (H1), and the (u,v,w) is a global bounded solution of System (1.11). Suppose that we have (1.20) and
D>maxw∈[0,K0]˜vw2|d′2(w)|24γ2˜wd2(w) | (1.26) |
as well as one of the following conditions holds:
(i) γ2>γ1>θ, l1≤0, β2<min{α2,β∗2} and β1<α1;
(ii) γ2>γ1>θ, l1>0, β2<min{α2,β∗2} and β1∈[β∗1,α1);
(iii) γ2>θ≥γ1,
where
˜v=μ(γ2−θ)α2μ+γ2and˜w=α2μ+θα2μ+γ2. | (1.27) |
Then for all initial data (u0,v0,w0) satisfying (H5), one has
||u(⋅,t)||L∞(Ω)+||v(⋅,t)−˜v||L∞(Ω)+||w(⋅,t)−˜w||L∞(Ω)→0ast→∞, | (1.28) |
exponentially if θ>γ1˜w−β1˜v or algebraically if θ=γ1˜w−β1˜v.
Remark 1.3. It follows from Theorem 1.3 that if the predator u is superior over v in the competition and the prey diffusion coefficient D is suitably large, the semi-trivial equilibrium (¯u,0,¯w) is globally asymptotically stable. Similarly, we can obtain Theorem 1.4. Hence, we only give the conclusion of Theorem 1.4, without showing the details of the proof for brevity.
Theorem 1.5. Let Ω⊂R2 be a smooth bounded domain and the parameters γi,αi,βi, (i=1,2), θ, μ and D be positive. Assume that d1(w) and d2(w) satisfy (H1), and the (u,v,w) is a global bounded solution of System (1.11). Suppose that
γi≤θ,i=1,2. |
Then for all initial data (u0,v0,w0) satisfying (H5), one has
||u(⋅,t)||L∞(Ω)+||v(⋅,t)||L∞(Ω)+||w(⋅,t)−1||L∞(Ω)→0ast→∞, | (1.29) |
exponentially if γi<θ, i=1,2 or algebraically if γi=θ, i=1,2.
Remark 1.4. It follows from Theorem 1.5 that if the capture rates of the two predators are low (i.e. γi≤θ, i=1,2), the prey-only steady state (0,0,1) is globally asymptotically stable regardless of the size of the prey diffusion coefficient D.
Remark 1.5. Compared with the previous results of [33] without competitive terms, the results of Theorems 1.2–1.5 indicate that the competition terms play a crucial role in the global stability of the constant steady states in (1.11). Moreover, under the condition of density-suppressed motility, our global stability results of Theorems 1.2–1.5 can also generalize the ranges of parameters αi and βi(i=1,2) for two dimensional cases in [32]. However, since the heat-semigroup estimates of u and v are no longer applicable due to the appearance of density-suppressed motility, the global stability in L∞-norm is still open in the higher-dimensional problem.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we first state the local existence of the classical solution to (1.8) and collect preliminary lemmas. In Section 3, we derive the global existence and boundedness of classical solutions for (1.8) and prove Theorem 1.1. Finally, we shall study the asymptotic stability of global bounded solutions for (1.11) and prove Theorems 1.2–1.5.
In this section, we shall give the local existence and some preliminary lemmas. Firstly, we state the local existence of the classical solution to (1.8), as obtained by means of the abstract theory of quasilinear parabolic systems in [52].
Lemma 2.1. Let D,γi,βi>0(i=1,2), Ω⊂R2 be a smooth bounded domain and the hypotheses (H1)–(H5) hold. Then, there exists a Tmax∈(0,∞] such that System (1.8) possesses a unique classical solution (u,v,w)∈(C(¯Ω×[0,Tmax))∩C2,1(¯Ω×(0,Tmax)))3 satisfying
u,v≥0and0≤w≤K0:=max{||w0||L∞(Ω),K}. | (2.1) |
In addition, the following extensibility criterion holds, i.e. if Tmax<∞, then
lim supt↗Tmax(‖u(⋅,t)‖L∞(Ω)+‖v(⋅,t)‖L∞(Ω)+‖w(⋅,t)‖W1,∞(Ω))=∞. | (2.2) |
Proof. Let z=(u,v,w)T; then, System (1.8) can be rewritten as
{zt=∇⋅(P(z)∇z)+Q(z),(x,t)∈Ω×(0,∞),∂z∂ν=0,(x,t)∈∂Ω×(0,∞),z(⋅,0)=z0=(u0,v0,w0),x∈Ω, | (2.3) |
where
P(z)=(d1(w)0ud′1(w)0d2(w)vd′2(w)00D)andQ(z)=(γ1uF1(w)−uh1(u)−β1uvγ2vF2(w)−vh2(v)−β2uv−uF1(w)−vF2(w)+f(w)). | (2.4) |
According to the conditions that D>0 and di(w)>0(i=1,2), the matrix P(z) is positively definite for the given initial data z0, which asserts that System (1.8) is normally parabolic. Thus it follows from Theorem 7.3 of [53] that there exists a Tmax∈(0,∞] such that System (1.8) admits a unique classical solution (u,v,w)∈(C0(¯Ω×[0,Tmax))∩C2,1(¯Ω×(0,Tmax)))3. The nonnegativity of (u,v,w) directly comes from the maximum principle [14,45]. It similarly follows from Lemma 2.2 of [13] that w≤K0:=max{||w0||L∞(Ω),K}. Since P(z) is an upper triangular matrix, we can deduce from Theorem 5.2 of [54] that the extensibility criterion given by (2.2) holds. The proof of Lemma 2.1 is complete.
Lemma 2.2. Let Ω⊂Rn(n≥1) be a smooth bounded domain, D>0 and T∈(0,∞]. Assume that φ(x,t)∈C(¯Ω×[0,T))∩C2,1(¯Ω×(0,T)) satisfies
{φt=DΔφ−φ+ψ,(x,t)∈Ω×(0,T),∂φ∂ν=0,(x,t)∈∂Ω×(0,T), | (2.5) |
where ψ∈L∞((0,T);Lp(Ω)) with p≥1. Then there exists a positive constant C such that
||φ(⋅,t)||W1,q(Ω)≤Cforallt∈(0,T), | (2.6) |
where
q∈{[1,npn−p),ifp<n,[1,∞),ifp=n,[1,∞],ifp>n. | (2.7) |
Proof. This lemma directly comes from Lemma 1 of [55].
Now, we give the following lemma ([56], Lemma 3.4) to derive some a priori estimates for w.
Lemma 2.3. Let T>0,τ∈(0,T) and a,d>0, and assume that y:[0,T)→[0,∞) is absolutely continuous. If there exists a nonnegative function h∈L1loc([0,T)) satisfying
∫t+τth(s)ds≤dforallt∈[0,T−τ) | (2.8) |
and
y′(t)+ay(t)≤h(t), | (2.9) |
one has
y(t)≤max{y(0)+d,daτ+2d}forallt∈[0,T). | (2.10) |
Next, we give a basic property of the solution components u and v for System (1.8).
Lemma 2.4. Let the assumptions of Lemma 2.1 hold. Then there exists a constant C>0 such that
∫Ωu+vdx≤Cforallt∈(0,Tmax) | (2.11) |
and
∫t+τt∫Ωu2+v2dxds≤Cforallt∈(0,Tmax−τ), | (2.12) |
where τ=min{1,12Tmax}.
Proof. It follows from a direct computation for System (1.8) that
ddt∫Ω(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)dx=∫Ωf(w)dx−1γ1∫Ωuh1(u)dx−β1γ1∫Ωuvdx−1γ2∫Ωvh2(v)dx−β2γ2∫Ωuvdx≤μ∫Ωwdx−1γ1∫Ωu(θ1+α1u)dx−1γ2∫Ωv(θ2+α2v)dx=μ∫Ωwdx−θ1∫Ω1γ1udx−θ2∫Ω1γ2vdx−α1γ1∫Ωu2dx−α2γ2∫Ωv2dx, | (2.13) |
for all t∈(0,Tmax), where we have applied (H3), (H4), β1,β2>0 and (2.1).
Let θ:=min{θ1,θ2}, it follows from (2.1) that
ddt∫Ω(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)dx+α1γ1∫Ωu2dx+α2γ2∫Ωv2dx≤−θ∫Ω(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)dx+(μK0+θ)|Ω|, | (2.14) |
which leads to (2.11) by Gronwall's inequality. If αi>0, i=1,2, then integrating (2.14) over (t,t+τ), we have (2.12) directly. If αi=0, i=1,2, we can also prove (2.12) by means of the idea used in [14]. For the readers' convenience, we give the sketch of the proof.
Let A denote the self-adjoint realization of −Δ+δ under homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions in L2(Ω), where δ∈(0,min{θ1d1(0),θ2d2(0)}). It follows from δ>0 that A has an order-preserving bounded inverse A−1 on L2(Ω). Thus this allows us to obtain a positive constant c1 such that
||A−1Ψ||L2(Ω)≤c1||Ψ||L2(Ω)for allΨ∈L2(Ω) | (2.15) |
and
||A−12Ψ||2L2(Ω)=∫ΩΨ⋅A−1Ψdx≤c1||Ψ||2L2(Ω)for allΨ∈L2(Ω). | (2.16) |
By a simple calculation in (1.8), we have
(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)t=Δ(1γ1d1(w)u+1γ2d2(w)v+Dw)−1γ1uh1(u)−β1γ1uv−1γ2vh2(v)−β2γ2uv+f(w), | (2.17) |
which can be written as
(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)t+A(1γ1d1(w)u+1γ2d2(w)v+Dw)=δ(1γ1d1(w)u+1γ2d2(w)v+Dw)−1γ1uh1(u)−β1γ1uv−1γ2vh2(v)−β2γ2uv+f(w)=1γ1u(δd1(w)−h1(u))+1γ2v(δd2(w)−h2(v))+δDw+f(w)−β1γ1uv−β2γ2uv≤1γ1u(δd1(0)−θ1)+1γ2v(δd2(0)−θ2)+(δD+μ)K0≤(δD+μ)K0:=c2, | (2.18) |
where we have applied (H1), (H3), (H4), (2.1) and δ∈(0,min{θ1d1(0),θ2d2(0)}). Hence, by multiplying (2.18) by A−1(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)≥0 and integrating it over Ω, we derive
12ddt∫Ω|A−12(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)|2dx+∫Ω(1γ1d1(w)u+1γ2d2(w)v+Dw)(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)dx≤c2∫ΩA−1(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)dx. | (2.19) |
According to the fact that 0<di(K0)≤di(w), i=1,2, due to (H1) and (2.1), and by letting c3:=min{d1(K0),d2(K0),D}>0, we deduce
ddt∫Ω|A−12(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)|2dx+2c3∫Ω(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)2dx≤2c2∫ΩA−1(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)dx. | (2.20) |
It follows from Hölder's and Young's inequality as well as (2.15) that
2c2∫ΩA−1(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)dx≤2c2|Ω|12(∫Ω|A−1(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)|2dx)12≤2c1c2|Ω|12(∫Ω(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)2dx)12≤c32∫Ω(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)2dx+2c21c22|Ω|c3. | (2.21) |
According to (2.16), we have
c32c1∫Ω|A−12(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)|2≤c32∫Ω(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)2dx. | (2.22) |
By combining (2.20)–(2.22), we derive
ddt∫Ω|A−12(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)|2dx+c32c1∫Ω|A−12(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)|2+c3∫Ω(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)2dx≤2c21c22|Ω|c3. | (2.23) |
By the ordinary differential equations (ODE) argument, there exists a c4>0 such that
∫Ω|A−12(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)|2dx≤c4, | (2.24) |
which implies that
∫t+τt∫Ω1γ21u2+1γ22v2dxds≤∫t+τt∫Ω(1γ1u+1γ2v)2dxds≤∫t+τt∫Ω(1γ1u+1γ2v+w)2dxds≤c4c3+2c21c22|Ω|c23. | (2.25) |
The proof of Lemma 2.4 is complete.
Finally, we shall give the following key estimate of w, which plays a crucial role in the proof of Theorem 1.1.
Lemma 2.5. Let the assumptions of Lemma 2.1 hold. Then there exists a constant C>0 such that
∫Ω|∇w|2dx≤Cforallt∈(0,Tmax) | (2.26) |
and
∫t+τt∫Ω|Δw|2dxds≤Cforallt∈(0,Tmax−τ), | (2.27) |
where τ=min{1,12Tmax}.
Proof. Multiplying the third equation of System (1.8) with −2Δw and integrating it by parts, we deduce from Young's inequality and (2.1) that
ddt∫Ω|∇w|2dx=−2D∫Ω|Δw|2dx+2∫Ω(uF1(w)+vF2(w))Δwdx−2∫Ωf(w)Δwdx≤−D∫Ω|Δw|2dx+2D∫Ω(uF1(w)+vF2(w))2dx+2D∫Ωf2(w)dx≤−D∫Ω|Δw|2dx+4F21(K0)D∫Ωu2dx+4F22(K0)D∫Ωv2dx+2(μK0)2D|Ω|, | (2.28) |
where we have used the hypotheses (H2) and (H4).
It follows from ∂w∂ν=0, Young's inequality and (2.1) that
∫Ω|∇w|2dx=−∫ΩwΔwdx≤D2∫Ω|Δw|2dx+12D∫Ωw2dx≤D2∫Ω|Δw|2dx+K202D|Ω|. | (2.29) |
Let c5:=max{4F21(K0)D,4F22(K0)D}; we infer from (2.28) and (2.29) that
ddt∫Ω|∇w|2dx+∫Ω|∇w|2dx+D2∫Ω|Δw|2dx≤c5∫Ωu2+v2dx+c6, | (2.30) |
where c6:=2(μK0)2D|Ω|+K202D|Ω|. It follows from Lemma 2.3 and Lemma 2.4 that (2.26) holds. Then integrating (2.30) over (t,t+τ), we can deduce from (2.12) and (2.26) that (2.27) holds.
In this section, we shall study the global existence and uniform boundedness of solutions for system (1.8) when n=2. To do this, we need the following lemmas.
Lemma 3.1. Let the conditions of Theorem 1.1 hold. Then the solution (u,v,w) of system (1.8) satisfies
∫Ωu2dx+∫Ωv2dx≤C | (3.1) |
and
||w(⋅,t)||W1,q(Ω)≤C | (3.2) |
for all q∈[1,∞) and t∈(0,Tmax), where C>0 is a constant independent of t.
Proof. Multiplying the first equation of System (1.8) by 2u and integrating by parts, we deduce from Young's and Hölder's inequalities that
ddt∫Ωu2dx=−2∫Ωd1(w)|∇u|2dx−2∫Ωd′1(w)u∇u⋅∇wdx+2γ1∫Ωu2F1(w)dx−2∫Ωu2h1(u)dx−2β1∫Ωu2vdx≤−∫Ωd1(w)|∇u|2dx+∫Ω|d′1(w)|2d1(w)u2|∇w|2dx+2γ1F1(K0)∫Ωu2dx≤−d1(K0)∫Ω|∇u|2dx+K1∫Ωu2|∇w|2dx+2γ1F1(K0)∫Ωu2dx≤−d1(K0)∫Ω|∇u|2dx+K1(∫Ωu4dx)12(∫Ω|∇w|4dx)12+2γ1F1(K0)∫Ωu2dx, | (3.3) |
where K1:=maxw∈[0,K0]|d′1(w)|2d1(w) and we have applied (H1)–(H3) and (2.1).
By using the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality in two dimensions, there exists a C1>0 such that
(∫Ωu4dx)12=||u||2L4(Ω)≤C1(||∇u||L2(Ω)||u||L2(Ω)+||u||2L2(Ω)). | (3.4) |
According to Lemma 2.5 of [19] when n=2, it follows from Lemma 2.5 that
(∫Ω|∇w|4dx)12≤C2(||Δw||L2(Ω)||∇w||L2(Ω)+||∇w||2L2(Ω))≤C3(||Δw||L2(Ω)+1), | (3.5) |
for all t∈(0,Tmax), where C2,C3>0. Thus, by combining (3.4) with (3.5), we infer from Young's inequality that
K1(∫Ωu4dx)12(∫Ω|∇w|4dx)12≤d1(K0)∫Ω|∇u|2dx+C4||u||2L2(Ω)||Δw||2L2(Ω)+C5||u||2L2(Ω), | (3.6) |
where C4,C5 are positive constants. Thus it follows from (3.3) and (3.6) that
ddt∫Ωu2dx≤C6∫Ωu2dx(∫Ω|Δw|2dx+1), | (3.7) |
where C6:=max{C4,C5+2γ1F1(K0)}.
By Lemma 2.4, we can find t0=t0(t)∈((t−τ)+,t) for any t∈(0,Tmax) such that there exists a C7>0 satisfying
∫Ωu2(x,t0)dx≤C7, | (3.8) |
where τ is defined in Lemma 2.4. It follows from Lemma 2.5 that there exists a C8>0 such that
∫t0+τt0∫Ω|Δw(x,t)|2dxdt≤C8. | (3.9) |
Therefore, integrating (3.7) over (t0,t), we deduce from t0<t<t0+τ≤t0+1, (3.8) and (3.9) that
∫Ωu2dx≤∫Ωu2(x,t0)dxeC6∫tt0(∫Ω|Δw|2dx+1)ds≤C7eC6(C8+1) | (3.10) |
for all t∈(0,Tmax).
Similarly, we obtain
∫Ωv2dx≤C9for allt∈(0,Tmax). | (3.11) |
It follows from the third equation of System (1.8), we know that w solves the following problem
{wt=DΔw−w+g(u,v,w),(x,t)∈Ω×(0,Tmax),∂w∂ν=0,(x,t)∈∂Ω×(0,Tmax), | (3.12) |
where g(u,v,w)=w−uF1(w)−vF2(w)+f(w). According to (H2), (H3) and (2.1), we infer from (3.10) and (3.11) that
||g(u,v,w)||L2(Ω)≤C10(||u||L2(Ω)+||v||L2(Ω)+1)≤C11 | (3.13) |
for all t∈(0,Tmax). Hence, it follows from Lemma 2.2 in two dimensions that (3.2) holds. The proof of Lemma 3.1 is complete.
Next, we shall prove the boundedness of w in W1∞(Ω).
Lemma 3.2. Let the conditions of Theorem 1.1 hold. Then the solution component w of system (1.8) satisfies
||w(⋅,t)||W1,∞(Ω)≤C | (3.14) |
for all t∈(0,Tmax), where C>0 is a constant independent of t.
Proof. Multiplying the first equation of System (1.8) by u2 and integrating by parts, we deduce from Young's and Hölder's inequalities that
13ddt∫Ωu3dx=−2∫Ωd1(w)u|∇u|2dx−2∫Ωd′1(w)u2∇u⋅∇wdx+γ1∫Ωu3F1(w)dx−∫Ωu3h1(u)dx−β1∫Ωu3vdx≤−∫Ωd1(w)u|∇u|2dx+∫Ω|d′1(w)|2d1(w)u3|∇w|2dx+γ1F1(K0)∫Ωu3dx−θ1∫Ωu3dx≤−4d1(K0)9∫Ω|∇u32|2dx+K1∫Ωu3|∇w|2dx+γ1F1(K0)∫Ωu3dx−θ1∫Ωu3dx≤−4d1(K0)9∫Ω|∇u32|2dx+K1(∫Ωu6dx)12(∫Ω|∇w|4dx)12+γ1F1(K0)∫Ωu3dx−θ1∫Ωu3dx, | (3.15) |
for all t∈(0,Tmax), where K1 is defined in the proof of Lemma 3.1 and we have applied (H1)–(H3) and (2.1).
It follows from Lemma 3.1 that there exist positive constants C1 and C2 such that ||∇w||L4(Ω)≤C1 and ||u||L2(Ω)≤C2 for all t∈(0,Tmax). Then by using the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality and Young's inequality, we can find positive constants Ci, i=3,⋅⋅⋅,6 such that
K1(∫Ωu6dx)12(∫Ω|∇w|4dx)12≤K1C21||u32||2L4(Ω)≤C3(||∇u32||43L2(Ω)⋅||u32||23L43(Ω)+||u32||2L43(Ω))≤2d1(K0)9∫Ω|∇u32|2dx+C4 | (3.16) |
and
γ1F1(K0)∫Ωu3dx≤γ1F1(K0)||u32||2L2(Ω)≤C5(||∇u32||23L2(Ω)⋅||u32||43L43(Ω)+||u32||2L43(Ω))≤2d1(K0)9∫Ω|∇u32|2dx+C6 | (3.17) |
for all t∈(0,Tmax).
Combining (3.15)–(3.17), we have
ddt∫Ωu3dx+3θ1∫Ωu3dx≤C7:=3(C4+C6) | (3.18) |
for all t∈(0,Tmax). By the ODE argument, we can derive
∫Ωu3dx≤max{∫Ωu30dx,C73θ1}for allt∈(0,Tmax). | (3.19) |
Similarly, we also derive the boundedness of ||v||_{L^{3}(\Omega)} . Then it follows from Lemma 2.2 in two dimensions that (3.14) holds.
By means of the boundedness of ||w(\cdot, t)||_{W^{1, \infty}(\Omega)} , it follows from the Moser iteration of [45] that we can obtain the boundedness of ||u(\cdot, t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} and ||v(\cdot, t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} for all t\in(0, T_{\max}) .
Lemma 3.3. Let the conditions of Theorem 1.1 hold. Then the solution component (u, v) of system (1.8) satisfies
\begin{equation} \begin{split} ||u(\cdot,t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v(\cdot,t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\leq C \end{split} \end{equation} | (3.20) |
for all t\in(0, T_{\max}) , where C > 0 is a constant independent of t .
Proof. Multiplying the first equation of System (1.8) by u^{p-1} with p\geq2 and integrating by parts, we deduce from Young's inequality that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{1}{p}\frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}}\int_{\Omega}u^{p}dx& = -(p-1)\int_{\Omega}d_{1}(w)u^{p-2}|\nabla u|^{2}dx-(p-1)\int_{\Omega}d'_{1}(w)u^{p-1}\nabla u\cdot\nabla wdx\\ &\quad+\gamma_{1}\int_{\Omega}u^{p}F_{1}(w)dx-\int_{\Omega}u^{p}h_{1}(u)dx-\beta_{1}\int_{\Omega}u^{p}vdx\\ &\leq-\frac{p-1}{2}\int_{\Omega}d_{1}(w)u^{p-2}|\nabla u|^{2}dx+\frac{p-1}{2}\int_{\Omega}\frac{|d'_{1}(w)|^{2}}{d_{1}(w)}u^{p}|\nabla w|^{2}dx\\&\quad+\gamma_{1}F_{1}(K_{0})\int_{\Omega}u^{p}dx\\ &\leq -\frac{p-1}{2}d_{1}(K_{0})\int_{\Omega}u^{p-2}|\nabla u|^{2}dx+\frac{p-1}{2}\mathcal{K}_{1}\int_{\Omega}u^{p}|\nabla w|^{2}dx\\&\quad+\gamma_{1}F_{1}(K_{0})\int_{\Omega}u^{p}dx \end{split} \end{equation} | (3.21) |
for all t\in(0, T_{\max}) , where \mathcal{K}_{1} is defined in the proof of Lemma 3.1 and we have applied ( H_{1} )–( H_{3} ) and (2.1).
It follows from Lemma 3.2 that there exists a C_{1} > 0 such that ||\nabla w(\cdot, t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\leq C_{1} for all t\in (0, T_{\max}) . Hence, we deduce from (3.21) that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} &\frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}}\int_{\Omega}u^{p}dx+\frac{p(p-1)d_{1}(K_{0})}{2}\int_{\Omega}u^{p-2}|\nabla u|^{2}dx+p(p-1)\int_{\Omega}u^{p}dx\\ &\qquad\leq C_{2}p(p-1)\int_{\Omega}u^{p}dx, \end{split} \end{equation} | (3.22) |
for all t\in(0, T_{\max}) , where C_{2}: = \frac{\mathcal{K}_{1}C_{1}^{2}}{2}+\gamma_{1}F_{1}(K_{0})+1 is independent of p . The rest can be handled exactly as the Moser iteration in Lemma 2.7 of [45] to derive the boundedness of ||u(\cdot, t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} for all t\in(0, T_{\max}) . Similarly, we can obtain the boundedness of ||v(\cdot, t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} for all t\in(0, T_{\max}) . The proof of Lemma 3.3 is complete.
Proof of Theorem 1.1. Theorem 1.1 is a direct consequence of Lemma 2.1, Lemma 3.2 and Lemma 3.3.
In this section, we shall study the asymptotic stability of global bounded solutions for System (1.11) by constructing energy functionals used in [13,57]. To do this, we first give some regularity results of the solution (u, v, w) for System (1.11).
Lemma 4.1. Let (u, v, w) be a global bounded classical solution for (1.11) ensured in Theorem 1.1. Then there exist \sigma\in(0, 1) and C > 0 such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} ||u||_{C^{\sigma,\frac{\sigma}{2}}(\overline{\Omega}\times [t,t+1])}+||v||_{C^{\sigma,\frac{\sigma}{2}}(\overline{\Omega}\times [t,t+1])}+||w||_{C^{2+\sigma,1+\frac{\sigma}{2}}(\overline{\Omega}\times [t,t+1])}\leq C\quad{for \;all}\;\;t > 1. \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.1) |
Proof. This lemma can be verified by a similar argument in Lemma 4.1 of [14], so we omit the details here for brevity.
Lemma 4.2. Let (u, v, w) be a global bounded classical solution for (1.11) ensured in Theorem 1.1. Then there exists a C > 0 such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} ||u(\cdot,t)||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}+||v(\cdot,t)||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}\leq C\quad{for \;all}\;\;t > 0. \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.2) |
Proof. This lemma can be verified by a similar argument in Lemma 3.6 of [45], so we omit the details here for brevity.
In order to prove the asymptotic stabilization of global bounded solutions for system (1.11), we provide the following lemma, which is proved in [57].
Lemma 4.3. Let \phi:(1, \infty)\rightarrow [0, \infty) be uniformly continuous such that \int_{1}^{\infty}\phi(t)dt < \infty . Then
\begin{equation} \phi(t)\rightarrow 0\;\;{as}\;\;t\rightarrow \infty. \end{equation} | (4.3) |
In this subsection, we are devoted to studying the stabilization of the coexistence steady state (u^{*}, v^{*}, w^{*}) for some parameters cases. Let us introduce the following functionals
\begin{aligned} \mathcal{E}_{1}(t) = &\frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\left(u-u^{*}-u^{*} \ln \frac{u }{u^{*}}\right)dx+\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}\left(v-v^{*}-v^{*} \ln \frac{v }{v^{*}}\right)dx \\ &+\int_{\Omega}\left(w-w^{*}-w^{*} \ln \frac{w }{w^{*}}\right)dx,\\ \end{aligned} |
and
\begin{aligned} \mathcal{F}_{1}(t) = &\int_{\Omega}\left(u -u^{*}\right)^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}\left(v -v^{*}\right)^{2}dx+ \int_{\Omega}\left(w-w^{*}\right)^{2}dx\\ &+\int_\Omega {{{\left| {\frac{{\nabla u}}{u}} \right|}^2}}dx+\int_\Omega{{{\left| {\frac{{\nabla v}}{v}} \right|}^2}}dx+\int_\Omega {{{\left| {\nabla w} \right|}^2}}dx, \end{aligned} |
where (u^{*}, v^{*}, w^{*}) is given by (1.14).
Lemma 4.4. Let the conditions of Theorem 1.2 hold. Then there exists a positive constant \varepsilon_{1} independent of t such that
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \mathcal{E}_{1}(t) \geq 0 \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.4) |
and
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} \mathcal{E}_{1}(t) \leq-\varepsilon_{1} \mathcal{F}_{1}(t) \;\;\;{for\; all\; t > 0 } . \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.5) |
Proof. Let
\begin{array}{l} I_{1}(t): = \frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\left(u-u^{*}-u^{*} \ln \frac{u}{u^{*}}\right)dx, \\ I_{2}(t): = \frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}\left(v-v^{*}-v^{*} \ln \frac{v}{v^{*}}\right)dx, \\ I_{3}(t): = \int_{\Omega}\left(w-w^{*}-w^{*} \ln \frac{w }{w^{*}}\right)dx, \end{array} |
then \mathcal{E}_{1}(t) can be rewritten as
\mathcal{E}_{1}(t) = I_{1}(t)+I_{2}(t)+I_{3}(t)\quad\text{for all}\;\;t > 0. |
Step 1: We shall prove the nonnegativity of \mathcal{E}_{1}(t) for all t > 0 . Let H(\xi): = \xi-u^{*}\ln \xi for \xi > 0 ; it follows from Taylor's formula for all x \in \Omega and each t > 0 that there exists a \tau = \tau(x, t) \in(0, 1) such that
\begin{aligned} u-u^{*}-u^{*} \ln \frac{u}{u^{*}}& = H(u)-H\left(u^{*}\right) \\ & = H^{\prime}\left(u^{*}\right) \cdot\left(u-u^{*}\right)+\frac{1}{2} H^{\prime \prime}\left(\tau u+(1-\tau) u^{*}\right) \cdot\left(u-u^{*}\right)^{2} \\ & = \frac{u^{*}}{2\left(\tau u+(1-\tau) u^{*}\right)^{2}}\left(u-u^{*}\right)^{2} \geq 0. \end{aligned} |
Hence, we immediately derive that I_{1}(t) = \int_{\Omega}\left(H(u)-H\left(u^{*}\right)\right)dx \geq 0 . Similarly, we know that I_{2}(t) \geq 0 and I_{3}(t) \geq 0 for all t > 0 . Thus, we know that (4.4) holds.
Step 2: Now, we further prove (4.5). By a series of simple calculations, we get
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} I_{1}(t)& = \frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{u-u^{*}}{u}u_{t}dx\\ & = \frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{u-u^{*}}{u}(\Delta (d_{1}(w)u)+\gamma_{1}uw-u(\theta+\alpha_{1} u)-\beta_{1}uv)dx\\ & = -\frac{u^{*}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{d_{1}(w)|\nabla u|^{2}}{u^{2}}dx-\frac{u^{*}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{d'_{1}(w)\nabla u\cdot\nabla w}{u}dx\\&\quad +\frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}(u-u^{*})(\gamma_{1}w-\theta-\alpha_{1}u-\beta_{1}v)dx\\ & = -\frac{u^{*}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{d_{1}(w)|\nabla u|^{2}}{u^{2}}dx-\frac{u^{*}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{d'_{1}(w)\nabla u\cdot\nabla w}{u}dx\\&\quad +\int_{\Omega}(u-u^{*})(w-w^{*})dx-\frac{\alpha_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}(u-u^{*})^{2}dx\\&\quad-\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}(u-u^{*})(v-v^{*})dx, \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.6) |
where we have used the fact that \theta = \gamma_{1}w^{*}-\alpha_{1}u^{*}-\beta_{1}v^{*} .
Similarly, it follows from the identities \theta = \gamma_{2}w^{*}-\beta_{2}u^{*}-\alpha_{2}v^{*} and \mu = u^{*}+v^{*}+\mu w^{*} that
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} I_{2}(t) & = -\frac{v^{*}}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{d_{2}(w)|\nabla v|^{2}}{v^{2}}dx-\frac{v^{*}}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{d'_{2}(w)\nabla v\cdot\nabla w}{v}dx\\&\quad +\int_{\Omega}(v-v^{*})(w-w^{*})dx-\frac{\alpha_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}(v-v^{*})^{2}dx\\&\quad-\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}(v-v^{*})(u-u^{*})dx, \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.7) |
and
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} I_{3}(t) & = -Dw^{*}\int_{\Omega}\frac{|\nabla w|^{2}}{w^{2}}dx- \int_{\Omega}(w-w^{*})(u-u^{*})dx-\int_{\Omega}(w-w^{*})(v-v^{*})dx\\&\quad-\mu\int_{\Omega}(w-w^{*})^{2}dx. \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.8) |
Hence, by combining (4.6)–(4.8), we derive
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}}\mathcal{E}_{1}(t)& = -\frac{\alpha_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}(u-u^{*})^{2}dx -\frac{\alpha_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}(v-v^{*})^{2}dx-\mu\int_{\Omega}(w-w^{*})^{2}dx\\&\quad -\left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}+\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\right)\int_{\Omega}(u-u^{*})(v-v^{*})dx-\frac{u^{*}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{d_{1}(w)|\nabla u|^{2}}{u^{2}}dx\\&\quad-\frac{v^{*}}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{d_{2}(w)|\nabla v|^{2}}{v^{2}}dx-Dw^{*}\int_{\Omega}\frac{|\nabla w|^{2}}{w^{2}}dx-\frac{u^{*}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{d'_{1}(w)\nabla u\cdot\nabla w}{u}dx\\ &\quad-\frac{v^{*}}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{d'_{2}(w)\nabla v\cdot\nabla w}{v}dx\\ &: = -\int_{\Omega}X_{1}A_{1}X_{1}^{T}dx-\int_{\Omega}Y_{1}B_{1}Y_{1}^{T}dx, \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.9) |
where X_{1} = (u-u^{*}, v-v^{*}, w-w^{*}) and Y_{1} = \left(\frac{\nabla u}{u}, \frac{\nabla v}{v}, \nabla w\right) , as well as
\begin{equation} A_{1} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{\alpha_{1}}{\gamma_{1}} &\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}+\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\right) &0\\ \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}+\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\right) &\frac{\alpha_{2}}{\gamma_{2}} &0\\ 0&0&\mu \end{array} \right), B_{1} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{u^{*}d_{1}(w)}{\gamma_{1}} &0 &\frac{u^{*}d'_{1}(w)}{2\gamma_{1}}\\ 0 &\frac{v^{*}d_{2}(w)}{\gamma_{2}} &\frac{v^{*}d'_{2}(w)}{2\gamma_{2}}\\ \frac{u^{*}d'_{1}(w)}{2\gamma_{1}}&\frac{v^{*}d'_{2}(w)}{2\gamma_{2}}&\frac{Dw^{*}}{w^{2}} \end{array} \right). \end{equation} | (4.10) |
It follows from (1.20) that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \left|\frac{\alpha_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}\right| > 0 \quad\text{and}\quad\left|\begin{matrix} \frac{\alpha_{1}}{\gamma_{1}} & \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}+\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\right)\\ \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}+\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\right) & \frac{\alpha_{2}}{\gamma_{2}} \end{matrix}\right| = \frac{\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2}}{\gamma_{1}\gamma_{2}}-\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}+\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\right)^{2} > 0 \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.11) |
as well as
\begin{equation} |A_{1}| = \mu\left( \frac{\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2}}{\gamma_{1}\gamma_{2}}-\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}+\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\right)^{2}\right) > 0, \end{equation} | (4.12) |
which implies that the matrix A_{1} is positive definite as according to Sylvester's criterion. Similarly, we deduce from (1.21) that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \left|\frac{u^{*}d_{1}(w)}{\gamma_{1}}\right| > 0 \quad\text{and}\quad\left|\begin{matrix} \frac{u^{*}d_{1}(w)}{\gamma_{1}} & 0\\ 0 & \frac{v^{*}d_{2}(w)}{\gamma_{2}} \end{matrix}\right| = \frac{u^{*}v^{*}d_{1}(w)d_{2}(w)}{\gamma_{1}\gamma_{2}} > 0 \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.13) |
as well as
\begin{equation} \begin{split} |B_{1}| = \frac{u^{*}v^{*}w^{*}d_{1}(w)d_{2}(w)}{\gamma_{1}\gamma_{2}w^{2}}\left(D-\frac{u^{*}w^{2}|d'_{1}(w)|^{2}}{4\gamma_{1}w^{*}d_{1}(w)} -\frac{v^{*}w^{2}|d'_{2}(w)|^{2}}{4\gamma_{2}w^{*}d_{2}(w)}\right) > 0, \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.14) |
which implies that the matrix B_{1} is positive definite. Thus there exist positive constants \kappa_{1} and \kappa_{2} such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} X_{1}A_{1}X_{1}^{T}\geq \kappa_{1}|X_{1}|^{2}\quad\text{and}\quad Y_{1}B_{1}Y_{1}^{T}\geq \kappa_{2}|Y_{1}|^{2} \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.15) |
for all x\in \Omega and t > 0 . Let \varepsilon_{1}: = \min\{\kappa_{1}, \kappa_{2}\} , we have
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}}\mathcal{E}_{1}(t)\leq-\varepsilon_{1}\int_{\Omega}|X_{1}|^{2}+|Y_{1}|^{2}dx\quad\text{for all}\;\;t > 0, \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.16) |
which implies that (4.5) holds. The proof of Lemma 4.4 is complete.
With the aid of Lemma 4.4, we shall give the following large time behavior of global solutions for system (1.11).
Lemma 4.5. Let the assumptions of Theorem 1.2 hold. Then the global bounded solution of (1.11) converges to the coexistence steady state (u^{*}, v^{*}, w^{*}) given by (1.14), i.e.,
\begin{equation} ||u(\cdot,t)-u^{*}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v(\cdot,t)-v^{*}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||w(\cdot,t)-w^{*}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\rightarrow 0 \end{equation} | (4.17) |
as t\rightarrow \infty .
Proof. It follows from Lemma 4.4 and integration over (1, \infty) that
\int_{1}^{\infty} \mathcal{F}_{1}(t) d t \leq \frac{\mathcal{E}_{1}(1)}{\varepsilon_{1}} < \infty. |
According to Theorem 1.1 and Lemma 4.1, the bounded solution u, v and w are Hölder continuous in \bar{\Omega} \times[t, t+1] with respect to t > 1 . Thus we conclude that \mathcal{F}_{1}(t) is uniformly continuous in (1, \infty) . Thus we infer from Lemma 4.3 that
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \int_{\Omega}\left(u-u^{*}\right)^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}\left(v-v^{*}\right)^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}\left(w-w^{*}\right)^{2}dx\rightarrow 0 \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.18) |
as t \rightarrow \infty . By the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality in two dimensions, there exists a C_{1} > 0 such that
\left\|u-u^{*}\right\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} \leq C_{1}\left\|u-u^{*}\right\|_{W^{1, 4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}\left\|u-u^{*}\right\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}}. |
Moreover, it follows from Lemma 4.2 that u(\cdot, t)-u^{*} is bounded in W^{1, 4}(\Omega) ; thus, we conclude from (4.18) that u(\cdot, t) \rightarrow u^{*} in L^{\infty}(\Omega) as t \rightarrow \infty . By the similar arguments for v and w , we derive (4.17). The proof of Lemma 4.5 is complete.
Now, we give the convergence rate of the coexistence state (u^{*}, v^{*}, w^{*}) for System (1.11).
Lemma 4.6. Let the assumptions of Theorem 1.2 hold; the global bounded solution (u, v, w) of (1.11) exponentially converges to the coexistence state (u^{*}, v^{*}, w^{*}) , i.e. there exist C > 0 and \lambda > 0 such that
\begin{equation} ||u(\cdot,t)-u^{*}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v(\cdot,t)-v^{*}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||w(\cdot,t)-w^{*}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\leq Ce^{-\lambda t} \end{equation} | (4.19) |
for all t > T_{1} , where T_{1} > 0 is some fixed time.
Proof. It follows from Lemma 4.5 that ||u-u^{*}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\rightarrow 0 as t\rightarrow \infty . Therefore, we apply L'Hôpital's rule to obtain
\begin{equation} \lim\limits_{u\rightarrow u^{*}}\frac{u-u^{*}-u^{*}\ln\frac{u}{u^{*}}}{(u-u^{*})^{2}} = \frac{1}{2u^{*}}, \end{equation} | (4.20) |
which implies that there exists a t_{1} > 0 such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{1}{4u^{*}}\int_{\Omega}(u-u^{*})^{2}dx\leq\int_{\Omega}\left(u-u^{*}-u^{*}\ln\frac{u}{u^{*}}\right)dx\leq\frac{3}{4u^{*}}\int_{\Omega}(u-u^{*})^{2}dx \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.21) |
for all t > t_{1} . Similarly, we can find t_{2} > 0 satisfying
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{1}{4v^{*}}\int_{\Omega}(v-v^{*})^{2}dx\leq\int_{\Omega}\left(v-v^{*}-v^{*}\ln\frac{v}{v^{*}}\right)dx\leq\frac{3}{4v^{*}}\int_{\Omega}(v-v^{*})^{2}dx \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.22) |
and
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{1}{4w^{*}}\int_{\Omega}(w-w^{*})^{2}dx\leq\int_{\Omega}\left(w-w^{*}-w^{*}\ln\frac{w}{w^{*}}\right)dx\leq\frac{3}{4w^{*}}\int_{\Omega}(w-w^{*})^{2}dx \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.23) |
for all t > t_{2} . Let T_{1}: = \max\{t_{1}, t_{2}\} ; by means of the definitions of \mathcal{E}_{1}(t) and \mathcal{F}_{1}(t) , it follows from the second inequalities in (4.21)–(4.23) that there exists a C_{1} > 0 such that
\begin{equation} C_{1}\mathcal{E}_{1}(t)\leq \mathcal{F}_{1}(t)\;\;\text{for all}\; \;t > T_{1}. \end{equation} | (4.24) |
By Lemma 4.4, we derive
\begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{1}'(t)\leq -\varepsilon_{1} \mathcal{F}_{1}(t)\leq-\varepsilon_{1} C_{1}\mathcal{E}_{1}(t)\quad\text{for all}\;\;t > T_{1}, \end{equation} | (4.25) |
which implies that there exist C_{2} > 0 and C_{3} > 0 such that
\begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{1}(t)\leq C_{2}e^{-C_{3}(t-T_{1})}\quad\text{for all}\;\;t > T_{1}. \end{equation} | (4.26) |
Thus we deduce from the first inequalities in (4.21)–(4.23) that there exists a C_{4} > 0 such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} &\int_{\Omega}(u(x,t)-u^{*})^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}(v(x,t)-v^{*})^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}(w(x,t)-w^{*})^{2}dx\\ &\quad\leq C_{4}\mathcal{E}_{1}(t)\leq C_{2}C_{4}e^{-C_{3}(t-T_{1})}\;\;\text{for all}\;\;t > T_{1}. \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.27) |
It follows from the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality in two dimensions, Lemma 4.2 and Lemma 3.2 that there exist positive constants C_{5} and C_{6} such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} &||u-u^{*}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v-v^{*}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||w-w^{*}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\\ &\leq C_{5}\bigg(||u-u^{*}||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}||u-u^{*}||_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}} +||v-v^{*}||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}||v-v^{*}||_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}}\\& \quad+||w-w^{*}||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}||w-w^{*}||_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}}\bigg)\\ &\leq C_{6}\left(\int_{\Omega}(u-u^{*})^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}(v-v^{*})^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}(w-w^{*})^{2}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{6}}\\ &\leq C_{6}(C_{2}C_{4})^{\frac{1}{6}}e^{\frac{-C_{3}(t-T_{1})}{6}} \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.28) |
for all t > T_{1} . The proof of Lemma 4.6 is complete.
Proof of Theorem 1.2. The statement of Theorem 1.2 is a straightforward consequence of Lemma 4.6.
In this subsection, we shall study the stabilization of the semi-trivial steady state (\overline{u}, 0, \overline{w}) or (0, \widetilde{v}, \widetilde{w}) for some parameters cases. Since the methods of the proofs of Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.4 are very similar, we only give the proof of Theorem 1.3 for brevity. To do this, let us introduce the following functionals
\begin{aligned} \mathcal{E}_{2}(t) = &\frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\left(u-\overline{u}-\overline{u}\ln \frac{u }{\overline{u}}\right)dx+\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}vdx \\ &+\int_{\Omega}\left(w-\overline{w}-\overline{w}\ln \frac{w}{\overline{w}}\right)dx,\\ \end{aligned} |
and
\begin{aligned} \mathcal{F}_{2}(t) = &\int_{\Omega}\left(u -\overline{u}\right)^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx+ \int_{\Omega}\left(w-\overline{w}\right)^{2}dx\\ &+\int_\Omega {{{\left| {\frac{{\nabla u}}{u}} \right|}^2}}dx+\int_\Omega {{{\left| {\nabla w} \right|}^2}}dx, \end{aligned} |
where \overline{u} = \frac{\mu(\gamma_{1}-\theta)}{\alpha_{1}\mu+\gamma_{1}}\; \; \text{and}\; \; \overline{w} = \frac{\alpha_{1}\mu+\theta}{\alpha_{1}\mu+\gamma_{1}} .
Lemma 4.7. Let the conditions of Theorem 1.3 hold. Then there exists a positive constant \varepsilon_{2} independent of t such that
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \mathcal{E}_{2}(t) \geq 0 \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.29) |
and
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} \mathcal{E}_{2}(t) \leq-\varepsilon_{2} \mathcal{F}_{2}(t)-\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}(\theta-\gamma_{2}\overline{w}+\beta_{2}\overline{u})\int_{\Omega}vdx \;\;\;{for\; all\; t > 0 }. \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.30) |
Proof. Let
\begin{array}{l} J_{1}(t): = \frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\left(u-\overline{u}- \overline{u}\ln \frac{u}{\overline{u}}\right)dx, \\ J_{2}(t): = \frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}vdx, \\ J_{3}(t): = \int_{\Omega}\left(w-\overline{w}-\overline{w}\ln \frac{w }{\overline{w}}\right)dx, \end{array} |
then \mathcal{E}_{2}(t) can be represented as
\mathcal{E}_{2}(t) = J_{1}(t)+J_{2}(t)+J_{3}(t)\quad\text{for all}\;\;t > 0. |
Firstly, we can prove the nonnegativity of \mathcal{E}_{2}(t) for all t > 0 by the similar arguments used in Step 1 in Lemma 4.4. For brevity, we omit the details here. Now, we shall prove (4.30). By a series of simple calculations, we get
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} J_{1}(t) & = -\frac{\overline{u}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{d_{1}(w)|\nabla u|^{2}}{u^{2}}dx-\frac{\overline{u}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{d'_{1}(w)\nabla u\cdot\nabla w}{u}dx\\&\quad +\int_{\Omega}(u-\overline{u})(w-\overline{w})dx-\frac{\alpha_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}(u-\overline{u})^{2}dx\\&\quad -\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}(u-\overline{u})vdx, \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.31) |
where we have used the fact that \theta = \gamma_{1}\overline{w}-\alpha_{1}\overline{u} .
Similarly, we can derive
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} {\frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}}} J_{2}(t) & = -\frac{\alpha_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx-\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}v(u-\overline{u})dx\\&\quad +\int_{\Omega}v(w-\overline{w})dx-\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}(\theta-\gamma_{2}\overline{w}+\beta_{2}\overline{u})\int_{\Omega}vdx, \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.32) |
and
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} J_{3}(t) & = -D\overline{w}\int_{\Omega}\frac{|\nabla w|^{2}}{w^{2}}dx- \int_{\Omega}(w-\overline{w})(u-\overline{u})dx-\int_{\Omega}(w-\overline{w})vdx\\&\quad-\mu\int_{\Omega}(w-\overline{w})^{2}dx, \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.33) |
where we have used the fact that \mu = \overline{u}+\mu \overline{w} . Thus it follows from (4.31)–(4.33) that
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} \mathcal{E}_{2}(t)& = -\frac{\alpha_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}(u-\overline{u})^{2}dx -\frac{\alpha_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx-\mu\int_{\Omega}(w-\overline{w})^{2}dx\\&\quad -\left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}+\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\right)\int_{\Omega}(u-\overline{u})vdx-\frac{\overline{u}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{d_{1}(w)|\nabla u|^{2}}{u^{2}}dx\\&\quad-D\overline{w}\int_{\Omega}\frac{|\nabla w|^{2}}{w^{2}}dx-\frac{\overline{u}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}\frac{d'_{1}(w)\nabla u\cdot\nabla w}{u}dx\\ &\quad-\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}(\theta-\gamma_{2}\overline{w}+\beta_{2}\overline{u})\int_{\Omega}vdx\\ &: = -\int_{\Omega}X_{2}A_{2}X_{2}^{T}dx-\int_{\Omega}Y_{2}B_{2}Y_{2}^{T}dx-\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}(\theta-\gamma_{2}\overline{w}+\beta_{2}\overline{u})\int_{\Omega}vdx, \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.34) |
where X_{2} = (u-\overline{u}, v, w-\overline{w}) and Y_{2} = \left(\frac{\nabla u}{u}, \nabla w\right) , as well as
\begin{equation} A_{2} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{\alpha_{1}}{\gamma_{1}} &\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}+\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\right) &0\\ \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}+\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\right) &\frac{\alpha_{2}}{\gamma_{2}} &0\\ 0&0&\mu \end{array} \right), B_{2} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{\overline{u}d_{1}(w)}{\gamma_{1}} &\frac{\overline{u}d'_{1}(w)}{2\gamma_{1}}\\ \frac{\overline{u}d'_{1}(w)}{2\gamma_{1}}&\frac{D\overline{w}}{w^{2}} \end{array} \right). \end{equation} | (4.35) |
It follows from (1.20) that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \left|\frac{\alpha_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}\right| > 0 \quad\text{and}\quad\left|\begin{matrix} \frac{\alpha_{1}}{\gamma_{1}} & \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}+\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\right)\\ \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}+\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\right) & \frac{\alpha_{2}}{\gamma_{2}} \end{matrix}\right| = \frac{\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2}}{\gamma_{1}\gamma_{2}}-\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}+\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\right)^{2} > 0 \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.36) |
as well as
\begin{equation} |A_{2}| = \mu\left( \frac{\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2}}{\gamma_{1}\gamma_{2}}-\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}+\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\right)^{2}\right) > 0, \end{equation} | (4.37) |
which implies that the matrix A_{2} is positive definite as according to Sylvester's criterion. Similarly, we deduce from (1.23) that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \left|\frac{\overline{u}d_{1}(w)}{\gamma_{1}}\right| > 0 \quad\text{and}\quad |B_{2}| = \frac{\overline{u}\overline{w}d_{1}(w)}{\gamma_{1}w^{2}}\left(D-\frac{\overline{u}w^{2}|d'_{1}(w)|^{2}}{4\gamma_{1}\overline{w}d_{1}(w)}\right) > 0, \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.38) |
which implies that the matrix B_{2} is positive definite. Thus there exist positive constants \iota_{1} and \iota_{2} such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} X_{2}A_{2}X_{2}^{T}\geq \iota_{1}|X_{2}|^{2}\quad\text{and}\quad Y_{2}B_{2}Y_{2}^{T}\geq \iota_{2}|Y_{2}|^{2} \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.39) |
for all x\in \Omega and t > 0 . Let \varepsilon_{2}\in (0, \min\{\iota_{1}, \iota_{2}\}) ; we obtain
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}}\mathcal{E}_{2}(t)\leq-\varepsilon_{2}\int_{\Omega}|X_{2}|^{2}+|Y_{2}|^{2}dx -\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}(\theta-\gamma_{2}\overline{w}+\beta_{2}\overline{u})\int_{\Omega}vdx\quad\text{for all}\;\;t > 0, \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.40) |
which implies that (4.30) holds. The proof of Lemma 4.7 is complete.
With the help of Lemma 4.7, we shall give the following stabilization of the semi-trivial steady state (\overline{u}, 0, \overline{w}) for System (1.11).
Lemma 4.8. Let the assumptions of Theorem 1.3 hold. Then the global bounded solution (u, v, w) of (1.11) converges to the semi-trivial steady state (\overline{u}, 0, \overline{w}) given by (1.24), i.e.,
\begin{equation} ||u(\cdot,t)-\overline{u}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v(\cdot,t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||w(\cdot,t)-\overline{w}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\rightarrow 0 \end{equation} | (4.41) |
as t\rightarrow \infty .
Proof. The proof of this lemma is similar to that of Lemma 4.5; here we omit the details.
Now, we give the convergence rate of the semi-trivial steady state (\overline{u}, 0, \overline{w}) for System (1.11).
Lemma 4.9. Let the assumptions of Theorem 1.3 hold; then, there exist positive constants C and \lambda such that:
(a) when \theta = \gamma_{2}\overline{w}-\beta_{2}\overline{u} , then
\begin{equation} ||u(\cdot,t)-\overline{u}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v(\cdot,t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||w(\cdot,t)-\overline{w}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\leq C(1+t)^{-\lambda}\;\;\text{for all}\;\; t > T_{2}; \end{equation} | (4.42) |
(b) when \theta > \gamma_{2}\overline{w}-\beta_{2}\overline{u} , then
\begin{equation} ||u(\cdot,t)-\overline{u}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v(\cdot,t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||w(\cdot,t)-\overline{w}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\leq Ce^{-\lambda t}\;\;\text{for all}\;\; t > T_{2}, \end{equation} | (4.43) |
where T_{2} > 0 is some fixed time.
Proof. Let
\begin{equation} \mathcal{F}_{2}^{*}(t): = \int_{\Omega}\left(u -\overline{u}\right)^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx+ \int_{\Omega}\left(w-\overline{w}\right)^{2}dx, \end{equation} | (4.44) |
then it follows from Lemma 4.7 that there exists a \varepsilon_{2} > 0 such that
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} \mathcal{E}_{2}(t) \leq-\varepsilon_{2} \mathcal{F}_{2}^{*}(t)-\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}(\theta-\gamma_{2}\overline{w}+\beta_{2}\overline{u})\int_{\Omega}vdx \;\;\;\text{for all t > 0 }. \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.45) |
We deduce from Lemma 4.8 that ||u(\cdot, t)-\overline{u}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v(\cdot, t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||w(\cdot, t)-\overline{w}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\rightarrow 0 as t\rightarrow \infty . Hence, we apply L'Hôpital's rule to obtain
\begin{equation} \lim\limits_{u\rightarrow \overline{u}}\frac{u-\overline{u}-\overline{u}\ln\frac{u}{\overline{u}}}{(u-\overline{u})^{2}} = \frac{1}{2\overline{u}}, \end{equation} | (4.46) |
which implies that there exists a t'_{1} > 0 such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{1}{4\overline{u}}\int_{\Omega}(u-\overline{u})^{2}dx\leq\int_{\Omega}\left(u-\overline{u}-\overline{u}\ln\frac{u}{\overline{u}}\right)dx \leq\frac{3}{4\overline{u}}\int_{\Omega}(u-\overline{u})^{2}dx \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.47) |
for all t > t'_{1} . Similarly, we can find t'_{2} > 0 satisfying
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{1}{4\overline{w}}\int_{\Omega}(w-\overline{w})^{2}dx\leq\int_{\Omega}\left(w-\overline{w}-\overline{w}\ln\frac{w}{\overline{w}}\right)dx \leq\frac{3}{4\overline{w}}\int_{\Omega}(w-\overline{w})^{2}dx \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.48) |
for all t > t'_{2} .
By using the fact that \lim_{s\rightarrow 0}\frac{s}{s^{2}+s} = 1 , it follows from ||v(\cdot, t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\rightarrow 0 as t\rightarrow \infty that there exists a t'_{3} > 0 such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega}v^{2}+vdx\leq\int_{\Omega}vdx\leq\frac{3}{2}\int_{\Omega}v^{2}+vdx \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.49) |
for all t > t'_{3} .
(a) When \theta = \gamma_{2}\overline{w}-\beta_{2}\overline{u} , (4.45) can be turned into
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{d}{d t} \mathcal{E}_{2}(t) \leq-\varepsilon_{2} \mathcal{F}_{2}^{*}(t) \;\;\;\text{for all t > 0 }. \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.50) |
Let T_{2}: = \max\{t'_{1}, t'_{2}, t'_{3}\} ; by means of the definitions of \mathcal{E}_{2}(t) and \mathcal{F}_{2}^{*}(t) , it follows from the second inequalities in (4.47) and (4.48) that there exist positive constants C_{1} and C_{2} such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \mathcal{E}_{2}(t)&\leq \frac{3}{4\gamma_{1}\overline{u}}\int_{\Omega}(u-\overline{u})^{2}dx+\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}vdx+\frac{3}{4\overline{w}}\int_{\Omega}(w-\overline{w})^{2}dx\\ &\leq C_{1}\left(\int_{\Omega}(u-\overline{u})^{2}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}+C_{1}\left(\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}+ C_{1}\left(\int_{\Omega}(w-\overline{w})^{2}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\ &\leq C_{2}(\mathcal{F}_{2}^{*}(t))^{\frac{1}{2}}, \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.51) |
for all t > T_{2} , where we have used Hölder's inequality and the boundedness of (u, v, w) asserted by Theorem 1.1. Thus, we deduce from (4.50) that
\begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{2}'(t)\leq-\frac{\varepsilon_{2}}{C_{2}^{2}}\mathcal{E}_{2}^{2}(t)\quad\text{for all}\;\;t > T_{2}, \end{equation} | (4.52) |
which implies
\begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{2}(t)\leq \frac{C_{3}}{t-T_{2}}\quad\text{for all}\;\;t > T_{2}, \end{equation} | (4.53) |
with some positive constant C_{3} . Hence we infer from the first inequalities in (4.47)–(4.49) that there exists a C_{4} > 0 such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} &\int_{\Omega}(u-\overline{u})^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}(w-\overline{w})^{2}dx\\ &\quad\leq C_{4}\mathcal{E}_{2}(t)\leq \frac{C_{3}C_{4}}{t-T_{2}}\;\;\text{for all}\;\;t > T_{2}. \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.54) |
It follows from the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality in two dimensions, Lemma 4.2 and Lemma 3.2 that there exist positive constants C_{5} and C_{6} such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} &||u-\overline{u}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||w-\overline{w}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\\ &\leq C_{5}\bigg(||u-\overline{u}||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}||u-\overline{u}||_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}} +||v||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}||v||_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}}\\& \quad+||w-\overline{w}||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}||w-\overline{w}||_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}}\bigg)\\ &\leq C_{6}\left(\int_{\Omega}(u-\overline{u})^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}(w-\overline{w})^{2}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{6}}\\ &\leq C_{6}(C_{3}C_{4})^{\frac{1}{6}}(t-T_{2})^{-\frac{1}{6}} \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.55) |
for all t > T_{2} .
(b) When \theta > \gamma_{2}\overline{w}-\beta_{2}\overline{u} , let T_{2}: = \max\{t'_{1}, t'_{2}, t'_{3}\} ; by means of the definitions of \mathcal{E}_{2}(t) and \mathcal{F}_{2}^{*}(t) , it follows from the second inequalities in (4.47) and (4.48) that there exists a positive constant C_{7} such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \mathcal{E}_{2}(t)\leq C_{7}\left(\mathcal{F}_{2}^{*}(t)+\int_{\Omega}vdx\right), \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.56) |
for all t > T_{2} .
By combining (4.45) with (4.56), we have
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} \mathcal{E}_{2}(t) \leq-\frac{\varepsilon_{2}}{C_{7}} \mathcal{E}_{2}(t)-\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}(\theta-\gamma_{2}\overline{w}+\beta_{2}\overline{u}-\gamma_{2}\varepsilon_{2})\int_{\Omega}vdx \;\;\;\text{for all}\; t > T_{2} . \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.57) |
Since \theta > \gamma_{2}\overline{w}-\beta_{2}\overline{u} , then we can select \varepsilon_{2}\leq \frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}(\theta-\gamma_{2}\overline{w}+\beta_{2}\overline{u}) such that
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} \mathcal{E}_{2}(t) \leq-\frac{\varepsilon_{2}}{C_{7}} \mathcal{E}_{2}(t)\;\;\;\text{for all}\; t > T_{2} , \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.58) |
which means that there exist C_{8} > 0 and C_{9} > 0 satisfying
\begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{2}(t)\leq C_{8}e^{-C_{9}(t-T_{2})}\quad\text{for all}\;\;t > T_{2}. \end{equation} | (4.59) |
Thus we deduce from the first inequalities in (4.47)–(4.49) that there exists a C_{10} > 0 such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} &\int_{\Omega}(u-\overline{u})^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}(w-\overline{w})^{2}dx\\ &\quad\leq C_{10}\mathcal{E}_{2}(t)\leq C_{8}C_{10}e^{-C_{9}(t-T_{2})}\;\;\text{for all}\;\;t > T_{2}. \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.60) |
It follows from the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality in two dimensions, Lemma 4.2 and Lemma 3.2 that there exist positive constants C_{11} and C_{12} such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} &||u-\overline{u}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||w-\overline{w}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\\ &\leq C_{11}\bigg(||u-\overline{u}||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}||u-\overline{u}||_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}} +||v||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}||v||_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}}\\& \quad+||w-\overline{w}||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}||w-\overline{w}||_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}}\bigg)\\ &\leq C_{12}\left(\int_{\Omega}(u-\overline{u})^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}(w-\overline{w})^{2}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{6}}\\ &\leq C_{12}(C_{8}C_{10})^{\frac{1}{6}}e^{\frac{-C_{9}(t-T_{2})}{6}} \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.61) |
for all t > T_{2} . The proof of Lemma 4.9 is complete.
Proof of Theorem 1.3. The statement of Theorem 1.3 is a direct consequence of Lemma 4.9.
In this subsection, we are devoted to discussing the asymptotic stability of the prey-only steady state (0, 0, 1) under some suitable parameters conditions. To do this, let us denote the following functionals
\begin{aligned} \mathcal{E}_{3}(t) = &\frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}udx+\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}vdx+\int_{\Omega}\left(w-1-\ln w\right)dx\\ \end{aligned} |
and
\begin{aligned} \mathcal{F}_{3}(t) = \int_{\Omega}u^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx+ \int_{\Omega}\left(w-1\right)^{2}dx+\int_\Omega {{{\left| {\nabla w} \right|}^2}}dx, \end{aligned} |
we can derive the following estimates of \mathcal{E}_{3}(t) and \mathcal{F}_{3}(t) .
Lemma 4.10. Let the conditions of Theorem 1.5 hold. Then there exists a \varepsilon_{3} > 0 independent of t such that
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \mathcal{E}_{3}(t) \geq 0 \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.62) |
and
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} \mathcal{E}_{3}(t) \leq-\varepsilon_{3} \mathcal{F}_{3}(t)-\frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}(\theta-\gamma_{1})\int_{\Omega}udx -\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}(\theta-\gamma_{2})\int_{\Omega}vdx \;\;\;{for\; all\; t > 0 }. \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.63) |
Proof. By the similar arguments as in the proofs of Lemma 4.4 and Lemma 4.7, we can derive (4.62) and
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}}\mathcal{E}_{3}(t)& = -\frac{\alpha_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}u^{2}dx -\frac{\alpha_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx-\mu\int_{\Omega}(w-1)^{2}dx\\&\quad -\left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}+\frac{\beta_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\right)\int_{\Omega}uvdx-D\int_{\Omega}\frac{|\nabla w|^{2}}{w^{2}}dx\\&\quad-\frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}(\theta-\gamma_{1})\int_{\Omega}udx-\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}(\theta-\gamma_{2})\int_{\Omega}vdx\\ &\leq-\frac{\alpha_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}u^{2}dx -\frac{\alpha_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx-\mu\int_{\Omega}(w-1)^{2}dx -\frac{D}{K_{0}^{2}}\int_{\Omega}|\nabla w|^{2}dx\\&\quad-\frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}(\theta-\gamma_{1})\int_{\Omega}udx-\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}(\theta-\gamma_{2})\int_{\Omega}vdx, \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.64) |
where we have used the fact that w\leq K_{0} = \max\{||w_{0}||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}, 1\} . Let \varepsilon_{3}\in \left(0, \min\{\frac{\alpha_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}, \frac{\alpha_{2}}{\gamma_{2}}, \mu, \frac{D}{K_{0}^{2}}\}\right) ; we obtain
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}}\mathcal{E}_{3}(t)\leq-\varepsilon_{3}\mathcal{F}_{3}(t) -\frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}(\theta-\gamma_{1})\int_{\Omega}udx-\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}(\theta-\gamma_{2})\int_{\Omega}vdx, \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.65) |
for all t > 0 . The proof of Lemma 4.10 is complete.
With the help of Lemma 4.10, we shall give the following stabilization of the prey-only steady state for System (1.11).
Lemma 4.11. Let the assumptions of Theorem 1.5 hold. Then the global bounded solution of (1.11) converges to the prey-only steady state (0, 0, 1) , i.e.,
\begin{equation} ||u(\cdot,t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v(\cdot,t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||w(\cdot,t)-1||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\rightarrow 0 \end{equation} | (4.66) |
as t\rightarrow \infty .
Proof. The proof of this lemma is similar to that of Lemma 4.5; here we omit the details.
Now, we give the convergence rate of the prey-only steady state (0, 0, 1) for System (1.11).
Lemma 4.12. Let the assumptions of Theorem 1.5 hold; then there exist positive constants C and \lambda such that:
(a) when \gamma_{i} = \theta , i = 1, 2 , then
\begin{equation} ||u(\cdot,t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v(\cdot,t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||w(\cdot,t)-1||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\leq C(1+t)^{-\lambda}\;\;{for \;all}\;\; t > T_{3}; \end{equation} | (4.67) |
(b) when \gamma_{i} < \theta , i = 1, 2 , then
\begin{equation} ||u(\cdot,t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v(\cdot,t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||w(\cdot,t)-1||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\leq Ce^{-\lambda t}\;\;{for\; all}\;\; t > T_{3}, \end{equation} | (4.68) |
where T_{3} > 0 is some fixed time.
Proof. Let
\begin{equation} \mathcal{F}_{3}^{*}(t): = \int_{\Omega}u^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx+ \int_{\Omega}\left(w-1\right)^{2}dx, \end{equation} | (4.69) |
then it follows from Lemma 4.10 that there exists a \varepsilon_{3} > 0 such that
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} \mathcal{E}_{3}(t)\leq-\varepsilon_{3} \mathcal{F}_{3}^{*}(t)-\frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}(\theta-\gamma_{1})\int_{\Omega}udx-\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}(\theta-\gamma_{2})\int_{\Omega}vdx \;\;\;\text{for all t > 0 }. \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.70) |
By using the facts that \lim_{s\rightarrow 0}\frac{s}{s^{2}+s} = 1 and \lim_{s\rightarrow 1}\frac{s-1-\ln s}{(s-1)^{2}} = \frac{1}{2} , it follows from ||u(\cdot, t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v(\cdot, t)||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||w(\cdot, t)-1||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\rightarrow 0 as t\rightarrow \infty , as asserted in Lemma 4.11 that there exists a T_{3} > 0 such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega}u^{2}+udx\leq\int_{\Omega}udx\leq\frac{3}{2}\int_{\Omega}u^{2}+udx \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.71) |
and
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega}v^{2}+vdx\leq\int_{\Omega}vdx\leq\frac{3}{2}\int_{\Omega}v^{2}+vdx \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.72) |
as well as
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{1}{4}\int_{\Omega}(w-1)^{2}dx\leq\int_{\Omega}\left(w-1-\ln w\right)dx \leq\frac{3}{4}\int_{\Omega}(w-1)^{2}dx \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.73) |
for all t > T_{3} .
(a) When \gamma_{i} = \theta , i = 1, 2 , (4.70) can be simplified as
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} \mathcal{E}_{3}(t) \leq-\varepsilon_{3} \mathcal{F}_{3}^{*}(t) \;\;\;\text{for all t > 0 }. \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.74) |
By means of the definitions of \mathcal{E}_{3}(t) and \mathcal{F}_{3}^{*}(t) , it follows from the second inequality in (4.73) that there exist positive constants C_{1} and C_{2} such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \mathcal{E}_{3}(t)&\leq \frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}\int_{\Omega}udx+\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}\int_{\Omega}vdx+\frac{3}{4}\int_{\Omega}(w-1)^{2}dx\\ &\leq C_{1}\left(\int_{\Omega}u^{2}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}+C_{1}\left(\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}+ C_{1}\left(\int_{\Omega}(w-1)^{2}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\ &\leq C_{2}(\mathcal{F}_{3}^{*}(t))^{\frac{1}{2}}, \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.75) |
for all t > T_{3} , where we have used Hölder's inequality and the boundedness of (u, v, w) asserted by Theorem 1.1. Thus we deduce from (4.74) that
\begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{3}'(t)\leq-\frac{\varepsilon_{3}}{C_{2}^{2}}\mathcal{E}_{3}^{2}(t)\quad\text{for all}\;\;t > T_{3}, \end{equation} | (4.76) |
which implies
\begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{3}(t)\leq \frac{C_{3}}{t-T_{3}}\quad\text{for all}\;\;t > T_{3}, \end{equation} | (4.77) |
with some positive constant C_{3} . Hence we infer from the first inequalities in (4.71)–(4.73) that there exists a C_{4} > 0 such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} &\int_{\Omega}u^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}(w-1)^{2}dx\\ &\quad\leq C_{4}\mathcal{E}_{3}(t)\leq \frac{C_{3}C_{4}}{t-T_{3}}\;\;\text{for all}\;\;t > T_{3}. \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.78) |
It follows from the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality in two dimensions, Lemma 4.2 and Lemma 3.2 that there exist positive constants C_{5} and C_{6} such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} &||u||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||w-1||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\\ &\leq C_{5}\bigg(||u||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}||u||_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}} +||v||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}||v||_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}}\\& \quad+||w-1||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}||w-1||_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}}\bigg)\\ &\leq C_{6}\left(\int_{\Omega}u^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}(w-1)^{2}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{6}}\\ &\leq C_{6}(C_{3}C_{4})^{\frac{1}{6}}(t-T_{3})^{-\frac{1}{6}} \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.79) |
for all t > T_{3} .
(b) When \gamma_{i} < \theta , i = 1, 2 , by means of the definitions of \mathcal{E}_{3}(t) and \mathcal{F}_{3}^{*}(t) , it follows from the second inequalities in (4.71)–(4.73) that there exists a positive constant C_{7} such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} \mathcal{E}_{3}(t)\leq C_{7}\left(\mathcal{F}_{3}^{*}(t)+\int_{\Omega}udx+\int_{\Omega}vdx\right), \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.80) |
for all t > T_{3} .
By combining (4.70) with (4.80), we derive
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} \mathcal{E}_{3}(t)\leq-\frac{\varepsilon_{3}}{C_{7}} \mathcal{E}_{3}(t)-\frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}(\theta-\gamma_{1}-\varepsilon_{3}\gamma_{1})\int_{\Omega}udx-\frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}(\theta-\gamma_{2} -\varepsilon_{3}\gamma_{2})\int_{\Omega}vdx \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.81) |
for all t > 0 . Since \gamma_{i} < \theta , i = 1, 2 , we can select \varepsilon_{3}\leq \min\left\{\frac{1}{\gamma_{1}}(\theta-\gamma_{1}), \frac{1}{\gamma_{2}}(\theta-\gamma_{2})\right\} such that
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}} \mathcal{E}_{3}(t) \leq-\frac{\varepsilon_{3}}{C_{7}} \mathcal{E}_{3}(t)\;\;\;\text{for all t > T_{3} }, \end{aligned} \end{equation} | (4.82) |
which means that there exist C_{8} > 0 and C_{9} > 0 satisfying
\begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{3}(t)\leq C_{8}e^{-C_{9}(t-T_{3})}\quad\text{for all}\;\;t > T_{3}. \end{equation} | (4.83) |
Thus we deduce from the first inequalities in (4.71)–(4.73) that there exists a C_{10} > 0 such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} &\int_{\Omega}u^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}(w-1)^{2}dx\\ &\quad\leq C_{10}\mathcal{E}_{2}(t)\leq C_{8}C_{10}e^{-C_{9}(t-T_{3})}\;\;\text{for all}\;\;t > T_{3}. \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.84) |
It follows from the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality in two dimensions, Lemma 4.2 and Lemma 3.2 that there exist positive constants C_{11} and C_{12} such that
\begin{equation} \begin{split} &||u||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||v||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+||w-1||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\\ &\leq C_{11}\bigg(||u||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}||u||_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}} +||v||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}||v||_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}}\\& \quad+||w-1||_{W^{1,4}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2}{3}}||w-1||_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{1}{3}}\bigg)\\ &\leq C_{12}\left(\int_{\Omega}u^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}v^{2}dx+\int_{\Omega}(w-1)^{2}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{6}}\\ &\leq C_{12}(C_{8}C_{10})^{\frac{1}{6}}e^{\frac{-C_{9}(t-T_{3})}{6}} \end{split} \end{equation} | (4.85) |
for all t > T_{3} . The proof of Lemma 4.12 is complete.
Proof of Theorem 1.5. The statement of Theorem 1.5 is a direct consequence of Lemma 4.12.
The author is grateful to the editor and three anonymous referees for their valuable comments, which greatly improved the exposition of our paper. The author is also deeply grateful to Professor Renjun Duan for the support and friendly hospitality in CUHK. The work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos: 11601053, 11526042), Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing (Grant No. cstc2019jcyj-msxmX0082), Chongqing Municipal Education Commission Science and Technology Research Project (Grant No. KJZD-K202200602), China-South Africa Young Scientist Exchange Project in 2020, The Hong Kong Scholars Program (Grant Nos: XJ2021042, 2021-005) and Young Hundred Talents Program of CQUPT from 2022–2024.
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
[1] |
Guan Y, Lu H, Jiang Y, et al. (2021) Changes in global climate heterogeneity under the 21st century global warming. Ecol Indic 130: 108075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108075 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108075
![]() |
[2] |
Sohani A, Shahverdian MH, Sayyaadi H, et al. (2021) Energy and exergy analyses on seasonal comparative evaluation of water flow cooling for improving the performance of monocrystalline PV module in hot-arid climate. Sustainability 13: 6084. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116084 doi: 10.3390/su13116084
![]() |
[3] |
Sahebi HK, Hoseinzadeh S, Ghadamian H, et al. (2021) Techno-economic analysis and new design of a photovoltaic power plant by a direct radiation amplification system. Sustainability 13: 11493. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011493 doi: 10.3390/su132011493
![]() |
[4] |
Hoseinzadeh S, Ghasemi MH, Heyns S (2020) Application of hybrid systems in solution of low power generation at hot seasons for micro hydro systems. Renewable Energy 160: 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.06.149 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.06.149
![]() |
[5] |
Makkiabadi M, Hoseinzadeh S, Mohammadi M, et al. (2020) Energy feasibility of hybrid PV/wind systems with electricity generation assessment under Iran environment. Appl Sol Energy 56: 517–525. https://doi.org/10.3103/s0003701x20060079 doi: 10.3103/s0003701x20060079
![]() |
[6] |
Hannan MA, Al-Shetwi AQ, Ker PJ, et al. (2021) Impact of renewable energy utilization and artificial intelligence in achieving sustainable development goals. Energy Rep 7: 5359–5373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.08.172 doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2021.08.172
![]() |
[7] |
Rafique MM, Rehman S (2017) National energy scenario of Pakistan—Current status, future alternatives, and institutional infrastructure: An overview. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 69: 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.057 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.057
![]() |
[8] |
Pikus M, Wąs J (2023) Using deep neural network methods for forecasting energy productivity based on comparison of simulation and DNN results for central Poland—Swietokrzyskie Voivodeship. Energies 16: 6632. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16186632 doi: 10.3390/en16186632
![]() |
[9] |
Rafique MM, Bahaidarah HMS, Anwar MK (2019) Enabling private sector investment in off-grid electrification for cleaner production: Optimum designing and achievable rate of unit electricity. J Clean Prod 206: 508–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.123 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.123
![]() |
[10] |
Sørensen ML, Nystrup P, Bjerregård MB, et al. (2023) Recent developments in multivariate wind and solar power forecasting. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Energy Environ, 12. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.465 doi: 10.1002/wene.465
![]() |
[11] |
Wang H, Liu Y, Zhou B, et al. (2020) Taxonomy research of artificial intelligence for deterministic solar power forecasting. Energy Convers Manage 214: 112909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112909 doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112909
![]() |
[12] |
Sobri S, Koohi-Kamali S, Rahim NA (2018) Solar photovoltaic generation forecasting methods: A review. Energy Convers Manage 156: 459–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.11.019 doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2017.11.019
![]() |
[13] |
Mokarram M, Mokarram MJ, Gitizadeh M, et al. (2020) A novel optimal placing of solar farms utilizing multi-criteria decision-making (MCDA) and feature selection. J Clean Prod 261: 121098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121098 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121098
![]() |
[14] |
Cesar LB, Silva RAE, Callejo MÁM, et al. (2022) Review on Spatio-temporal solar forecasting methods driven by in Situ measurements or their combination with satellite and numerical weather prediction (NWP) estimates. Energies 15: 4341. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN15124341 doi: 10.3390/EN15124341
![]() |
[15] |
Miller SD, Rogers MA, Haynes JM, et al. (2018) Short-term solar irradiance forecasting via satellite/model coupling. Sol Energy 168: 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.11.049 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2017.11.049
![]() |
[16] |
Hao Y, Tian C (2019) A novel two-stage forecasting model based on error factor and ensemble method for multi-step wind power forecasting. Appl Energy 238: 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.063 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.063
![]() |
[17] |
Murata A, Ohtake H, Oozeki T (2018) Modeling of uncertainty of solar irradiance forecasts on numerical weather predictions with the estimation of multiple confidence intervals. Renewable Energy 117: 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.10.043 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2017.10.043
![]() |
[18] |
Munkhammar J, van der Meer D, Widén J (2019) Probabilistic forecasting of high-resolution clear-sky index time-series using a Markov-chain mixture distribution model. Sol Energy 184: 688–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.04.014 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2019.04.014
![]() |
[19] |
Halabi LM, Mekhilef S, Hossain M (2018) Performance evaluation of hybrid adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system models for predicting monthly global solar radiation. Appl Energy 213: 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.035 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.035
![]() |
[20] |
Dong J, Olama MM, Kuruganti T, et al. (2020) Novel stochastic methods to predict short-term solar radiation and photovoltaic power. Renewable Energy 145: 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.05.073 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.05.073
![]() |
[21] |
Ahmad T, Zhang D, Huang C (2021) Methodological framework for short-and medium-term energy, solar and wind power forecasting with stochastic-based machine learning approach to monetary and energy policy applications. Energy 231: 120911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120911 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120911
![]() |
[22] |
Ağbulut Ü, Gürel AE, Biçen Y (2021) Prediction of daily global solar radiation using different machine learning algorithms: Evaluation and comparison. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 135: 110114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110114 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110114
![]() |
[23] |
Jumin E, Basaruddin FB, Yusoff YBM, et al. (2021) Solar radiation prediction using boosted decision tree regression model: A case study in Malaysia. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28: 26571–26583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12435-6 doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-12435-6
![]() |
[24] |
Benali L, Notton G, Fouilloy A, et al. (2019) Solar radiation forecasting using artificial neural network and random forest methods: Application to normal beam, horizontal diffuse and global components. Renewable Energy 132: 871–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.08.044 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.08.044
![]() |
[25] |
Zendehboudi A, Baseer MA, Saidur R (2018) Application of support vector machine models for forecasting solar and wind energy resources: A review. J Clean Prod 199: 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.164 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.164
![]() |
[26] |
André PS, Dias LMS, Correia SFH, et al. (2024) Artificial neural networks for predicting optical conversion efficiency in luminescent solar concentrators. Sol Energy 268: 112290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2023.112290 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2023.112290
![]() |
[27] |
Girimurugan R, Selvaraju P, Jeevanandam P, et al. (2023) Application of deep learning to the prediction of solar irradiance through missing data. Int J Photoenergy 2023: 4717110. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4717110 doi: 10.1155/2023/4717110
![]() |
[28] |
Noman AM, Khan H, Sher HA, et al. (2023) Scaled conjugate gradient artificial neural network-based ripple current correlation MPPT algorithms for PV system. Int J Photoenergy 2023: 8891052. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8891052 doi: 10.1155/2023/8891052
![]() |
[29] |
Ricci L, Papurello D (2023) A prediction model for energy production in a solar concentrator using artificial neural networks. Int J Energy Res 2023: 9196506. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9196506 doi: 10.1155/2023/9196506
![]() |
[30] |
Konstantinou M, Peratikou S, Charalambides AG (2021) Solar photovoltaic forecasting of power output using LSTM networks. Atmosphere 12: 124. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12010124 doi: 10.3390/atmos12010124
![]() |
[31] |
Pan C, Tan J, Feng D (2021) Prediction intervals estimation of solar generation based on gated recurrent unit and kernel density estimation. Neurocomputing 453: 552–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.10.027 doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2020.10.027
![]() |
[32] |
Feng C, Zhang J, Zhang W, et al. (2022) Convolutional neural networks for intra-hour solar forecasting based on sky image sequences. Appl Energy 310: 118438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118438 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118438
![]() |
[33] |
Colak HE, Memisoglu T, Gercek Y (2020) Optimal site selection for solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants using GIS and AHP: A case study of Malatya Province, Turkey. Renewable Energy 149: 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.078 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.078
![]() |
[34] |
Mousapour Mamoudan M, Ostadi A, Pourkhodabakhsh N, et al. (2023) Hybrid neural network-based metaheuristics for prediction of financial markets: A case study on global gold market. J Comput Des Eng 10: 1110–1125. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcde/qwad039 doi: 10.1093/jcde/qwad039
![]() |
[35] |
Gholizadeh H, Fathollahi-Fard AM, Fazlollahtabar H, et al. (2022) Fuzzy data-driven scenario-based robust data envelopment analysis for prediction and optimization of an electrical discharge machine's parameters. Expert Syst Appl 193: 116419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116419 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116419
![]() |
[36] |
Ghazikhani A, Babaeian I, Gheibi M, et al. (2022) A smart post-processing system for forecasting the climate precipitation based on machine learning computations. Sustainability 14: 6624. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116624 doi: 10.3390/su14116624
![]() |
[37] |
Han Z, Zhao J, Leung H, et al. (2021) A review of deep learning models for time series prediction. IEEE Sens J 21: 7833–7848. https://doi.org/10.1109/jsen.2019.2923982 doi: 10.1109/jsen.2019.2923982
![]() |
[38] |
Ghimire S, Deo RC, Raj N, et al. (2019) Deep solar radiation forecasting with convolutional neural network and long short-term memory network algorithms. Appl Energy 253: 113541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113541 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113541
![]() |
[39] |
Zang H, Liu L, Sun L, et al. (2020) Short-term global horizontal irradiance forecasting based on a hybrid CNN-LSTM model with spatiotemporal correlations. Renewable Energy 160: 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.05.150 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.05.150
![]() |
[40] | Rathore N, Rathore P, Basak A, et al. (2021) Multi Scale Graph Wavenet for wind speed forecasting. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Orlando, FL, USA, 4047–4053. https://doi.org/10.1109/bigdata52589.2021.9671624 |
[41] |
Shaikh AK, Nazir A, Khalique N, et al. (2023) A new approach to seasonal energy consumption forecasting using temporal convolutional networks. Results Eng 19: 101296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101296 doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101296
![]() |
[42] |
Qu J, Qian Z, Pei Y (2021) Day-ahead hourly photovoltaic power forecasting using attention-based CNN-LSTM neural network embedded with multiple relevant and target variables prediction pattern. Energy 232: 120996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120996 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120996
![]() |
[43] |
Zhan C, Zhang X, Yuan J, et al. (2024) A hybrid approach for low-carbon transportation system analysis: integrating CRITIC-DEMATEL and deep learning features. Int J Environ Sci Technol 21: 791–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-04995-6 doi: 10.1007/s13762-023-04995-6
![]() |
[44] |
Kumari P, Toshniwal D (2021) Deep learning models for solar irradiance forecasting: A comprehensive review. J Clean Prod 318: 128566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128566 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128566
![]() |
[45] |
Akram MW, Li G, Jin Y, et al. (2019) CNN based automatic detection of photovoltaic cell defects in electroluminescence images. Energy 189: 116319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116319 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.116319
![]() |
[46] | Halton C (2023) Predictive analytics: Definition, model types, and uses, 2021. Investopedia Available from: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/predictive-analytics.asp#: ~: text = the most common predictive models, deep learning methods and technologies. |
[47] |
Manju S, Sandeep M (2019) Prediction and performance assessment of global solar radiation in Indian cities: A comparison of satellite and surface measured data. J Clean Prod 230: 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.108 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.108
![]() |
[48] |
Ahmad S, Parvez M, Khan TA, et al. (2022) A hybrid approach using AHP-TOPSIS methods for ranking of soft computing techniques based on their attributes for prediction of solar radiation. Environ Challenges 9: 100634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100634 doi: 10.1016/j.envc.2022.100634
![]() |
[49] |
Ağbulut Ü, Gürel AE, Biçen Y (2021) Prediction of daily global solar radiation using different machine learning algorithms: Evaluation and comparison. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 135: 110114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110114 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110114
![]() |
[50] |
Islam S, Roy NK (2023) Renewable's integration into power systems through intelligent techniques: Implementation procedures, key features, and performance evaluation. Energy Rep 9: 6063–6087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.05.063 doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2023.05.063
![]() |
[51] |
Farooqui SZ (2014) Prospects of renewables penetration in the energy mix of Pakistan. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 29: 693–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.083 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.083
![]() |
[52] | Government of Pakistan FD (2022) Pakistan Economic Survey 2021-22. Available from: https://www.finance.gov.pk/survey_2022.html. |
[53] |
Đukanović M, Kašćelan L, Vuković S, et al. (2023) A machine learning approach for time series forecasting with application to debt risk of the Montenegrin electricity industry. Energy Rep 9: 362–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.05.240 doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2023.05.240
![]() |
[54] | Irfan M, Zhao ZY, Mukeshimana MC, et al. (2019) Wind energy development in South Asia: Status, potential and policies. 2019 2nd International Conference on Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies (iCoMET), Sukkur, Pakistan, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/icomet.2019.8673484 |
[55] | Energy system of Asia Pacific. International Energy Agency. Available from: https://www.iea.org/regions/asia-pacific. |
[56] | Climate change. International Energy Agency. Available from: https://www.iea.org/. |
[57] |
Rafique MM, Rehman S (2017) National energy scenario of Pakistan—Current status, future alternatives, and institutional infrastructure: An overview. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 69: 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.057 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.057
![]() |
[58] |
Awan U, Knight I (2020) Domestic sector energy demand and prediction models for Punjab Pakistan. J Building Eng 32: 101790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101790 doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101790
![]() |
[59] |
Muhammad F, Waleed Raza M, Khan S, et al. (2017) Different solar potential co-ordinates of Pakistan. Innovative Energy Res 6: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4172/2576-1463.1000173 doi: 10.4172/2576-1463.1000173
![]() |
[60] |
Farooq M, Shakoor A (2013) Severe energy crises and solar thermal energy as a viable option for Pakistan. J Renewable Sustainable Energy 5: 013104. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4772637 doi: 10.1063/1.4772637
![]() |
[61] |
Shabbir N, Usman M, Jawad M, et al. (2020) Economic analysis and impact on national grid by domestic photovoltaic system installations in Pakistan. Renewable Energy 153: 509–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.01.114 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.01.114
![]() |
[62] | Global solar atlas. Available from: https://globalsolaratlas.info/map. |
[63] | CDPC, Department PM Climate Records Quetta. Available from: https://cdpc.pmd.gov.pk/. |
[64] | JRC Photovoltaic Geographical Information System (PVGIS)—European Commission. Available from: https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/#PVP/. |
[65] | Earthdata. NASA. Available from: https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/. |
[66] | Welcome to Colaboratory—Google Colaboratory. Available from: https://colab.research.google.com/. |
[67] |
Emmanuel T, Maupong T, Mpoeleng D, et al. (2021) A survey on missing data in machine learning. J Big Data 8: 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40537-021-00516-9 doi: 10.1186/S40537-021-00516-9
![]() |
[68] | Ackerman S, Farchi E, Raz O, et al. (2020) Detection of data drift and outliers affecting machine learning model performance over time. arXiv In: JSM Proceedings, Nonparametric Statistics Section, 20202. Philadelphia, PA: American Statistical Association, 144–160. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2012.09258 |
[69] | Khadka N (2019) General machine learning practices using Python. Available from: https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/226305/Khadka_Nibesh.pdf?sequence = 2. |
[70] |
Pereira Barata A, Takes FW, Van Den Herik HJ, et al. (2019) Imputation methods outperform missing-indicator for data missing completely at random. 2019 International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW), Beijing, China, 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW.2019.00066 doi: 10.1109/ICDMW.2019.00066
![]() |
[71] |
Wu P, Zhang Q, Wang G, et al. (2023) Dynamic feature selection combining standard deviation and interaction information. Int J Mach Learn Cyber 14: 1407–1426. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13042-022-01706-4 doi: 10.1007/S13042-022-01706-4
![]() |
[72] |
Begum S, Meraj S, Shetty BS (2023) Successful data mining: With dimension reduction. Proceedings of the International Conference on Applications of Machine Intelligence and Data Analytics, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-136-4_3 doi: 10.2991/978-94-6463-136-4_3
![]() |
[73] |
Li B, Wu F, Lim S-N, et al. (2021) On feature normalization and data augmentation. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern, 12383–12392. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2002.11102 doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2002.11102
![]() |
[74] |
Ramirez-Vergara J, Bosman LB, Leon-Salas WD, et al. (2021) Ambient temperature and solar irradiance forecasting prediction horizon sensitivity analysis. Machine Learning Appl 6: 100128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mlwa.2021.100128 doi: 10.1016/j.mlwa.2021.100128
![]() |
[75] |
Verbois H, Huva R, Rusydi A, et al. (2018) Solar irradiance forecasting in the tropics using numerical weather prediction and statistical learning. Sol Energy 162: 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.01.007 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2018.01.007
![]() |
[76] |
Ssekulima EB, Anwar MB, Al Hinai A, et al. (2016) Wind speed and solar irradiance forecasting techniques for enhanced renewable energy integration with the grid: A review. IET Renewable Power Generation 10: 885–989. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2015.0477 doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2015.0477
![]() |
[77] |
Kumar N, Sinha UK, Sharma SP, et al. (2017) Prediction of daily global solar radiation using Neural Networks with improved gain factors and RBF Networks. Int J Renewable Energy Res 7: 1235–1244. https://doi.org/10.20508/ijrer.v7i3.5988.g7156 doi: 10.20508/ijrer.v7i3.5988.g7156
![]() |
[78] |
Siva Krishna Rao KDV, Premalatha M, Naveen C (2018) Models for forecasting monthly mean daily global solar radiation from in-situ measurements: Application in Tropical Climate, India. Urban Clim 24: 921–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2017.11.004 doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2017.11.004
![]() |
[79] |
Yıldırım HB, Çelik Ö, Teke A, et al. (2018) Estimating daily Global solar radiation with graphical user interface in Eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 82: 1528–1537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.030 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.030
![]() |
[80] |
Mohaideen Abdul Kadhar K, Anand G (2021) Basics of Python programming. Data Sci Raspberry Pi, 13–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-6825-4_2 doi: 10.1007/978-1-4842-6825-4_2
![]() |
[81] |
Gholizadeh S (2022) Top popular Python libraries in research. J Robot Auto Res 3: 142–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.33140/jrar.03.02.02 doi: 10.33140/jrar.03.02.02
![]() |
[82] |
Stančin I, Jović A (2019) An overview and comparison of free Python libraries for data mining and big data analysis. 42nd International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), 977–982. https://doi.org/10.23919/mipro.2019.8757088 doi: 10.23919/mipro.2019.8757088
![]() |
[83] |
Voigtlaender F (2023) The universal approximation theorem for complex-valued neural networks. Appl Comput Harmon Anal 64: 33–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acha.2022.12.002 doi: 10.1016/j.acha.2022.12.002
![]() |
[84] |
Winkler DA, Le TC (2017) Performance of deep and shallow neural networks, the universal approximation theorem, activity cliffs, and QSAR. Mol Inf, 36. https://doi.org/10.1002/minf.201600118 doi: 10.1002/minf.201600118
![]() |
[85] |
Lu Y, Lu J (2020) A universal approximation theorem of Deep Neural Networks for expressing probability distributions. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.08867 doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2004.08867
![]() |
[86] |
Dubey SR, Singh SK, Chaudhuri BB (2022) Activation functions in deep learning: A comprehensive survey and benchmark. Neurocomputing 503: 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2022.06.111 doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2022.06.111
![]() |
[87] | Tato A, Nkambou R (2018) Improving Adam optimizer. ICLR 2018 Workshop. Available from: https://openreview.net/forum?id = HJfpZq1DM. |
[88] |
Toh SC, Lai SH, Mirzaei M, et al. (2023) Sequential data processing for IMERG satellite rainfall comparison and improvement using LSTM and ADAM optimizer. Appl Sci 13: 7237. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13127237 doi: 10.3390/app13127237
![]() |
[89] |
Amose J, Manimegalai P, Narmatha C, et al. (2022) Comparative performance analysis of Kernel functions in Support Vector Machines in the diagnosis of pneumonia using lung sounds. Proceedings of 2022 2nd International Conference on Computing and Information Technology, ICCIT 2022, 320–324. https://doi.org/10.1109/iccit52419.2022.9711608 doi: 10.1109/iccit52419.2022.9711608
![]() |
[90] |
Karyawati AE, Wijaya KDY, Supriana IW, et al. (2023) A comparison of different Kernel functions of SVM classification method for spam detection. JITK 8: 91–97. https://doi.org/10.33480/jitk.v8i2.2463 doi: 10.33480/jitk.v8i2.2463
![]() |
[91] |
Munir MA, Khattak A, Imran K, et al. (2019) Solar PV generation forecast model based on the most effective weather parameters. 1st International Conference on Electrical, Communication and Computer Engineering, ICECCE 2019, 24–25. https://doi.org/10.1109/icecce47252.2019.8940664 doi: 10.1109/icecce47252.2019.8940664
![]() |
[92] |
Wang F, Mi Z, Su S, et al. (2012) Short-term solar irradiance forecasting model based on artificial neural network using statistical feature parameters. Energies 5: 1355–1370. https://doi.org/10.3390/en5051355 doi: 10.3390/en5051355
![]() |
[93] |
Kashyap Y, Bansal A, Sao AK (2015) Solar radiation forecasting with multiple parameters neural networks. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 49: 825–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.077 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.077
![]() |
[94] | Sayad S. Support Vector Machine-Regression (SVR). An introduction to data science. Available from: http://www.saedsayad.com/support_vector_machine_reg.htm. |
[95] |
Lu Y, Roychowdhury V (2008) Parallel randomized sampling for support vector machine (SVM) and support vector regression (SVR). Knowl Inf Syst 14: 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-007-0082-6 doi: 10.1007/s10115-007-0082-6
![]() |
[96] |
Kleynhans T, Montanaro M, Gerace A, et al. (2017) Predicting top-of-atmosphere thermal radiance using MERRA-2 atmospheric data with deep learning. Remote Sens 9: 1133. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9111133 doi: 10.3390/rs9111133
![]() |
[97] | Obviously AI: data science without code (2022) Obviously AI Inc. Available from: https://app.obviously.ai/predict. |
[98] | Data Science, what is Light GBM? Available from: https://datascience.eu/machine-learning/1-what-is-light-gbm/. |
[99] | Mandot P (2017) What is LightGBM, how to implement it? How to fine tune the parameters? Medium. Available from: https://medium.com/@pushkarmandot/https-medium-com-pushkarmandot-what-is-lightgbm-how-to-implement-it-how-to-fine-tune-the-parameters-60347819b7fc. |
[100] |
Gueymard CA (2014) A review of validation methodologies and statistical performance indicators for modeled solar radiation data: Towards a better bankability of solar projects. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 39: 1024–1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.117 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.117
![]() |
[101] |
De Paiva GM, Pimentel SP, Alvarenga BP, et al. (2020) Multiple site intraday solar irradiance forecasting by machine learning algorithms: MGGP and MLP neural networks. Energies 13: 3005. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13113005 doi: 10.3390/en13113005
![]() |
[102] |
Yildirim A, Bilgili M, Ozbek A (2023) One-hour-ahead solar radiation forecasting by MLP, LSTM, and ANFIS approaches. Meteorology Atmospheric Physics, 135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-022-00946-x doi: 10.1007/s00703-022-00946-x
![]() |
[103] |
Huang X, Li Q, Tai Y, et al. (2021) Hybrid deep neural model for hourly solar irradiance forecasting. Renewable Energy 171: 1041–1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.02.161 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.02.161
![]() |
[104] |
Mellit A, Pavan AM, Lughi V (2021) Deep learning neural networks for short-term photovoltaic power forecasting. Renewable Energy 172: 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.02.166 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.02.166
![]() |
[105] |
Bhatt A, Ongsakul W, Nimal Madhu M, et al. (2022) Sliding window approach with first-order differencing for very short-term solar irradiance forecasting using deep learning models. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess, 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101864 doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2021.101864
![]() |
[106] |
Wang J, Zhong H, Lai X, et al. (2019) Exploring key weather factors from analytical modeling toward improved solar power forecasting. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 10: 1417–1427. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsg.2017.2766022 doi: 10.1109/tsg.2017.2766022
![]() |
[107] |
Basak SC, Vracko MG (2020) Parsimony principle and its proper use/application in computer-assisted drug design and QSAR. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 16: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.2174/157340991601200106122854 doi: 10.2174/157340991601200106122854
![]() |
[108] | Almekhlafi MAA (2018) Justification of the advisability of using solar energy for the example of the Yemen republic. National University of Civil Defence of Ukraine, 41–50. Available from: http://repositsc.nuczu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/7224. |
[109] |
Naseri M, Hussaini MS, Iqbal MW, et al. (2021) Spatial modeling of solar photovoltaic power plant in Kabul, Afghanistan. J Mt Sci 18: 3291–3305. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11629-021-7035-5 doi: 10.1007/S11629-021-7035-5
![]() |
[110] |
Elizabeth Michael N, Hasan S, Al-Durra A, et al. (2022) Short-term solar irradiance forecasting based on a novel Bayesian optimized deep long short-term memory neural network. Appl Energy 324: 119727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119727 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119727
![]() |
[111] |
Safaraliev MK, Odinaev IN, Ahyoev JS, et al. (2020) Energy potential estimation of the region's solar radiation using a solar tracker. Appl Sol Energy 56: 270–275. https://doi.org/10.3103/s0003701x20040118 doi: 10.3103/s0003701x20040118
![]() |
[112] |
Rodríguez-Benítez FJ, Arbizu-Barrena C, Huertas-Tato J, et al. (2020) A short-term solar radiation forecasting system for the Iberian Peninsula. Part 1: Models description and performance assessment. Sol Energy 195: 396–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.11.028 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2019.11.028
![]() |
1. | Jawdat Alebraheem, Xiangfeng Yang, Predator Interference in a Predator–Prey Model with Mixed Functional and Numerical Responses, 2023, 2023, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2023/4349573 | |
2. | Pan Zheng, Boundedness and global stability in a three-species predator-prey system with prey-taxis, 2023, 0, 1531-3492, 0, 10.3934/dcdsb.2023041 | |
3. | Chuanjia Wan, Pan Zheng, Wenhai Shan, On a quasilinear fully parabolic predator–prey model with indirect pursuit-evasion interaction, 2023, 23, 1424-3199, 10.1007/s00028-023-00931-w | |
4. | Chuanjia Wan, Pan Zheng, Boundedness and stabilization in an indirect pursuit-evasion model with nonlinear signal-dependent diffusion and sensitivity, 2025, 82, 14681218, 104234, 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2024.104234 | |
5. | N. B. Sharmila, C. Gunasundari, Mohammad Sajid, Mayer Humi, Spatiotemporal Dynamics of a Reaction Diffusive Predator-Prey Model: A Weak Nonlinear Analysis, 2023, 2023, 1687-9651, 1, 10.1155/2023/9190167 | |
6. | Zhoumeng Xie, Yuxiang Li, Global solutions near homogeneous steady states in a fully cross-diffusive predator–prey system with density-dependent motion, 2023, 74, 0044-2275, 10.1007/s00033-023-02127-1 | |
7. | Chuanjia Wan, Pan Zheng, Wenhai Shan, Global stability of a quasilinear predator–prey model with indirect pursuit–evasion interaction, 2024, 17, 1793-5245, 10.1142/S1793524523500766 | |
8. | Pan Zheng, Chuanjia Wan, Global boundedness in a two-competing-predator and one-prey system with indirect prey-taxis, 2025, 0, 1078-0947, 0, 10.3934/dcds.2025001 | |
9. | Minghao Yang, Changcheng Xiang, Yi Yang, Spatiotemporal patterns in a predator–prey model with anti-predation behavior and fear effect, 2025, 2025, 2731-4235, 10.1186/s13662-025-03881-4 | |
10. | Dongze Yan, Global boundedness of Lotka-Volterra competition system with cross-diffusion, 2025, 547, 0022247X, 129346, 10.1016/j.jmaa.2025.129346 |