Mathematical exploration on control of bifurcation for a 3D predator-prey model with delay

Yingyan Zhao; Changjin Xu; Yiya Xu; Jinting Lin; Yicheng Pang; Zixin Liu; Jianwei Shen; Yingyan Zhao; Changjin Xu; Yiya Xu; Jinting Lin; Yicheng Pang; Zixin Liu; Jianwei Shen

doi:10.3934/math.20241445

AIMS Mathematics

2024, Volume 9, Issue 11: 29883-29915. doi: 10.3934/math.20241445

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Mathematical exploration on control of bifurcation for a 3D predator-prey model with delay

1.
School of Mathematics and Statistics, Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, Guiyang 550025, China
2.
Guizhou Key Laboratory of Economics System Simulation, Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, Guiyang 550025, China
3.
School of Mathematics and Statistics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
4.
School of Mathematics and Statistics, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou 450046, China

Received: 11 September 2024 Revised: 09 October 2024 Accepted: 11 October 2024 Published: 21 October 2024
MSC : 34C23, 34K18, 37GK15, 39A11, 92B20

In this current paper, we developed a new predator-prey model accompanying delay based on the earlier works. By applying inequality strategies, fixed point theorem, and a suitable function, we got new necessary conditions for the existence, uniqueness, nonnegativeness, and boundedness of the solution to the developed delayed predator-prey model. The bifurcation behavior and stability nature of the defined delayed predator-prey model were investigated by using stability and bifurcation theory of delayed differential equations. We have modified the Hopf bifurcation's appearance time and stability domain by building two distinct hybrid delayed feedback controllers for the delayed predator-prey model. The time of Hopf bifurcation appearance and stability domain of the model were explored. Matlab experiment diagrams were given to support the learned important results. The derived outcomes in this paper were original and have significant theoretical implications for maintaining equilibrium between the densities of the three species.

Keywords:

Citation: Yingyan Zhao, Changjin Xu, Yiya Xu, Jinting Lin, Yicheng Pang, Zixin Liu, Jianwei Shen. Mathematical exploration on control of bifurcation for a 3D predator-prey model with delay[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(11): 29883-29915. doi: 10.3934/math.20241445

Related Papers:

[1]	Wei Ou, Changjin Xu, Qingyi Cui, Yicheng Pang, Zixin Liu, Jianwei Shen, Muhammad Zafarullah Baber, Muhammad Farman, Shabir Ahmad . Hopf bifurcation exploration and control technique in a predator-prey system incorporating delay. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(1): 1622-1651. doi: 10.3934/math.2024080
[2]	Jinting Lin, Changjin Xu, Yiya Xu, Yingyan Zhao, Yicheng Pang, Zixin Liu, Jianwei Shen . Bifurcation and controller design in a 3D delayed predator-prey model. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(12): 33891-33929. doi: 10.3934/math.20241617
[3]	Hairong Li, Yanling Tian, Ting Huang, Pinghua Yang . Hopf bifurcation and hybrid control of a delayed diffusive semi-ratio-dependent predator-prey model. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 29608-29632. doi: 10.3934/math.20241434
[4]	Ruizhi Yang, Dan Jin, Wenlong Wang . A diffusive predator-prey model with generalist predator and time delay. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(3): 4574-4591. doi: 10.3934/math.2022255
[5]	Qinghui Liu, Xin Zhang . Chaos detection in predator-prey dynamics with delayed interactions and Ivlev-type functional response. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 24555-24575. doi: 10.3934/math.20241196
[6]	Sahabuddin Sarwardi, Hasanur Mollah, Aeshah A. Raezah, Fahad Al Basir . Direction and stability of Hopf bifurcation in an eco-epidemic model with disease in prey and predator gestation delay using Crowley-Martin functional response. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 27930-27954. doi: 10.3934/math.20241356
[7]	Chenxuan Nie, Dan Jin, Ruizhi Yang . Hopf bifurcation analysis in a delayed diffusive predator-prey system with nonlocal competition and generalist predator. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 13344-13360. doi: 10.3934/math.2022737
[8]	Fatao Wang, Ruizhi Yang, Yining Xie, Jing Zhao . Hopf bifurcation in a delayed reaction diffusion predator-prey model with weak Allee effect on prey and fear effect on predator. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 17719-17743. doi: 10.3934/math.2023905
[9]	Xin-You Meng, Fan-Li Meng . Bifurcation analysis of a special delayed predator-prey model with herd behavior and prey harvesting. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(6): 5695-5719. doi: 10.3934/math.2021336
[10]	Aeshah A. Raezah, Jahangir Chowdhury, Fahad Al Basir . Global stability of the interior equilibrium and the stability of Hopf bifurcating limit cycle in a model for crop pest control. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 24229-24246. doi: 10.3934/math.20241179

Abstract

1. Introduction

It is widely accepted that the delayed dynamical model is an important tool for answering many issues in biology. Numerous academics focus extensively on the development of diverse predator-prey models to elucidate the dynamics and internal structure within biological populations. We can successfully regulate the concentrations of predators and preys in the natural world by investigating the various dynamical characteristics of predator-prey models. Numerous studies on predator-prey models have been submitted and released in recent years, and several outstanding studies have been discussed. For example, Din et al. ^[1] studied the discrete predator-prey interactions with chaos control and bifurcation analysis. Liu and Guo ^[2] examined the dynamics of a predator-prey system with nonlinear prey-taxis, using the Lyapunov-Schmidt reduction approach, the fold-Hopf singularity, Hopf bifurcation, and steady state bifurcation are examined in depth. Al-Kaff et al. ^[3] investigated bifurcation and chaos in a discrete predator-prey system using a linked logistic map, a wide range of the system's behavior is thoroughly examined in the study. Pita et al. ^[4] investigated a review of some recent advances in predator-prey models. For more extensive investigations, see ^[5,6,7,8,9].

In particular, Lotka-Volterra models are vital predator-prey models in biology. They play an important role in describing the correlation between predators and prey. During the past decades, many works on this topic have been reported. For example, Hsu et al. ^[10] studied three different species of omnivorous Lotka-Volterra food web models. Bunin ^[11] studied the Lotka-Volterra model for ecological communities exhibiting symmetry and connected it to other well-known models. Wu et al. ^[12] investigated the Grey Lotka-Volterra model and its application, effectively analyzing the link between the two variables and forecasting their values using the gray Lotka-Volterra model. Kloppers et al. ^[13] estimated the parameters of the Lotka-Volterra model from empirical data. Marasco et al. ^[14] found the development of market share dynamics through the application of Lotka-Volterra models, and Wang et al. ^[15] examined the problems with free boundaries in a Lotka-Volterra competition system. Zhou ^[16] investigated a two-species Lotka-Volterra competition system in one-dimensional advective environments. Cherniha et al. ^[17] studied a review and new findings regarding the construction and application of exact solutions to the diffusive Lotka-Volterra system.

In 2022, Prabir et al. ^[18] suggested the subsequent Lotka-Volterra mutualistic symbiotic relationship:

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} \frac{{d\mho_1}}{{dT}} = {r_1}{\mho_1}\left[1 - \frac{{\mho_1}}{{{K_1}}} - \frac{{{\alpha _{12}}}}{{{K_1}}}{{\mho_2}^2}\right] + {\delta _{13}}{\mho_1}{\mho_3}, \\ \frac{{d{\mho_2}}}{{dT}} = {r_2}{\mho_2}\left[1 - \frac{{\mho_2}}{{{K_2}}} - \frac{{{\alpha _{21}}}}{{{K_2}}}{{\mho_1}^2}\right] - \frac{{a(1 - p){\mho_2}{\mho_3}}}{{b + (1 - p){\mho_2}}}, \\ \frac{{d{\mho_3}}}{{dT}} = {\mho_3}\left[ - e + \frac{{ac(1 - p){\mho_2}}}{{b + (1 - p){\mho_2}}}\right], \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(1.1)

where $\mho_1$ and $\mho_2$ indicate the density of two logistically increasing competing species, $\mho_3$ represents the density of a predatory species of $\mho_2$ , ${r_1}, {r_2}$ are the natural rates of growth for species $\mho_1$ and $\mho_2$ , ${K_1}, {K_2}$ are the carrying capacity of species $\mho_1$ and $\mho_2$ respectively, ${\alpha _{12}}, {\alpha _{21}}$ represent the fight between two species $\mho_1$ and $\mho_2$ , $\delta _{13}$ is the commensal coefficient of $\mho_1$ over $\mho_3$ species, $a$ is the frequency at which $\mho_3$ species attack $\mho_2$ species, $p$ is the refuge rate of $\mho_2$ species, $c$ refers to the rate of conservation of $\mho_2$ species, $b$ is the steady value for half saturation for the Holling type Ⅱ function, and $e$ is the rate of extinction for species $\mho_3$ . One might refer to ^[18] for a more precise explanation of the meaning of system (1.1).

In order to make the suggested mathematical model nondimensional, we have now added a few variables and constants as $t = {r_1}T, {u_1} = \frac{{\mho_1}}{{{K_1}}}, {u_2} = \frac{{\mho_2}}{{{K_2}}}, {u_3} = \frac{{a{\mho_3}}}{{{r_1}{K_2}}}, {\gamma _{12}} = \frac{{{\alpha _{12}}K_2^2}}{{{K_1}}}$ , $\gamma = \frac{{{\delta _{13}}{K_2}}}{a}, r = \frac{{{r_2}}}{{{r_1}}}, {\gamma _{21}} = \frac{{{\alpha _{21}}K_1^2}}{{{K_2}}}, {v_1} = \frac{b}{{{K_2}}}, {v_2} = \frac{e}{{{r_1}}}, {v_3} = \frac{{ac}}{{{r_1}}}$ .

Then model (1.1) can be simplified to the following form

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} \frac{du_1(t)}{dt} = u_1(t)(1-u_1(t)-\gamma_{12}u_2^2(t))+\gamma u_1(t)u_3(t), \\ \frac{du_2(t)}{dt} = ru_2(t)(1-u_2(t)-\gamma_{21}u_1^2(t))-\frac{(1-p)u_2(t)u_3(t)}{v_1+(1-p)u_2(t)}, \\ \frac{du_3(t)}{dt} = u_3(t)\left(-v_2+\frac{v_3(1-p)u_2(t)}{v_1+(1-p)u_2(t)}\right), \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(1.2)

with initial conditions ${u_1}(0) \ge 0, {u_2}(0) \ge 0, {u_3}(0) \ge 0$ .

In this instance we want to call your attention to the truth that the evolution of species frequently depends on both historical and present times; hence, delays must be incorporated into biological models. Notice that the development of the density of two logistically increasing competing species $\mho_1$ and $\mho_2$ rely on not only the current time but also the past time. In other words, the development of the density of two logistically increasing competing species $\mho_1$ and $\mho_2$ shall have feedback delays. Based on this idea, we assume that there are two self-feedback delays in model (1.2): One is the self-feedback delay from the first species $u_1$ to the first species $u_1$ , and the other the self-feedback delay from the first species $u_2$ to the first species $u_2$ . The points that follow delayed Lotka-Volterra commercially available symbiosis system may then be loosely formulated:

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} \frac{du_1(t)}{dt} = u_1(t)(1-u_1(t-\theta)-\gamma_{12}u_2^2(t))+\gamma u_1(t)u_3(t), \\ \frac{du_2(t)}{dt} = ru_2(t)(1-u_2(t-\theta)-\gamma_{21}u_1^2(t))-\frac{(1-p)u_2(t)u_3(t)}{v_1+(1-p)u_2(t)}, \\ \frac{du_3(t)}{dt} = u_3(t)\left(-v_2+\frac{v_3(1-p)u_2(t)}{v_1+(1-p)u_2(t)}\right), \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(1.3)

where $\theta > 0$ is a time delay and all the parameters ${\gamma _{12}}, \gamma, r, {\gamma _{21}}, {v_1}, {v_2}, {v_3}$ are positive constants. The initial conditions of system (1.3) are given by $u_i(s) = \phi_i(s)\geq0, i = 1, 2, 3, s\in[-\theta, 0]$ and $\phi_i(s)\in C([-\theta, 0], R^{+}), i = 1, 2, 3.$

Mathematically speaking, delays play a key role in determining how different differential systems behave dynamically ^[19,20,21]. Delays can lead to a variety of consequences, including changes in stability, the formation of bifurcations, and the start of chaotic behavior ^[22,23,24]. During the past decades, many authors deal with this topic, see ^[25,26,27]. Specifically, the dynamic phenomena of delays-induced Hopf bifurcation is quite significant ^[28,29,30]. From a biological perspective, delay-induced Hopf bifurcation nicely captures the equilibrium between densities of different living populations ^[31]. We contend that in order to understand the dynamics of interactions across various biological populations, it is critical to investigate delay-induced Hopf bifurcation in a variety of biological models. Motivated by this idea, we will concentrate on the Hopf bifurcation and its bifurcation control mechanisms. Specifically, we will address three critical questions: (1) Assess the distinctive features of the solution to system (1.3), including its nonnegativity, existence and uniqueness, and boundedness. (2) Examine the system's stability problem and the formation of the Hopf bifurcation phenomena (1.3). (3) Build both controllers for adjusting the range of stability and the generation time of the Hopf bifurcation in system (1.3).

The following is an introduction of the study's primary luminous spot: (ⅰ) A completely new delay-independent bifurcation and stability criterion for system (1.3) is established based on the earlier studies. (ⅱ) Using separate controllers, the realm of stability and the time of Hopf bifurcation in system (1.3) may be regulated well. (ⅲ) This study examines how delay affects Hopf bifurcation and the stability of first and second species densities in system (1.3).

The stated arrangement of the article is as follows. The "Feature of solution" section discusses the unique characteristics of system (1.3), such as boundedness, nonnegativeness, existence, and uniqueness. The "Bifurcation analysis" section discusses the bifurcation phenomena and the system's stability (1.3). The "Bifurcation domination using extended hybrid controller Ⅰ" section centers around the control issue associated with bifurcation phenomena for system (1.3) by formulating a plausible hybrid delayed feedback controller that involves parameter perturbation is accompanied by latency and state feedback. "Bifurcation domination using extended hybrid controller Ⅱ" section addresses the control challenge of the bifurcation phenomena in system (1.3). Creating a suitable hybrid delayed feedback controller with parameter perturbation for delay and state feedback. The "Software experiments" section provides Matlab software simulation results to assess the veracity of the obtained main results. "Conclusions" concludes this study concisely.

2. Feature of solution

This section will examine the characteristics of the solution to system (1.3), such as its existence and uniqueness, nonnegativeness, and boundedness. To do this, we will employ fixed point theory, inequality methods, and the design of an appropriate function.

Theorem 2.1. Let $\Delta = \{(u_1, u_2, u_3)\in R^3: \max\{|u_1|, |u_2|, |u_3|\}\leq M\}$ , where $M > 0$ denotes a constant. For every $(u_{10}, u_{20}, u_{30})\in \Delta$ , system (1.3) under the initial value $(u_{10}, u_{20}, u_{30})$ owns a unique solution $U = (u_1, u_2, u_3)\in \Delta.$

Proof. Set

$\begin{equation} f(U) = (f_1(U), f_2(U), f_3(U)), \end{equation}$

(2.1)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} f_1(U) = u_1(t)(1-u_1(t-\theta)-\gamma_{12}u_2^2(t))+\gamma u_1(t)u_3(t), \\ f_2(U) = ru_2(t)(1-u_2(t-\theta)-\gamma_{21}u_1^2(t))-\frac{(1-p)u_2(t)u_3(t)}{v_1+(1-p)u_2(t)}, \\ f_3(U) = u_3(t)(-v_2+\frac{v_3(1-p)u_2(t)}{v_1+(1-p)u_2(t)}). \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(2.2)

For arbitrary $U, \tilde{U}\in\Delta$ , one gains

$\begin{eqnarray} &&||f(U)-f(\tilde{U})||\\ && = \left| {\left. {{f_1}(u) - {f_1}(\bar u)} \right|} \right. + \left| {\left. {{f_2}(u) - {f_2}(\bar u)} \right|} \right. + \left| {\left. {{f_3}(u) - {f_3}(\bar u)} \right|} \right.\\ && = \left| {[{u_1} - {u_1}{u_1}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{12}}{u_1}u_2^2 + \gamma {u_1}{u_3}]} \right. \\ &&\; \; \; - \left. \left[{{\bar u}_1} - {{\bar u}_1}{{\bar u}_1}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{12}}{{\bar u}_1}\bar u_2^2 + \gamma {{\bar u}_1}{{\bar u}_3} \right] \right|\\ &&\; \; \; + \left| \left[r{u_2} - r{u_2}{u_2}(t - \theta ) - r{\gamma _{21}}u_1^2{u_2} - \frac{{(1 - p){u_2}{u_3}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}}}\right]\right.\\ &&\; \; \; - \left.\left[r{{\bar u}_2} - r{{\bar u}_2}{{\bar u}_2}(t - \theta ) - r{\gamma _{21}}\bar u_1^2{{\bar u}_2} - \frac{{(1 - p){{\bar u}_2}{{\bar u}_3}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){{\bar u}_2}}}\right] \right|\\ &&\; \; \; + \left|\left[ - {v_2}{u_3} + \frac{{{v_3}(1 - p){u_2}{u_3}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}}})\right]\right.- \left.\left[ - {v_2}{{\bar u}_3} + \frac{{{v_3}(1 - p){{\bar u}_2}{{\bar u}_3}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){{\bar u}_2}}})\right] \right|\\ &&\le \left| {\left. {{u_1} - {{\bar u}_1}} \right|} \right. + \left| {\left. {{u_1}{u_1}(t - \theta ) - {{\bar u}_1}{{\bar u}_1}(t - \theta )} \right|} \right. + {\gamma _{12}}\left| {\left. {{u_1}u_2^2 - {{\bar u}_1}\bar u_2^2} \right|} \right.\\ &&\; \; \; + \gamma \left| {\left. {{u_1}{u_3} - {{\bar u}_1}{{\bar u}_3}} \right|} \right. + r\left| {\left. {{u_2} - {{\bar u}_2}} \right|} \right.+ r\left| {\left. {{u_2}{u_2}(t - \theta ) - {{\bar u}_2}{{\bar u}_2}(t - \theta )} \right|} \right. \\ &&\; \; \; + r{\gamma _{21}}\left| {\left. {u_1^2{u_2} - \bar u_1^2{{\bar u}_2}} \right|} \right. + (1 - p)\left| {\left. {\frac{{(1 - p){u_2}{u_3}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}}} - \frac{{(1 - p){{\bar u}_2}{{\bar u}_3}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){{\bar u}_2}}}} \right|} \right.\\ &&\; \; \; + {v_2}\left| {\left. {{u_3} - {{\bar u}_3}} \right| + } \right.{v_3}(1 - p)\left| {\left. {\frac{{{u_2}{u_3}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}}} - \frac{{{{\bar u}_2}{{\bar u}_3}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){{\bar u}_2}}}} \right|} \right.\\ &&\le \left| {\left. {{u_1} - {{\bar u}_1}} \right|} \right. + \left| {\left. {{u_1}{u_1}(t - \theta ) - {{\bar u}_1}{u_1}(t - \theta ) + {{\bar u}_1}{u_1}(t - \theta ) - {{\bar u}_1}{{\bar u}_1}(t - \theta )} \right|} \right.\\ &&\; \; \; +{\gamma _{12}}\left| {\left. {{u_1}u_2^2 - {{\bar u}_1}u_2^2 + {{\bar u}_1}u_2^2 - {{\bar u}_1}\bar u_2^2} \right|} \right. + \gamma \left| {\left. {{u_1}{u_3} - {{\bar u}_1}{u_3} + {{\bar u}_1}{u_3} - {{\bar u}_1}{{\bar u}_3}} \right|} \right.\\ &&\; \; \; + r\left| {\left. {{u_2} - {{\bar u}_2}} \right|} \right. + r\left| {\left. {{u_2}{u_2}(t - \theta ) - {{\bar u}_2}{u_2}(t - \theta ) + {{\bar u}_2}{u_2}(t - \theta ) - {{\bar u}_2}{{\bar u}_2}(t - \theta )} \right|} \right.\\ &&\; \; \; + r{\gamma _{21}}\left| {\left. {u_1^2{u_2} - \bar u_1^2{u_2} + \bar u_1^2{u_2} - \bar u_1^2{{\bar u}_2}} \right|} \right.\\ &&\; \; \; + \left( {{v_3} + 1} \right)(1 - p)\left| {\left. {\frac{{{u_2}{u_3}[{v_1} + (1 - p){{\bar u}_2}] - {{\bar u}_2}{{\bar u}_3}[{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}]}}{{[{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}][{v_1} + (1 - p){{\bar u}_2}]}}} \right|} \right.\\ &&\le \left| {\left. {{u_1} - {{\bar u}_1}} \right|} \right. + M\left| {\left. {{u_1} - {{\bar u}_1}} \right|} \right. + M\left| {\left. {{u_1}(t - \theta ) - {{\bar u}_1}(t - \theta )} \right|} \right. + {\gamma _{12}}{M^2}\left| {\left. {{u_1} - {{\bar u}_1}} \right|} \right.\\ &&\; \; \; + 2{\gamma _{12}}{M^2}\left| {\left. {{u_2} - {{\bar u}_2}} \right|} \right. + \gamma M\left| {\left. {{u_1} - {{\bar u}_1}} \right|} \right. + \gamma M\left| {\left. {{u_3} - {{\bar u}_3}} \right|} \right. + r\left| {\left. {{u_2} - {{\bar u}_2}} \right|} \right. + rM\left| {\left. {{u_2} - {{\bar u}_2}} \right|} \right.\\ &&\; \; \; + rM\left| {\left. {{u_2}(t - \theta ) - {{\bar u}_2}(t - \theta )} \right|} \right. + 2r{\gamma _{21}}{M^2}\left| {\left. {{u_1} - {{\bar u}_1}} \right|} \right. + r{\gamma _{21}}{M^2}\left| {\left. {{u_2} - {{\bar u}_2}} \right|} \right.\\ &&\; \; \; + \frac{{{v_1}\left( {{v_3} + 1} \right)}}{{(1 - p)M}}\left| {{u_2}} \right. - \left. {{{\bar u}_2}} \right| + \frac{{{v_1}\left( {{v_3} + 1} \right)}}{{(1 - p)M}}\left| {{u_3}} \right. - \left. {{{\bar u}_3}} \right| + \left( {{v_3} + 1} \right)\left| {\left. {{u_3} - {{\bar u}_3}} \right|} \right.\\ && = (1 + 2M + {\gamma _{12}}{M^2} + \gamma M + 2r{\gamma _{21}}{M^2})\left| {\left. {{u_1} - {{\bar u}_1}} \right|} \right. + (2{\gamma _{12}}{M^2} + r + rM + rM\\ &&\; \; \; + r{\gamma _{21}}{M^2} + \frac{{{v_1}\left( {{v_3} + 1} \right)}}{{(1 - p)M}})\left| {\left. {{u_2} - {{\bar u}_2}} \right|} \right. + (\gamma M + \frac{{{v_1}\left( {{v_3} + 1} \right)}}{{(1 - p)M}} + {v_3} + 1)\left| {\left. {{u_3} - {{\bar u}_3}} \right|} \right.\\ && = {\sigma _1}\left| {\left. {{u_1} - {{\bar u}_1}} \right|} \right. + {\sigma _2}\left| {\left. {{u_2} - {{\bar u}_2}} \right|} \right. + {\sigma _3}\left| {\left. {{u_3} - {{\bar u}_3}} \right|} \right.\\ &&\le L(\left| {\left. {{u_1} - {{\bar u}_1}} \right|} \right. + \left| {\left. {{u_2} - {{\bar u}_2}} \right|} \right. + \left| {\left. {{u_3} - {{\bar u}_3}} \right|} \right.), \end{eqnarray}$

(2.3)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {{\sigma _1} = 1 + 2M + {\gamma _{12}}{M^2} + \gamma M + 2r{\gamma _{21}}{M^2}}, \\ {{\sigma _2} = 2{\gamma _{12}}{M^2} + r + rM + rM + r{\gamma _{21}}{M^2} + \frac{{{v_1}\left( {{v_3} + 1} \right)}}{{(1 - p)M}}}, \\ {{\sigma _3} = \gamma M + \frac{{{v_1}\left( {{v_3} + 1} \right)}}{{(1 - p)M}} + {v_3} + 1}. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(2.4)

Let

$\begin{equation} L = \max \{ {\sigma _1}, {\sigma _2}, {\sigma _3}\}. \end{equation}$

(2.5)

Then it follows from (2.3) that

$\begin{equation} ||f(U)-f(\tilde{U})||\leq L ||U-\tilde{U}||. \end{equation}$

(2.6)

Consequently, $f (U)$ adheres to the Lipschitz condition for $U$ . By applying the fixed point theorem, it's possible to infer with ease that Theorem 2.1 is right.

Theorem 2.2. Each solution to system (1.3) beginning with $R_{+}^3$ maintains a nonnegative value.

Proof. Considering the initial equation of system (1.3), it's possible to achieve

$\begin{eqnarray} \frac{{d{u_1}}}{{dt}} = {u_1}[1 - {u_1}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{12}}u_2^2] + \gamma {u_1}{u_3}, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.7)

then

$\begin{eqnarray} \frac{{d{u_1}}}{{{u_1}}} = [1 - {u_1}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{12}}u_2^2 + \gamma {u_3}]dt, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.8)

which leads to

$\begin{eqnarray} \int_0^t {\frac{{d{u_1}}}{{{u_1}}} = \int_0^t {[1 - {u_1}(s - \theta ) - {\gamma _{12}}u_2^2 + \gamma {u_3}]ds} }, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.9)

then one gets

$\begin{eqnarray} \ln \frac{{{u_1}(t)}}{{{u_1}(0)}} = \int_0^t {[1 - {u_1}(s - \theta ) - {\gamma _{12}}u_2^2 + \gamma {u_3}]ds}, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.10)

thus

$\begin{eqnarray} {u_1}(t) = {u_1}(0)\exp \{ \int_0^t {[1 - {u_1}(s - \theta ) - {\gamma _{12}}u_2^2 + \gamma {u_3}]ds} \} > 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.11)

In the same way, we know

$\begin{eqnarray} {u_2}(t) = {u_2}(0)\exp \left\{ \int_0^t {[r - r{u_2}(s - \theta ) - r{\gamma _{21}}u_2^2 - \frac{{(1 - p){u_3}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}}}]ds} \right\} > 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.12)

$\begin{eqnarray} {u_3}(t) = {u_3}(0)\exp \left\{ \int_0^t {[ - {v_2} + \frac{{{v_3}(1 - p){u_2}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}}}]ds} \right\} > 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.13)

Therefore, the validity of Theorem 2.2 is affirmed.

Theorem 2.3. Each solution to system (1.3), starting with $R_{+}^3$ , is invariably restricted.

Proof. From the second equation of system (1.3), we have

$\begin{equation} \frac{{d{u_2}}}{{dt}} = r{u_2}(1 - {u_2}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{21}}u_1^2) - \frac{{(1 - p){u_2}{u_3}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}}}. \end{equation}$

(2.14)

Then

$\begin{equation} \frac{{d{u_2}}}{{dt}} \le r{u_2} . \end{equation}$

(2.15)

Integrating from $(t - \theta)$ to $t$ on both sides of the Eq (2.15) leads to

$\begin{equation} \int_{t - \theta }^t {\frac{{d{u_2}}}{{{u_2}}}} \le \int_{t - \theta }^t {rdt} . \end{equation}$

(2.16)

We get

$\begin{equation} {u_2}(t) \le {u_2}(t - \theta ){e^{r\theta }}, \end{equation}$

(2.17)

then

$\begin{equation} {u_2}(t - \theta ) \ge {u_2}(t){e^{ - r\theta }}, \end{equation}$

(2.18)

from (2.14), we can get

$\begin{equation} \frac{{d{u_2}}}{{dt}} \le r{u_2}(t)(1 - {u_2}(t - \theta )) \le r{u_2}(t)(1 - {u_2}(t){e^{ - r\theta }}). \end{equation}$

(2.19)

$\begin{equation} \frac{{d{u_2}}}{{dt}} \le {u_2}(t)(r - r{e^{ - r\theta }}{u_2}(t)). \end{equation}$

(2.20)

Hence

$\begin{equation} {u_2}(t) \le {e^{r\theta }}. \end{equation}$

(2.21)

Now, we define the following function

$\begin{equation} {W_1} = {u_2} + \frac{1}{{{v_3}}}{u_3}. \end{equation}$

(2.22)

Then

$\begin{eqnarray} \frac{{d{W_1}}}{{dt}} & = & \frac{{d{u_2}}}{{dt}} + \frac{1}{{{v_3}}}\frac{{d{u_3}}}{{dt}} \\ & = &\left[r{u_2}(1 - {u_2}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{21}}u_1^2) - \frac{{(1 - p){u_2}{u_3}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}}}\right] +\left[\frac{{{u_3}}}{{{v_3}}}( - {v_2} + \frac{{{v_3}(1 - p){u_2}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}}})\right] \\ & = &r{u_2}(1 - {u_2}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{21}}u_1^2) - \frac{{{v_2}{u_3}}}{{{v_3}}} \\ &\leq& r{u_2}[1 - {u_2}(t - \theta )] - \frac{{{v_2}{u_3}}}{{{v_3}}}\\ & = &- {v_2}\left({u_2} + \frac{1}{{{v_3}}}{u_3}\right) + {v_2}{u_2} + r{u_2}[1 - {u_2}(t - \theta )]\\ &\leq&- {v_2}\left({u_2} + \frac{1}{{{v_3}}}{u_3}\right) + ({v_2} + r){u_2}\\ &\leq&- {v_2}\left({u_2} + \frac{1}{{{v_3}}}{u_3}\right) + ({v_2} + r){e^{r\theta }}\\ & = &- {v_2}{W_1}(t) + ({v_2} + r){e^{r\theta }}. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.23)

Thus

$\begin{equation} {W_1}(t) \le \frac{{({v_2} + r){e^{r\theta }}}}{{{v_2}}}. \end{equation}$

(2.24)

Next we define another function $W_2$ as follows

$\begin{equation} {W_2} = {u_1} + {u_2} + \frac{1}{{{v_3}}}{u_3}. \end{equation}$

(2.25)

Then, we get

$\begin{eqnarray} \frac{{d{W_2}}}{{dt}} & = & \frac{{d{u_1}}}{{dt}} + \frac{{d{u_2}}}{{dt}} + \frac{1}{{{v_3}}}\frac{{d{u_3}}}{{dt}} \\ & = &\left[{u_1}(1 - {u_1}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{12}}u_2^2) + \gamma {u_1}{u_3}\right] \\ &\; & + \left[r{u_2}(1 - {u_2}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{21}}u_1^2) - \frac{{(1 - p){u_2}{u_3}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}}}\right] \\ &\; & + \left[\frac{{{u_3}}}{{{v_3}}}( - {v_2} + \frac{{{v_3}(1 - p){u_2}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}}})\right] \\ & = &\left[{u_1}(1 - {u_1}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{12}}u_2^2) + \gamma {u_1}{u_3}\right] \\ &\; & + \left[{u_1}(1 - {u_1}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{12}}u_2^2) + \gamma {u_1}{u_3}\right] \\ &\leq& - {v_2}\left({u_1} + {u_2} + \frac{1}{{{v_3}}}{u_3}\right) + {v_2}{u_1} + {v_2}{u_2} + {u_1}[1 - {u_1}(t - \theta )]\\ &\; & + \gamma {u_1}{u_3} + r{u_2}[1 - {u_2}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{21}}u_1^2]\\ & = & - {v_2}\left({u_1} + {u_2} + \frac{1}{{{v_3}}}{u_3}\right) - {\gamma _{21}}r{u_2}u_1^2 + ({v_2} + 1 + \gamma {u_3}){u_1} + ({v_2} + r){u_2}\\ &\leq& - {v_2}\left({u_1} + {u_2} + \frac{1}{{{v_3}}}{u_3}\right) - {\gamma _{21}}r{u_2}u_1^2 + ({v_2} + 1 + \gamma {u_3}){u_1} + ({v_2} + r){u_2}\\ &\leq& - {v_2}\left({u_1} + {u_2} + \frac{1}{{{v_3}}}{u_3}\right) - {\gamma _{21}}r{M_1}u_1^2 + ({v_2} + 1 + \gamma {M_2}){u_1} + ({v_2} + r){M_1}\\ &\leq& - {v_2}\left({u_1} + {u_2} + \frac{1}{{{v_3}}}{u_3}\right) + Q, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.26)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {M_1} = {{\rm{e}}^{r\theta }}, \\ {M_2} = \frac{{({v_2} + r){e^{r\theta }}}}{{{v_2}}}, \\ Q = \frac{{ - 4{\gamma _{21}}r{M_1}^2({v_2} + r) - {{({v_2} + 1 + \gamma {M_2})}^2}}}{{ - 4{\gamma _{21}}r{M_1}}}.\nonumber\\ \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

Stemming from Eq (2.26), it is deduced that

$\begin{equation} {W_2(t)} \le \frac{Q}{{{v_2}}}. \end{equation}$

(2.27)

By Eq (2.28), we obtain

$\begin{equation} W_2(t)\rightarrow \frac{Q}{{{v_2}}}, \; \mbox{when}\; \quad t\rightarrow \infty. \end{equation}$

(2.28)

Consequently, every solution to the system (1.3) is consistently limited.

3. Bifurcation analysis

This part delves into examining the bifurcation and stability aspects of model (1.3). Initially, our assumption is that $E (u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star})$ represents the balance point in model (1.3); subsequently, $u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star}$ adhere to this stipulation:

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {{u_{1 \star }}[1 - {u_{1 \star }} - {\gamma _{12}}u_{2 \star }^2] + \gamma {u_{1 \star }}{u_{3 \star }} = 0} , \\ {r{u_{2 \star }}[1 - {u_{2 \star }} - {\gamma _{21}}u_{1 \star }^2] - \frac{{(1 - p){u_{2 \star }}{u_{3 \star }}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}} = 0} , \\ {{u_{3 \star }}\left[ - {v_2} + \frac{{{v_3}(1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}}\right] = 0}. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(3.1)

Let

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {{{\bar u}_1}(t) = {u_1}(t) - {u_{1 \star }}}, \\ {{{\bar u}_2}(t) = {u_2}(t) - {u_{2 \star }}}, \\ {{{\bar u}_3}(t) = {u_3}(t) - {u_{3 \star }}}. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(3.2)

Substituting system (3.2) into system (1.3), we achieve the linear configuration of model (1.3) at $E (u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star})$ (denote ${\bar u}_1$ as $u_1$ , ${\bar u}_2$ as $u_2$ , ${\bar u}_3$ as $u_3$ )

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} \frac{{d{u_1}}}{{dt}} = {b_1}{u_1} + {b_2}{u_2} + {b_3}{u_3} + {b_4}{u_1}(t - \theta ), \\ \frac{{d{u_2}}}{{dt}} = {b_5}{u_1} + {b_6}{u_2} + {b_7}{u_3} + {b_8}{u_2}(t - \theta ), \\ \frac{{d{u_3}}}{{dt}} = {b_9}{u_2} + {b_{10}}{u_3}, \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(3.3)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {b_1} = 1 - {u_{1 \star }} - {\gamma _{12}}u_{2 \star }^2 - \gamma {u_{3 \star }}, \\ {b_2} = - 2{\gamma _{12}}{u_{1 \star }}{u_{2 \star }}, \\ {b_3} = - \gamma {u_{1 \star }}, \\ {b_4} = - {u_{1 \star }}, \\ {b_5} = - 2r{\gamma _{21}}{u_{1 \star }}{u_{2 \star }}, \\ {b_6} = r - r{u_{2 \star }} - r{\gamma _{21}}u_{1 \star }^2 - \frac{{(1 - p){u_{3 \star }}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}} + \frac{{{{(1 - p)}^2}{u_{2 \star }}{u_{3 \star }}}}{{{{[{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}]}^2}}}, \\ {b_7} = - \frac{{(1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}}, \\ {b_8} = - r{u_{2 \star }}, \\ {b_9} = \frac{{{v_3}(1 - p){u_{3 \star }}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}} - \frac{{{v_3}{{(1 - p)}^2}{u_{2 \star }}{u_{3 \star }}}}{{{{[{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}]}^2}}}, \\ {b_{10}} = \frac{{{v_3}(1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}} - {v_2}. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(3.4)

The characteristic Eq (3.3) of the system owns the following expressions:

$\begin{equation} \det \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} {\lambda - {b_1} - {b_4}{e^{ - \lambda \theta }}}&{ - {b_2}}&{ - {b_3}}\\ { - {b_5}}&{\lambda - {b_6} - {b_8}{e^{ - \lambda \theta }}}&{ - {b_7}}\\ 0&{ - {b_9}}&{\lambda - {b_{10}}} \end{array} \right] = 0, \end{equation}$

(3.5)

which leads to

$\begin{eqnarray} {\lambda ^3} + {c_1}{\lambda ^2} + {c_2}\lambda + {c_3} + ({c_4}{\lambda ^2} + {c_5}\lambda + {c_6}){e^{ - \lambda \theta }} + ({c_7}\lambda + {c_8}){e^{ - 2\lambda \theta }} = 0, \end{eqnarray}$

(3.6)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {c_1} = - {b_1} - {b_6} - {b_{10}}, \\ {c_2} = {b_1}{b_6} + {b_1}{b_{10}} - {b_2}{b_5} + {b_6}{b_{10}} - {b_7}{b_9}, \\ {c_3} = {b_1}{b_7}{b_9} - {b_1}{b_6}{b_{10}} + {b_2}{b_5}{b_{10}} - {b_3}{b_5}{b_9}, \\ {c_4} = - {b_4} - {b_8}, \\ {c_5} = {b_1}{b_8} + {b_4}{b_6} + {b_4}{b_{10}} + {b_8}{b_{10}}, \\ {c_6} = {b_4}{b_7}{b_9} - {b_1}{b_8}{b_{10}} - {b_4}{b_6}{b_{10}}, \\ {c_7} = {b_4}{b_8}, \\ {c_8} = - {b_4}{b_8}{b_{10}}. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(3.7)

If $\theta = 0,$ then Eq (3.6) becomes

$\begin{equation} {\lambda ^3} + ({c_1} + {c_4}){\lambda ^2} + ({c_2} + {c_5} + {c_7})\lambda + ({c_3} + {c_6} + {c_8}) = 0. \end{equation}$

(3.8)

$({\mathcal{A}}_1) \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {c_1} + {c_4} > 0, \\ {c_3} + {c_6} + {c_8} > 0, \\ ({c_1} + {c_4})({c_2} + {c_5} + {c_7}) > {c_3} + {c_6} + {c_8}, \end{array}\right.$

is fulfilled, then the three roots $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3$ of Eq (3.8) have negative real parts. Thus, the equilibrium point $E(u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star})$ of system (1.3) with $\theta = 0$ is locally asymptotically stable.

Assume that $\lambda = i\varepsilon$ is the root of Eq (3.6), then Eq (3.6) becomes

$\begin{equation} - {c_4}{\varepsilon ^2} + {c_5}i\varepsilon + {c_6} + ( - {\varepsilon ^3}i - {c_1}{\varepsilon ^2} - {c_2}i\varepsilon + {c_3}){e^{i\varepsilon \theta }} + ({c_7}i\varepsilon + {c_8}){e^{ - i\varepsilon \theta }} = 0. \end{equation}$

(3.9)

It follows from (3.9) that

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {F_1}\sin (\varepsilon \theta ) + {F_2}\cos (\varepsilon \theta ) = {F_3}, \\ {F_4}\sin (\varepsilon \theta ) + {F_5}\cos (\varepsilon \theta ) = {F_6}, \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(3.10)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {F_1} = {\varepsilon ^3} + {g_1}\varepsilon , \\ {F_2} = - {c_1}{\varepsilon ^2} + {g_2}, \\ {F_3} = {c_4}{\varepsilon ^2} - {c_6}, \\ {F_4} = - {c_1}{\varepsilon ^2} + {g_3}, \\ {F_5} = - {\varepsilon ^3} + {g_4}\varepsilon, \\ {F_6} = - {c_5}\varepsilon, \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(3.11)

and

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {g_1} = {c_7} - {c_2}, \\ {g_2} = {c_3} + {c_8}, \\ {g_3} = {c_3} - {c_8}, \\ {g_4} = {c_2} + {c_7}. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(3.12)

It follows from (3.10) that

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} \sin (\varepsilon \theta ) = \frac{{{F_2}{F_6} - {F_3}{F_5}}}{{{F_2}{F_4} - {F_1}{F_5}}}, \\ \cos (\varepsilon \theta ) = \frac{{{F_3}{F_4} - {F_1}{F_6}}}{{{F_2}{F_4} - {F_1}{F_5}}}. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(3.13)

Because of ${\sin ^2}(\varepsilon \theta) + {\cos ^2}(\varepsilon \theta) = 1$ , we can get

$\begin{equation} \left[\frac{{{F_2}{F_6} - {F_3}{F_5}}}{{{F_2}{F_4} - {F_1}{F_5}}}\right]^2 + \left[\frac{{{F_3}{F_4} - {F_1}{F_6}}}{{{F_2}{F_4} - {F_1}{F_5}}}\right]^2 = 1. \end{equation}$

(3.14)

So,

$\begin{eqnarray} &&F_3^2F_5^2 + F_2^2F_6^2 + F_1^2F_6^2 + F_3^2F_4^2 - F_1^2F_5^2 - F_2^2F_4^2\\ &&-2{F_2}{F_3}{F_5}{F_6} - 2{F_1}{F_3}{F_4}{F_6} + 2{F_1}{F_2}{F_4}{F_5} = 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(3.15)

Using (3.11) and (3.15), we know

$\begin{equation} - {\varepsilon ^{12}} + {D_1}{\varepsilon ^{10}} + {D_2}{\varepsilon ^8} + {D_3}{\varepsilon ^6} + {D_4}{\varepsilon ^4} + {D_5}{\varepsilon ^2} + {D_6} = 0. \end{equation}$

(3.16)

Therefore, the results can be obtained as follows:

$\begin{equation} {\varepsilon ^{12}} - {D_1}{\varepsilon ^{10}} - {D_2}{\varepsilon ^8} - {D_3}{\varepsilon ^6} - {D_4}{\varepsilon ^4} - {D_5}{\varepsilon ^2} - {D_6} = 0, \end{equation}$

(3.17)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {D_1} = c_4^2 - 2{g_4} - 2{g_1} - 2c_1^2, \\ {D_2} = - 2c_4^2{g_4} - 2{c_4}{c_6} + c_5^2 + c_1^2c_4^2 - g_4^2 + 4{g_1}{g_4}\\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; - g_1^2 - c_1^4 + 2c_1^2{g_4} + 2{c_1}{g_3} + 2{c_1}{g_2} - 2c_1^2{g_1}, \\ {D_3} = c_4^2g_4^2 + 4{c_4}{c_6}{g_4} + c_6^2 + c_1^2c_5^2 + 2c_5^2{g_1} - 2{c_1}c_4^2{g_3} - 2c_1^2{c_4}{c_6} - 2{g_1}g_4^2\\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; + 2g_1^2{g_4} + 2c_1^3{g_3} + 2c_1^3{g_2} - 2{c_1}{c_4}{c_5}{g_4} - 2{c_4}{c_5}{g_2} - 2{c_1}{c_4}{c_5}{g_1} + 2{c_4}{c_5}{g_3}\\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; - 2{c_1}{g_3}{g_4} + 2({g_2} - {c_1}{g_1})( - {c_1}{g_4} - {g_3}) + 2{c_1}{g_1}{g_2}, \\ {D_4} = - 2{c_4}{c_6}g_4^2 - 2c_6^2{g_4} - 2{c_1}c_5^2{g_2} + c_5^2g_1^2 + c_4^2g_3^2 + 4{c_1}{c_4}{c_6}{g_3} + c_1^2c_6^2 - g_1^2g_4^2\\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; - c_1^2g_3^2 - 4c_1^2{g_2}{g_3} - c_1^2g_2^2 + 2{c_5}{g_4}({c_1}{c_6} + {c_4}{g_2}) + 2{c_5}{c_6}{g_2} + 2{c_1}{c_5}{c_6}{g_1}\\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; + 2{c_5}{g_3}({c_4}{g_1} - {c_6}) + 2{g_3}{g_4}({g_2} - {c_1}{g_1}) + 2{g_1}{g_2}( - {c_1}{g_4} - {g_3}), \\ {D_5} = c_6^2g_4^2 + c_5^2g_2^2 - 2{c_4}{c_6}g_3^2 - 2{c_1}c_6^2{g_3} + 2{c_1}{g_2}g_3^2 + 2{c_1}g_2^2{g_3} - 2{c_5}{c_6}{g_2}{g_4} \\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; - 2{c_5}{c_6}{g_1}{g_3} + 2{g_1}{g_2}{g_3}{g_4}, \\ {D_6} = c_6^2g_3^2 - g_2^2g_3^2. \end{array}\right. \end{eqnarray}$

(3.18)

Let

$\begin{equation} {\Re _1}(\varepsilon ) = {\varepsilon ^{12}} - {D_1}{\varepsilon ^{10}} - {D_2}{\varepsilon ^8} - {D_3}{\varepsilon ^6} - {D_4}{\varepsilon ^4} - {D_5}{\varepsilon ^2} - {D_6}. \end{equation}$

(3.19)

Assume that

$({\mathcal{A}}_2)\; \; |{c_6}| > |{g_2}|.$

By virtue of $({\mathcal{A}}_2)$ , we know ${\Re _1}(0) = - (c_6^2g_3^2 - g_2^2g_2^2) < 0$ , and since $\mathop {\lim }\limits_{\varepsilon \to \infty } {\Re _1}(\varepsilon) > 0$ , then we will know Eq (3.17) has at least one positive real root. Therefore Eq (3.6) has at least one pair of pure roots. Without loss of generality, we can assume that Eq (3.17) has twelve positive real roots (say, $\varepsilon _j, j = 1, 2, 3, \cdots, 12$ ). Relying on (3.12), we know

$\begin{equation} \theta _j^{(n)} = \frac{1}{{{\varepsilon _j}}}\left[\arccos\left(\frac{{F_3^ \star F_4^ \star - F_1^ \star F_6^ \star }}{{F_2^ \star F_4^ \star - F_1^ \star F_5^ \star }}\right) + 2n\pi \right], \end{equation}$

(3.20)

where $j = 1, 2, \cdots, 12; n = 0, 1, 2, \cdots$ ;

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} F_1^ \star = \varepsilon _j^3 + {g_1}{\varepsilon _j} , \\ F_2^ \star = - {c_1}\varepsilon _j^2 + {g_2}, \\ F_3^ \star = {c_4}\varepsilon _j^2 - {c_6}, \\ F_4^ \star = - {c_1}\varepsilon _j^2 + {g_3}, \\ F_5^ \star = - \varepsilon _j^3 + {g_4}{\varepsilon _j}, \\ F_6^ \star = - {c_5}{\varepsilon _j}. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(3.21)

Assume ${\theta _0} = {\min _{\{ j = 1, 2, \cdots, 12;n = 0, 1, 2, \cdots \} }}\{ \theta _j^{(n)}\}$ and suppose that when $\theta = {\theta _0}$ , Eq (3.6) has a pair of imaginary roots $\pm i{\varepsilon _0}$ . Next we present the following assumption:

$({\mathcal{A}}_3)\; \; G_{1R}G_{2R}+G_{1I}G_{2I} > 0,$

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {G_{1R}} = - 2{c_1}{\varepsilon _0}\sin ({\varepsilon _0}{\theta _0}) - (3\varepsilon _0^2 - {c_2} - {c_7})\cos ({\varepsilon _0}{\theta _0}), \\ {G_{1I}} = ( - 3\varepsilon _0^2 + {c_2} - {c_7})\sin ({\varepsilon _0}{\theta _0}) + 2{c_1}{\varepsilon _0}\cos ({\varepsilon _0}{\theta _0}), \\ {G_{2R}} = ( - {c_1}\varepsilon _0^3 + {c_3}{\varepsilon _0} + {c_8}{\varepsilon _0})\sin ({\varepsilon _0}{\theta _0}) + ( - \varepsilon _0^4 + {c_2}\varepsilon _0^2 - {c_7}\varepsilon _0^2)\cos ({\varepsilon _0}{\theta _0}), \\ {G_{2I}} = ( - \varepsilon _0^4 + {c_2}\varepsilon _0^2 + {c_7}\varepsilon _0^2)\sin ({\varepsilon _0}{\theta _0}) + ({c_1}\varepsilon _0^3 - {c_3}{\varepsilon _0} + {c_8}{\varepsilon _0})\cos ({\varepsilon _0}{\theta _0}). \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(3.22)

Lemma 3.1. Suppose that $\lambda(\theta) = \epsilon_1(\theta)+i\epsilon_2(\theta)$ is the root of Eq (3.6) at $\theta = \theta_0$ such that $\epsilon_1(\theta_0) = 0$ , $\epsilon_2(\theta_0) = \varepsilon _0$ , then $Re\left(\frac{d\lambda}{d\theta}\right)\Big|_{\theta = \theta_0, \varepsilon = \varepsilon_0} > 0.$

Proof. By Eq (3.6), we can get

$\begin{eqnarray} &&(3{\lambda ^2} + 2{c_1}\lambda + {c_2}){e^{\lambda \theta }}\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }} + ({\lambda ^3} + {c_1}{\lambda ^2} + {c_2}\lambda + {c_3}){e^{\lambda \theta }}\left(\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }}\theta + \lambda \right)\\ &&+ {c_7}{e^{ - \lambda \theta }}\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }} - ({c_7}\lambda + {c_8}){e^{ - \lambda \theta }}\left(\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }}\theta + \lambda \right)+ (2{c_4}\lambda + {c_5})\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }} = 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(3.23)

It means that

$\begin{equation} \left(\frac{d\lambda}{d\theta}\right)^{-1} = \frac{G_1(\lambda)} {G_2(\lambda)}-\frac{\theta}{\lambda}, \end{equation}$

(3.24)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {G_1}(\lambda ) = (3{\lambda ^2} + 2{c_1}\lambda + {c_2}){e^{\lambda \theta }} + {c_7}{e^{ - \lambda \theta }}, \\ {G_2}(\lambda ) = ({c_7}\lambda + {c_8})\lambda {e^{ - \lambda \theta }} - ({\lambda ^3} + {c_1}{\lambda ^2} + {c_2}\lambda + {c_3})\lambda {e^{\lambda \theta }}. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(3.25)

Hence

$\begin{equation} \mbox{Re}\left[\left(\frac{d\lambda}{d\theta}\right)^{-1}\right]_{\theta = \theta_{0}, \varepsilon = \varepsilon_{0}} = \mbox{Re}\left[\frac{G_1(\lambda)} {G_2(\lambda)}\right]_{\theta = \theta_{0}, \varepsilon = \varepsilon_{0}} = \frac{G_{1R}G_{2R}+G_{1I}G_{2I}}{G_{2R}^2+G_{2I}^2}. \end{equation}$

(3.26)

By the assumption $({\mathcal{A}}_3)$ , we get

$\begin{equation} \mbox{Re}\left[\left(\frac{d\lambda}{d\theta}\right)^{-1}\right]_{\theta = \theta_{0}, \varepsilon = \varepsilon_{0}} > 0. \end{equation}$

(3.27)

This concludes the proof. According to the preceding reasoning, the following result is simply deduced.

Theorem 3.1. Assume that $({\mathcal{A}}_1)$ – $({\mathcal{A}}_3)$ hold, then the equilibrium point $E(u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star})$ of model (1.3) holds a locally asymptotically stable state if $\theta \in [0, \theta_{0})$ and model (1.3) generates Hopf bifurcations around the equilibrium point $E(u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star})$ when $\theta = \theta_{0}.$

4. Bifurcation domination using extended hybrid controller Ⅰ

Motivated by the works of ^{[30,32,33,34]}, we design the hybrid controller in Sections 4 and 5. In fact, we add a perturbation by adjusting the rate of change of population and then we can check the controllability via theoretical analysis and computer simulations. In this part, we will look at the Hopf bifurcation control issue in system (1.3) using a suitable hybrid controller that combines state feedback and parameter perturbation with delay. Using the ideas from ^[30,32], we achieve the following controlled 3D Lotka-Volterra commensal symbiosis system:

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} \frac{{d{u_1}(t)}}{{dt}} = {\delta _1}[{u_1}(t)(1 - {u_1}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{12}}u_2^2(t)) + \gamma {u_1}(t){u_3}(t)] + {\delta _2}[{u_1}(t) - {u_1}(t - \theta )], \\ \frac{{d{u_2}}}{{dt}} = r{u_2}(t)[1 - {u_2}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{21}}u_1^2(t)] - \frac{{(1 - p){u_2}(t){u_3}(t)}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}(t)}}, \\ \frac{{d{u_3}}}{{dt}} = {u_3}(t)\left[ - {v_2} + \frac{{{v_3}(1 - p){u_2}(t)}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}(t)}}\right], \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(4.1)

where $\delta _1, \delta _2$ stands for feedback gain parameters. Systems (4.1) and (1.3) own the same equilibrium points $E(u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star})$ . Let

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {u_1}(t) = {{\bar u}_1}(t) + {u_{1 \star }}, \\ {u_2}(t) = {{\bar u}_2}(t) + {u_{2 \star }}, \\ {u_3}(t) = {{\bar u}_3}(t) + {u_{3 \star }}, \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(4.2)

denote ${\bar u}_1$ as $u_1$ , ${\bar u}_2$ as $u_2$ , ${\bar u}_3$ as $u_3$ , and the linear system of system (4.1) around $E(u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star})$ takes the following expression:

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} \frac{{d{u_1}}}{{dt}} = {d_1}{u_1} + {d_2}{u_2} + {d_3}{u_3} + {d_4}{u_1}(t - \theta ), \\ \frac{{d{{\bar u}_2}}}{{dt}} = {d_5}{u_1} + {d_6}{u_2} + {d_7}{u_3} + {d_8}{u_2}(t - \theta ), \\ \frac{{d{u_3}}}{{dt}} = {d_9}{u_2} + {d_{10}}{u_3}, \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(4.3)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {d_1} = (1 - {u_{1 \star }} - {\gamma _{12}}u_{2 \star }^2 - \gamma {u_{3 \star }}){\delta _1} + {\delta _2}, \\ {d_2} = - 2{\gamma _{12}}{u_{1 \star }}{u_{2 \star }}{\delta _1}, \\ {d_3} = - \gamma {u_{1 \star }}{\delta _1}, \\ {d_4} = - {\delta _1}{u_{1 \star }} - {\delta _2}, \\ {d_5} = - 2r{\gamma _{21}}{u_{1 \star }}{u_{2 \star }}, \\ {d_6} = r - r{u_{2 \star }} - r{\gamma _{21}}u_{1 \star }^2 - \frac{{(1 - p){u_{3 \star }}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}} + \frac{{{{(1 - p)}^2}{u_{2 \star }}{u_{3 \star }}}}{{{{[{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}]}^2}}}, \\ {d_7} = - \frac{{(1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}}, \\ {d_8} = - r{u_{2 \star }}, \\ {d_9} = \frac{{{v_3}(1 - p){u_{3 \star }}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}} - \frac{{{v_3}{{(1 - p)}^2}{u_{2 \star }}{u_{3 \star }}}}{{{{[{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}]}^2}}}, \\ {d_{10}} = \frac{{{v_3}(1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}} - {v_2}. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(4.4)

The following expression is owned by the system $(4.4)^{, }$ s characteristic equation:

$\begin{equation} \det \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} {\lambda - {d_1} - {d_4}{e^{ - \lambda \theta }}}&{ - {d_2}}&{ - {d_3}}\\ { - {d_5}}&{\lambda - {d_6} - {d_8}{e^{ - \lambda \theta }}}&{ - {d_7}}\\ 0&{ - {d_9}}&{\lambda - {d_{10}}} \end{array} \right] = 0, \end{equation}$

(4.5)

which leads to

$\begin{equation} {\lambda ^3} + {h_1}{\lambda ^2} + {h_2}\lambda + {h_3} + ({h_4}{\lambda ^2} + {h_5}\lambda + {h_6}){e^{ - \lambda \theta }} + ({h_7}\lambda + {h_8}){e^{ - 2\lambda \theta }} = 0, \end{equation}$

(4.6)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {h_1} = - {d_1} - {d_6} - {d_{10}}, \\ {h_2} = {d_1}{d_6} + {d_1}{d_{10}} - {d_2}{d_5} + {d_6}{d_{10}} - {d_7}{d_9}, \\ {h_3} = {d_1}{d_7}{d_9} - {d_1}{d_6}{d_{10}} + {d_2}{d_5}{d_{10}} - {d_3}{d_5}{d_9}, \\ {h_4} = - {d_4} - {d_8}, \\ {h_5} = {d_1}{d_8} + {d_4}{d_6} + {d_4}{d_{10}} + {d_8}{d_{10}}, \\ {h_6} = {d_4}{d_7}{d_9} - {d_1}{d_8}{d_{10}} - {d_4}{d_6}{d_{10}}, \\ {h_7} = {d_4}{_8}, \\ {h_8} = - {d_4}{d_8}{d_{10}}. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(4.7)

If $\theta = 0,$ then Eq (4.6) reads as:

$\begin{equation} {\lambda ^3} + ({h_1} + {h_4}){\lambda ^2} + ({h_2} + {h_5} + {h_7})\lambda + ({h_3} + {h_6} + {h_8}) = 0. \end{equation}$

(4.8)

$({\mathcal{A}}_4) \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {{\Delta _1} = {h_1} + {h_4} > 0}, \\ {{\Delta _2} = \left| {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{h_1} + {h_4}}&1\\ {{h_3} + {h_6} + {h_8}}&{{h_2} + {h_5} + {h_7}} \end{array}} \right| > 0}, \\ {{\Delta _3} = \left| {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{h_1} + {h_4}}&1&0\\ {{h_3} + {h_6} + {h_8}}&{{h_2} + {h_5} + {h_7}}&{{h_1} + {h_4}}\\ 0&0&{{h_3} + {h_6} + {h_8}} \end{array}} \right| > 0}, \end{array}} \right.$

holds, then the three roots $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3$ of Eq (4.8) have negative real portions. Thus, the equilibrium point $E(u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star})$ of model (4.1) remains locally asymptotically stable at $\theta = 0$ . From (4.6), we can get

$\begin{equation} {h_4}{\lambda ^2} + {h_5}\lambda + {h_6} + ({\lambda ^3} + {h_1}{\lambda ^2} + {h_2}\lambda + {h_3}){e^{\lambda \theta }} + ({h_7}\lambda + {h_8}){e^{ - \lambda \theta }} = 0. \end{equation}$

(4.9)

Suppose that $\lambda = i\zeta$ is the root of Eq (4.9). Then, Eq (4.9) takes

$\begin{equation} {h_4}{(i\zeta )^2} + {h_5}(i\zeta ) + {h_6} + [{(i\zeta )^3} + {h_1}{(i\zeta )^2} + {h_2}(i\zeta ) + {h_3}]{e^{i\zeta \theta }} + [{h_7}(i\zeta ) + {h_8}]{e^{ - i\zeta \theta }} = 0, \end{equation}$

(4.10)

which results in

$\begin{eqnarray} && {h_4}{(i\zeta )^2} + {h_5}(i\zeta ) + {h_6} + [{(i\zeta )^3} + {h_1}{(i\zeta )^2} + {h_2}(i\zeta ) + {h_3}][\cos (\zeta \theta ) + i\sin (\zeta \theta )]\\ && + [{h_7}(i\zeta ) + {h_8}][\cos (\zeta \theta ) - i\sin (\zeta \theta )] = 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(4.11)

It follows from (4.11) that

$\begin{equation} \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{H_1}\sin (\zeta \theta ) + {H_2}\cos (\zeta \theta ) = {H_3}, }\\ {{H_4}\sin (\zeta \theta ) + {H_5}\cos (\zeta \theta ) = {H_6}, } \end{array}}\right. \end{equation}$

(4.12)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {{H_1} = {\zeta ^3} + {j_1}\zeta }, \\ {{H_2} = - {h_1}{\zeta ^2} + {j_2}}, \\ {{H_3} = {h_4}{\zeta ^2} - {h_6}}, \\ {{H_4} = - {h_1}{\zeta ^2} + {j_3}}, \\ {{H_5} = - {\zeta ^3} + {j_4}\zeta }, \\ {{H_6} = - {h_5}\zeta }, \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(4.13)

and

$\begin{equation} \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{j_1} = {h_7} - {h_2}, }\\ {{j_2} = {h_3} + {h_8}, }\\ {{j_3} = {h_3} - {h_8}, }\\ {{j_4} = {h_2} + {h_7}.} \end{array}} \right. \end{equation}$

(4.14)

It follows from Cramers rule that

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {\sin (\zeta \theta ) = \frac{{{H_2}{H_6} - {H_3}{H_5}}}{{{H_2}{H_4} - {H_1}{H_5}}}}, \\ {\cos (\zeta \theta ) = \frac{{{H_3}{H_4} - {H_1}{H_6}}}{{{H_2}{H_4} - {H_1}{H_5}}}}. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(4.15)

In view of $\cos^2(\zeta\theta)+\sin^2(\zeta\theta) = 1$ , we get

$\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lc} {\left[ {\frac{{{H_2}{H_6} - {H_3}{H_5}}}{{{H_2}{H_4} - {H_1}{H_5}}}} \right]^2} + {\left[ {\frac{{{H_3}{H_4} - {H_1}{H_6}}}{{{H_2}{H_4} - {H_1}{H_5}}}} \right]^2} = 1. \end{array} \end{equation}$

(4.16)

Then,

$\begin{eqnarray} &&H_3^2H_5^2 + _H^2H_6^2 + H_1^2H_6^2 + H_3^2H_4^2 - H_1^2H_5^2 - H_2^2H_4^2\\ &&-2{H_2}{H_3}{H_5}{H_6} - 2{H_1}{H_3}{H_4}{H_6} + 2{H_1}{H_2}{H_4}{H_5} = 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(4.17)

Using (4.13) and (4.17), we know

$\begin{equation} {\zeta ^{12}} - {I_1}{\zeta ^{10}} - {I_2}{\zeta ^8} - {I_3}{\zeta ^6} - {I_4}{\zeta ^4} - {I_5}{\zeta ^2} - {I_6} = 0, \end{equation}$

(4.18)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {I_1} = h_4^2 - 2{j_4} - 2{j_1} - 2h_1^2, \\ {I_2} = - 2h_4^2{j_4} - 2{h_4}{h_6} + h_5^2 + h_1^2h_4^2 - j_4^2 + 4{j_1}{j_4}\\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; - j_1^2 - h_1^4 + 2h_1^2{j_4} + 2{h_1}{j_3} + 2{h_1}{j_2} - 2h_1^2{j_1}, \\ {I_3} = h_4^2j_4^2 + 4{h_4}{h_6}{j_4} + h_6^2 + h_1^2h_5^2 + 2h_5^2{j_1} - 2{h_1}h_4^2{j_3} - 2h_1^2{h_4}{h_6} - 2{j_1}j_4^2\\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; + 2j_1^2{j_4} + 2h_1^3{j_3} + 2h_1^3{j_2} - 2{h_1}{h_4}{h_5}{j_4} - 2{h_4}{h_5}{j_2} - 2{h_1}{h_4}{h_5}{j_1} + 2{h_4}{h_5}{j_3}\\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; - 2{h_1}{j_3}{j_4} + 2({j_2} - {h_1}{j_1})( - {h_1}{j_4} - {j_3}) + 2{h_1}{j_1}{j_2}, \\ {I_4} = - 2{h_4}{h_6}j_4^2 - 2h_6^2{j_4} - 2{h_1}h_5^2{j_2} + h_5^2j_1^2 + h_4^2j_3^2 + 4{h_1}{h_4}{h_6}{j_3} + h_1^2h_6^2 - j_1^2j_4^2\\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; - h_1^2j_3^2 - 4h_1^2{j_2}{j_3} - h_1^2j_2^2 + 2{h_5}{j_4}({h_1}{h_6} + {h_4}{j_2}) + 2{h_5}{h_6}{j_2} + 2{h_1}{h_5}{h_6}{j_1}\\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; + 2{h_5}{j_3}({h_4}{j_1} - {h_6}) + 2{j_3}{j_4}({j_2} - {h_1}{j_1}) + 2{j_1}{j_2}( - {h_1}{j_4} - {j_3}), \\ {I_5} = h_6^2j_4^2 + h_5^2j_2^2 - 2{h_4}{h_6}j_3^2 - 2{h_1}h_6^2{j_3} + 2{h_1}{j_2}j_3^2 + 2{h_1}j_2^2{j_3} - 2{h_5}{h_6}{j_2}{j_4}\\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; - 2{h_5}{h_6}{j_1}{j_3} + 2{j_1}{j_2}{j_3}{j_4}, \\ {I_6} = h_6^2j_3^2 - j_2^2j_3^2. \end{array}\right. \end{eqnarray}$

(4.19)

Let

$\begin{equation} {\Re _2}(\zeta ) = {\zeta ^{12}} - {I_1}{\zeta ^{10}} - {I_2}{\zeta ^8} - {I_3}{\zeta ^6} - {I_4}{\zeta ^4} - {I_5}{\zeta ^2} - {I_6}. \end{equation}$

(4.20)

Suppose that

$({{\cal A}_5})\;\;|{h_6}| > |{j_2}|$

holds, noticing that $\lim_{\zeta\rightarrow +\infty}{\Re _2}(\zeta) = +\infty > 0$ , then we find that Eq (4.18) owns at least one positive real root. Thus, Eq (4.6) owns at least one pair of pure roots. Without loss of generality, here we assume that Eq (4.18) admits twelve positive real roots (say, $\zeta_\iota, \iota = 1, 2, 3, \cdots, 12)$ . According to (4.15), one gets

$\begin{equation} \theta _l^{(k)} = \frac{1}{{{\zeta _l}}}\left[ {\arccos \left( {\frac{{H_3^ \star ({\zeta _l})H_4^ \star ({\zeta _l}) - H_1^ \star ({\zeta _l})H_6^ \star ({\zeta _l})}}{{H_2^ \star ({\zeta _l})H_4^ \star ({\zeta _l}) - H_1^ \star ({\zeta _l})H_5^ \star ({\zeta _l})}}} \right) + 2k\pi } \right], \end{equation}$

(4.21)

where $\iota = 1, 2, 3, \cdots\, 12; k = 0, 1, 2\cdots;$

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {H_1^ \star({\zeta _l}) = {\zeta _l^3} + {j_1}\zeta _l}, \\ {{H_2^ \star({\zeta _l})} = - {h_1}{\zeta _l ^2} + {j_2}}, \\ {{H_3^ \star({\zeta _l})} = {h_4}{\zeta_l ^2} - {h_6}}, \\ {{H_4^ \star({\zeta _l})} = - {h_1}{\zeta_l ^2} + {j_3}}, \\ {{H_5^ \star({\zeta _l})} = - {\zeta_l ^3} + {j_4}\zeta_l }, \\ {{H_6^ \star({\zeta _l})} = - {h_5}\zeta_l }. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(4.22)

Denote $\theta_{\star} = \min_{\{\iota = 1, 2, 3, \cdots, 12; k = 0, 1, 2, \cdots\}}\{\theta_{\iota}^{(k)}\}$ and suppose that when $\theta = \theta_\star$ , (4.6) owns a pair of imaginary roots $\pm i\zeta_{0}$ .

Now, the following condition is presented:

$({\mathcal{A}}_6)\; \; {Q}_{1R}{Q}_{2R}+{Q}_{1I}{Q}_{2I} > 0,$

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {Q_{1R}} = - 2{h_1}{\zeta _0}\sin ({\zeta _0}{\theta _\star}) - (3\zeta _0^2 - {h_2} - {h_7})\cos ({\zeta _0}{\theta _\star}), \\ {Q_{1I}} = ( - 3\zeta _0^2 + {h_2} - {h_7})\sin ({\zeta _1}{\theta _\star}) + 2{h_1}{\zeta _0}\cos ({\zeta _0}{\theta _\star}), \\ {Q_{2R}} = ( - {h_1}\zeta _0^3 + {h_3}{\zeta _0} + {h_8}{\zeta _0})\sin ({\zeta _0}{\theta _\star}) + ( - \zeta _0^4 + {h_2}\zeta _0^2 - {h_7}\zeta _0^2)\cos ({\zeta _0}{\theta _\star}), \\ {Q_{2I}} = ( - \zeta _0^4 + {h_2}\zeta _0^2 + {h_7}\zeta _0^2)\sin ({\zeta _0}{\theta _\star}) + ({h_1}\zeta _0^3 - {h_3}{\zeta _0} + {h_8}{\zeta _0})\cos ({\zeta _0}{\theta _\star}). \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(4.23)

Lemma 4.1. Let $\lambda (\theta) = {\eta _1}(\theta) + i{\eta _2}(\theta)$ be the root of Eq. (4.9) at $\theta = \theta_\star$ obeying $\eta_1(\theta_\star) = 0, \eta_2(\theta_\star) = \zeta_0$ , then $Re\left(\frac{d\lambda}{d\theta}\right)\Big|_{\theta = \theta_\star, \zeta = \zeta_0} > 0.$

$\begin{eqnarray} &&(3{\lambda ^2} + 2{h_1}\lambda + {h_2}){e^{\lambda \theta }}\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }} + ({\lambda ^3} + {h_1}{\lambda ^2} + {h_2}\lambda + {h_3}){e^{\lambda \theta }}\left(\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }}\theta + \lambda \right)\\ &&+ {h_7}{e^{ - \lambda \theta }}\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }} - ({h_7}\lambda + {h_8}){e^{ - \lambda \theta }}\left(\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }}\theta + \lambda \right)+ (2{h_4}\lambda + {h_5})\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }} = 0, \end{eqnarray}$

(4.24)

which leads to

$\begin{equation} \left(\frac{d\lambda}{d\theta}\right)^{-1} = \frac{{Q}_1(\lambda)} {{Q}_2(\lambda)}-\frac{\theta}{\lambda}, \end{equation}$

(4.25)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {Q_1}(\lambda ) = (3{\lambda ^2} + 2{h_1}\lambda + {h_2}){e^{\lambda \theta }} + {h_7}{e^{ - \lambda \theta }}, \\ {Q_2}(\lambda ) = ({h_7}\lambda + {h_8})\lambda {e^{ - \lambda \theta }} - ({\lambda ^3} + {h_1}{\lambda ^2} + {h_2}\lambda + {h_3})\lambda {e^{\lambda \theta }}. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(4.26)

Hence,

$\begin{equation} \mbox{Re}\left[\left(\frac{d\lambda}{d\theta}\right)^{-1}\right]_{\theta = \theta_\star, \zeta = \zeta_0} = \mbox{Re}\left[\frac{{Q}_1(\lambda)} {{Q}_2(\lambda)}\right]_{\theta = \theta_\star, \zeta = \zeta_0} = \frac{{Q}_{1R}{Q}_{2R}+{Q}_{1I}{Q}_{2I}}{{Q}_{2R}^2+{Q}_{2I}^2}. \end{equation}$

(4.27)

By $({\mathcal{A}}_6)$ , one gets

$\begin{equation} \mbox{Re}\left[\left(\frac{d\lambda}{d\theta}\right)^{-1}\right]_{\theta = \theta_\star, \zeta = \zeta_0} > 0, \end{equation}$

(4.28)

which completes the proof.

Based on the study above, the following conclusion is lightly acquired.

Theorem 4.1. Suppose that $({\mathcal{A}}_4)$ – $({\mathcal{A}}_6)$ hold, then the equilibrium point $E(u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star})$ of model (4.1) holds locally asymptotically stable if $\theta\in [0, \theta_\star)$ and model (4.1) produces Hopf bifurcations at the equilibrium point $E(u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star})$ when $\theta = \theta_\star.$

5. Bifurcation domination using extended hybrid controller Ⅱ

In this part, we will investigate the Hopf bifurcation problem of system (1.3) using a suitable extended delayed feedback controller consisting of parameter perturbation with delay. In accordance with ^[33,34], we propose the following controlled predator-prey model:

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{*{20}{l}} \frac{{d{u_1}(t)}}{{dt}} = {\rho _1}[{u_1}(t)(1 - {u_1}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{12}}u_2^2(t)) + \gamma {u_1}(t){u_3}(t)] + {\rho _2}[{u_1}(t) - {u_1}(t - \theta )], \\ \frac{{d{u_2}}}{{dt}} = r{u_2}(t)[1 - {u_2}(t - \theta ) - {\gamma _{21}}u_1^2] - \frac{{(1 - p){u_2}{u_3}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}}}, \\ \frac{{d{u_3}}}{{dt}} = {\rho _3}{u_3}[- {v_2} + \frac{{{v_3}(1 - p){u_2}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_2}}}] + {\rho _4}[{u_3}(t) - {u_3}(t - \theta )], \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(5.1)

where ${\rho _1}-{\rho _4}$ stands for feedback gain parameters. System (5.1) owns the same equilibrium point $E(u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star})$ as that of system (1.3). Let

(5.2)

denote ${\bar u}_1$ as $u_1$ , ${\bar u}_2$ as $u_2$ , ${\bar u}_3$ as $u_3$ , and the linear system of system (5.1) around $E(u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star})$ takes the following expression:

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} \frac{{d{u_1}}}{{dt}} = {f_1}{u_1} + {f_2}{u_2} + {f_3}{u_3} + {f_4}{u_1}(t - \theta ), \\ \frac{{d{u_2}}}{{dt}} = {f_5}{u_1} + {f_6}{u_2} + {f_7}{u_3} + {f_8}{u_2}(t - \theta ), \\ \frac{{d{u_3}}}{{dt}} = {f_9}{u_2} + {f_{10}}{u_3} + {f_{11}}{u_3}(t - \theta ), \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(5.3)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {f_1} = (1 - {u_{1 \star }} - {\gamma _{12}}u_{2 \star }^2 - \gamma {u_{3 \star }}){\rho _1} + {\rho _2}, \\ {f_2} = - 2{\gamma _{12}}{u_{1 \star }}{u_{2 \star }}{\rho _1}, \\ {f_3} = - \gamma {u_{1 \star }}{\rho _1}, \\ {f_4} = - {\rho _1}{u_{1 \star }} - {\rho _2}, \\ {f_5} = - 2r{\gamma _{21}}{u_{1 \star }}{u_{2 \star }}, \\ {f_6} = r - r{u_{2 \star }} - r{\gamma _{21}}u_{1 \star }^2 - \frac{{(1 - p){u_{3 \star }}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}} + \frac{{{{(1 - p)}^2}{u_{2 \star }}{u_{3 \star }}}}{{{{[{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}]}^2}}}, \\ {f_7} = - \frac{{(1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}}, \\ {f_8} = - r{u_{2 \star }}, \\ {f_9} = \left(\frac{{{v_3}(1 - p){u_{3 \star }}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}} - \frac{{{v_3}{{(1 - p)}^2}{u_{2 \star }}{u_{3 \star }}}}{{{{[{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}]}^2}}}\right){\rho _3}, \\ {f_{10}} = \left({\rho _4} - {v_2} + \frac{{{v_3}(1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}}{{{v_1} + (1 - p){u_{2 \star }}}}\right){\rho _3}, \\ {f_{11}} = - {\rho _4}. \end{array}\right . \end{equation}$

(5.4)

The characteristic equation of system (5.3) owns the following expression:

$\begin{equation} \det \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} {\lambda - {f_1} - {d_4}{e^{ - \lambda \theta }}}&{ - {f_2}}&{ - {f_3}}\\ { - {f_5}}&{\lambda - {f_6} - {f_8}{e^{ - \lambda \theta }}}&{ - {f_7}}\\ 0&{ - {f_9}}&{\lambda - {f_{10}} - {f_{11}}{e^{ - \lambda \theta }}} \end{array} \right] = 0, \end{equation}$

(5.5)

which leads to

$\begin{equation} {\lambda ^3} + {m_1}{\lambda ^2} + {m_2}\lambda + {m_3} + ({m_4}{\lambda ^2} + {m_5}\lambda + {m_6}){e^{ - \lambda \theta }} + ({m_7}\lambda + {m_8}){e^{ - 2\lambda \theta }} + {m_9}{e^{ - 3\lambda \theta }} = 0, \end{equation}$

(5.6)

that is,

$\begin{equation} ({\lambda ^3} + {m_1}{\lambda ^2} + {m_2}\lambda + {m_3}){e^{2\lambda \theta }} + ({m_4}{\lambda ^2} + {m_5}\lambda + {m_6}){e^{\lambda \theta }} + {m_9}{e^{ - \lambda \theta }} + {m_7}\lambda + {m_8} = 0, \end{equation}$

(5.7)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {m_1} = - {f_1} - {f_6} - {f_{10}}, \\ {m_2} = {f_1}{f_6} + {f_1}{f_{10}} - {f_2}{f_5} + {f_6}{f_{10}} - {f_7}{f_9}, \\ {m_3} = {f_1}{f_7}{f_9} - {f_1}{f_6}{f_{10}} + {f_2}{f_5}{f_{10}} - {f_3}{f_5}{f_9}, \\ {m_4} = - {f_4} - {f_8} - {f_{11}}, \\ {m_5} = {f_1}{f_8} + {f_4}{f_6} + {f_4}{f_{10}} + {f_8}{f_{10}} + {f_1}{f_{11}} + {f_6}{f_{11}}, \\ {m_6} = {f_4}{f_7}{f_9} - {f_1}{f_8}{f_{10}} - {f_4}{f_6}{f_{10}} + {f_1}{f_6}{f_{11}} + {f_2}{f_5}{f_{11}}, \\ {m_7} = {f_4}{f_8} + {f_4}{f_{11}} + {f_8}{f_{11}}, \\ {m_8} = - {f_4}{f_8}{f_{10}} - {f_4}{f_6}{f_{10}} - {f_4}{f_6}{f_{11}} - {f_1}{f_8}{f_{11}}, \\ {m_9} = - {f_4}{f_8}{f_{11}}. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(5.8)

If $\delta = 0,$ then Eq (5.6) reads as:

$\begin{equation} {\lambda ^3} + ({m_1} + {m_4}){\lambda ^2} + {m_3} + ({m_2} + {m_5} + {m_7}) + {m_3} + {m_6} + {m_8} + {m_9} = 0. \end{equation}$

(5.9)

$({\mathcal{A}}_7) \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {\nabla _1} = {m_1} + {m_4} > 0, \\ {{\nabla _2} = \left| {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{m_1} + {m_4}}&1\\ {{m_3} + {m_6} + {m_8} + {m_9}}&{{m_2} + {m_5} + {m_7}} \end{array}} \right| > 0, }\\ {{\nabla _3} = \left| {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{m_1} + {m_4}}&1&0\\ {{m_3} + {m_6} + {m_8} + {m_9}}&{{m_2} + {m_5} + {m_7}}&{{m_1} + {m_4}}\\ 0&0&{{m_3} + {m_6} + {m_8} + {m_9}} \end{array}} \right| > 0}, \end{array}} \right.$

is fulfilled, the three roots of Eq (5.6), $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3$, have negative real components. Therefore, the equilibrium point $E(u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star})$ of system (5.1) with $\theta = 0$ is locally asymptotically stable.

Suppose that $\lambda = i\omega$ is the root of Eq (5.7), then Eq (5.7) becomes:

$\begin{eqnarray} &&[{(i\omega )^3} + {m_1}{(i\omega )^2} + {m_2}(i\omega ) + {m_3}]{e^{2i\omega \theta }} + [{m_4}{(i\omega )^2} + {m_5}(i\omega ) + {m_6})]{e^{i\omega \theta }}\\ &&+ {m_9}{e^{ - i\omega \theta }} + {m_7}(i\omega ) + {m_8} = 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(5.10)

By (5.10), we have

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} \left( {{\omega ^3} - {m_2}\omega } \right)\sin (2\omega \theta ) + \left( { - {m_1}{\omega ^2} + {m_3}} \right)\cos (2\omega \theta ) - {m_5}\omega \sin (\omega \theta )\\ + ({m_6} + {m_9} - {m_4}{\omega ^2})\cos (\omega \theta ) + {m_8} = 0, \\ \left( {{m_2}\omega - {\omega ^3}} \right)\cos (2\omega \theta ) + \left( { - {m_1}{\omega ^2} + {m_3}} \right)\sin (2\omega \theta ) + {m_5}\omega \cos (\omega \theta )\\ + ({m_6} - {m_9} - {m_4}{\omega ^2})\sin (\omega \theta ) + {m_7}\omega = 0, \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(5.11)

and from (5.11), we can get

$\begin{equation} {M_1}{\cos ^2}(\omega \theta ) + {M_2}\cos (\omega \theta ) + {M_3} = ({M_4} + {M_5}\cos (\omega \theta ))\sqrt {1 - {{\cos }^2}(\omega \theta )} , \end{equation}$

(5.12)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {M_1} = - 2{m_1}{\omega ^2} + 2{m_3}, \\ {M_2} = {m_6} + {m_9} - {m_4}{\omega ^2}, \\ {M_3} = {m_1}{\omega ^2} - {m_3} + {m_8}, \\ {M_4} = {m_5}\omega , \\ {M_5} = 2{m_2}\omega - 2{\omega ^3}.\\ \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(5.13)

So, we can get

$\begin{equation} {N_1}{\cos ^4}(\omega \theta ) + {N_2}{\cos ^3}(\omega \theta ) + {N_3}{\cos ^2}(\omega \theta ) + {N_4}\cos (\omega \theta ) + {N_5} = 0 , \end{equation}$

(5.14)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {N_1} = M_1^2 + M_5^2, \\ {N_2} = 2{M_1}{M_2} + 2{M_4}{M_5}, \\ {N_3} = 2{M_1}{M_3} + M_2^2 + M_4^2 - M_5^2, \\ {N_4} = 2{M_1}{M_3} + 2{M_4}{M_5}, \\ {N_5} = M_3^2 + M_4^2. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(5.15)

From (5.14), we can suppose that $\cos (\omega \theta) = y$ , and we have

$\begin{equation} N_1y^4+N_2y^3+N_3y^2+N_4y+N_5 = 0. \end{equation}$

(5.16)

According to the computer software, we can get

$\begin{equation} \cos (\omega_i \theta_i ) = {y_i}(i = 1, 2, 3, 4). \end{equation}$

(5.17)

It follows from (5.17) that

$\begin{eqnarray} \theta _t^{(n)} = \frac{1}{{{\omega _t}}}[\arccos {y_t} + 2n\pi], \end{eqnarray}$

(5.18)

where $t = 1, 2, 3, 4$ ; $n = 0, 1, 2, 3, \cdots$ .

Let $\theta^\star = \min_{\{t = 1, 2, 3, 4; n = 1, 2, 3, \cdots\}}\{\theta_{t}^{(n)}\}$ , and assume that when $\theta = \theta^\star$ , Eq (5.6) has at least one pair of pure real roots $\pm i\omega_0$ . Next, the following assumption is needed:

$({\mathcal{A}}_{8})\; \; T_{1R}T_{2R}+T_{1I}T_{2I} > 0,$

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {T_{1R}} = ( - 3\omega _0^2 + {m_2})\cos (2{\omega _0}{\theta^\star}) - 2{m_1}{\omega _0}\sin (2{\omega _0}{\theta ^\star})\\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; + {m_5}\cos ({\omega _0}{\theta^\star}) - 2{m_4}{\omega _0}\sin ({\omega _0}{\theta^\star}) + {m_7}, \\ {T_{1I}} = ( - 3\omega _0^2 + {m_2})\sin (2{\omega _0}{\theta ^\star}) + 2{m_1}{\omega _0}\cos (2{\omega _0}{\theta ^\star})\\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; + {m_5}\sin ({\omega _0}{\theta ^\star}) + 2{m_4}{\omega _0}\cos ({\omega _0}{\theta ^\star}) , \\ {T_{2R}} = ( - 2\omega _0^4 + 2{m_2}\omega _0^2)\cos (2{\omega _0}{\theta^\star}) - (2{m_1}\omega _0^3 - 2{m_3}{\omega _0})\sin (2{\omega _0}{\theta^\star})\\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; + {m_5}\omega _0^2\cos ({\omega _0}{\theta^\star}) + ({m_9}{\omega _0} - {m_4}\omega _0^3 + {m_6}{\omega _0})\sin ({\omega _0}{\theta^\star}), \\ {T_{2I}} = ( - 2\omega _0^4 + 2{m_2}\omega _0^2)\sin (2{\omega _0}{\theta ^\star}) + (2{m_1}\omega _0^3 - 2{m_3}{\omega _0})\cos (2{\omega _0}{\theta^\star})\\ \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; + {m_5}\omega _0^2\sin ({\omega _0}{\theta^\star}) + ({m_9}{\omega _0} + {m_4}\omega _0^3 - {m_6}{\omega _0})\cos ({\omega _0}{\theta^\star}). \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(5.19)

Lemma 5.1. Suppose that $\lambda(\theta) = \psi_1(\theta)+i\psi_2(\theta)$ is the root of Eq (5.7) at $\theta = \theta ^\star$ such that $\psi_1(\theta ^\star) = 0$ , $\psi_2(\theta^\star) = \omega_0$ , then $Re\left(\frac{d\lambda}{d\theta}\right)\Big|_{\theta = \theta ^\star, \omega = \omega_0} > 0.$

Proof. By Eq (5.7), one gets

$\begin{eqnarray} &&(3{\lambda ^2} + 2{m_1}\lambda + {m_2}){e^{2\lambda \theta }}\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }} + ({\lambda ^3} + {m_1}{\lambda ^2} + {m_2}\lambda + {m_3}){e^{2\lambda \theta }}\left( {\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }}2\theta + 2\lambda } \right)\\ &&+ (2{m_4}\lambda + {m_5}){e^{\lambda \theta }}\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }} + ({m_4}{\lambda ^2} + {m_5}\lambda + {m_6}){e^{\lambda \theta }}\left( {\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }}\theta + \lambda } \right) + {m_7}\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }}\\ &&- {m_9}{e^{ - \lambda \theta }}\left( {\frac{{{\rm{d}}\lambda }}{{{\rm{d}}\theta }}\theta + \lambda } \right) = 0, \end{eqnarray}$

(5.20)

which implies

$\begin{equation} \left(\frac{d\lambda}{d\theta}\right)^{-1} = \frac{{T}_1(\lambda)} {{T}_2(\lambda)}-\frac{\theta}{\lambda}, \end{equation}$

(5.21)

where

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} {T_1}(\lambda ) = (3{\lambda ^2} + 2{m_1}\lambda + {m_2}){e^{2\lambda \theta }} + (2{m_4}\lambda + {m_5}){e^{\lambda \theta }} + {m_7}, \\ {T_2}(\lambda ) = - \lambda [2({\lambda ^3} + {m_1}{\lambda ^2} + {m_2}\lambda + {m_3}){e^{2\lambda \theta }} + ({m_4}{\lambda ^2} + {m_5}\lambda + {m_6}){e^{\lambda \theta }} - {m_9}{e^{ - \lambda \theta }}]. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(5.22)

Hence

$\begin{equation} \mbox{Re}\left[\left(\frac{d\lambda}{d\theta}\right)^{-1}\right]_{\theta = \theta^\star , \omega = \omega_ 0} = \mbox{Re}\left[\frac{{T}_1(\lambda)} {{T}_2(\lambda)}\right]_{\theta = \theta^\star, \omega = \omega_0} = \frac{{T}_{1R}{T}_{2R}+{T}_{1I}{T}_{2I}} {{T}_{2R}^2+{T}_{2I}^2}. \end{equation}$

(5.23)

By $({\mathcal{A}}_{8})$ , we have

$\begin{equation} \mbox{Re}\left[\left(\frac{d\lambda}{d\theta}\right)^{-1}\right]_{\theta = \theta^\star, \omega = \omega_0} > 0, \end{equation}$

(5.24)

which concludes the proof.

Based on the research presented above, the following conclusion is loosely drawn.

Theorem 5.1. Suppose that $({\mathcal{A}}_{7})-({\mathcal{A}}_{8})$ hold, then the equilibrium point $E(u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star})$ of model (5.1) is locally asymptotically stable if $\theta\in [0, \theta^\star)$ and model (5.1) generates Hopf bifurcations at the equilibrium point $E(u_{1\star}, u_{2\star}, u_{3\star})$ when $\theta = \theta^\star.$

Remark 5.1. In Section 4, the controller is called the hybrid controller that includes state feedback and parameter perturbation with delay. This controller is only added to the first equation of system (1.3). In Section 5, the controller is called the extended hybrid controller that includes state feedback and parameter perturbation with delay. This controller is added to the first equation and the third equation of system (1.3). Hybrid controller Ⅱ owns more control parameters than those in hybrid controller Ⅰ and has greater adjustment flexibility in controlling the stability domain and the onset of Hopf bifurcation of system (1.3).

6. Software experiments

Example 6.1. Think about the following Lotka-Volterra commensal symbiosis system:

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} \frac{du_1(t)}{dt} = u_1(t)(1-u_1(t-\theta)-1.1u_2^2(t))+0.04u_1(t)u_3(t), \\ \frac{du_2(t)}{dt} = 0.5u_2(t)(1-u_2(t-\theta)-0.3u_1^2(t))-\frac{(1-0.1)u_2(t)u_3(t)}{0.2+(1-0.1)u_2(t)}, \\ \frac{du_3(t)}{dt} = u_3(t)(-0.35+\frac{0.5(1-0.1)u_2(t)}{0.2+(1-0.1)u_2(t)}). \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(6.1)

It is straightforward to see that system (6.1) has a single positive equilibrium point $E(0.7092, 0.5185, 0.1224)$ . One can easily verify that the conditions $({\mathcal{A}}_1)$ – $({\mathcal{A}}_3)$ of Theorem 3.1 hold true. Using Matlab software, we can obtain $\theta_{0}\approx1.3$ . To validate the accuracy of Theorem 3.1, we use two distinct delay values: $\theta = 0.8$ and $\theta = 1.9$ . For $\theta = 0.8 < \theta_{0}\approx1.3$ , simulation graphs are provided in . shows that $u_1\rightarrow0.7092, u_2\rightarrow0.5185, u_3\rightarrow0.1224$ as $t\rightarrow +\infty$ . In this case, the equilibrium point $E(0.7092, 0.5185, 0.1224)$ of model (6.1) has a locally asymptotically stable state. For $\theta = 1.9 > \theta_{0}\approx1.3$ , we receive simulation graphs, as shown in . shows that $u_1$ maintains a periodic vibrating level around $0.7092$ , whereas $u_2$ maintains a level around $0.5185$ and $u_3$ maintains a periodic vibrating level around $0.1224$ . That is, a set of periodic solutions (known as Hopf bifurcations) arise at the equilibrium point $E(0.7092, 0.5185, 0.1224)$ .

Figure 1. Matlab simulation figures of system (6.1) under the delay

$\theta = 0.8 < \theta_{0}\approx1.3$ , and the equilibrium point

$E(u_{1\ast}, u_{2\ast}, u_{3\ast}) = E(0.7092, 0.5185, 0.1224)$ holds a locally asymptotically stable level.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 2. Matlab simulation figures of system (6.1) with delay

$\theta = 1.9 > \theta_{0}\approx1.3$ , and a cluster of periodic solutions (i.e., Hopf bifurcations) arise around the equilibrium point

$E(E(u_{1\ast}, u_{2\ast}, u_{3\ast}) = E(0.7092, 0.5185, 0.1224)$ .

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Example 6.2. Think about the following controlled Lotka-Volterra commensal symbiosis system:

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lc} \frac{{d{u_1}(t)}}{{dt}} = {\delta _1}[{u_1}(t)(1 - {u_1}(t - \theta ) - 1.1u_2^2(t)) + 0.04{u_1}(t){u_3}(t)] +{\delta _2}[{u_1}(t) - {u_1}(t - \theta )], \\ \frac{{d{u_2}}}{{dt}} = 0.5{u_2}(t)[1 - {u_2}(t - \theta ) - 0.3u_1^2(t)] - \frac{{(1 - 0.1){u_2}(t){u_3}(t)}}{{0.2+ (1 - 0.1){u_2}(t)}}, \\ \frac{{d{u_3}}}{{dt}} = {u_3}(t)\left[ - 0.35+ \frac{{0.5(1 - 0.1){u_2}(t)}}{{0.2+ (1 - 0.1){u_2}(t)}}\right]. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(6.2)

It is straightforward to see that system (6.2) has a single positive equilibrium point $E(0.7092, 0.5185, 0.1224)$ . Let ${\delta _1} = 0.5, {\delta _2} = -0.1$ . One can easily verify that the conditions $({\mathcal{A}}_4)$ – $({\mathcal{A}}_6)$ of Theorem 4.1 hold true. Using Matlab software, we can obtain $\theta_{\star}\approx1.8$ . To validate the correctness of the acquired assertions of Theorem 4.1, we use two distinct delay values: $\theta = 1.6$ and $\theta = 2.25.$ For $\theta = 1.6 < \theta_{\star}\approx1.8$ , we get simulation diagrams which are presented in . Based on , we find that $u_1\rightarrow0.7092, u_2\rightarrow0.5185, u_3\rightarrow0.1224$ when $t\rightarrow +\infty.$ In other words, the equilibrium point $E(0.7092, 0.5185, 0.1224)$ of model (6.2) holds a locally asymptotically stable state. For $\theta = 2.25 > \theta_{\star}\approx1.8$ , we get simulation diagrams which are presented in . Based on , we find that $u_1$ maintains a periodic vibrating level around $0.7092$ , whereas $u_2$ maintains a level around $0.5185$ and $u_3$ maintains a periodic vibrating level around $0.1224$ . That is to say, a family of periodic solutions (namely, Hopf bifurcations) appear near the equilibrium point $E(0.7092, 0.5185, 0.1224)$ .

Figure 3. Matlab simulation figures of system (6.2) under the delay

$\theta = 1.6 < \theta_{\star}\approx1.8$ , and the equilibrium point

$E(u_{1\ast}, u_{2\ast}, u_{3\ast}) = E(0.7092, 0.5185, 0.1224)$ holds a locally asymptotically stable level.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 4. Matlab simulation figures of system (6.2) under the delay

$\theta = 2.25 > \theta_{\star}\approx1.8$ , and a cluster of periodic solutions (i.e., Hopf bifurcations) arise around the equilibrium point

$E(u_{1\ast}, u_{2\ast}, u_{3\ast}) = E(0.7092, 0.5185, 0.1224)$ .

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Example 6.3. Think about the following controlled Lotka-Volterra commensal symbiosis system:

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{*{20}{l}} \frac{{d{u_1}(t)}}{{dt}} = {\rho _1}[{u_1}(t)(1 - {u_1}(t - \theta ) - 1.1u_2^2(t)) + 0.04{u_1}(t){u_3}(t)] + {\rho _2}[{u_1}(t) - {u_1}(t - \theta )], \\ \frac{{d{u_2}}}{{dt}} = 0.5{u_2}(t)[1 - {u_2}(t - \theta ) - 0.3u_1^2] - \frac{{(1 - 0.1){u_2}{u_3}}}{{0.2 + (1 - 0.1){u_2}}}, \\ \frac{{d{u_3}}}{{dt}} = {\rho _3}{u_3}\left[- 0.35+ \frac{{0.5(1 - 0.1){u_2}}}{{0.2 + (1 -0.1){u_2}}}\right] + {\rho _4}[{u_3}(t) + {u_3}(t - \theta )]. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}$

(6.3)

It is straightforward to see that system (6.3) has a single positive equilibrium point $E(0.7092, 0.5185, 0.1224)$ . Let ${\rho _1} = 0.5, {\rho _2} = -0.1, {\rho _3} = 0.6, {\rho _4} = -0.1$ . One can easily verify that the conditions $({\mathcal{A}}_7)$ and $({\mathcal{A}}_8)$ of Theorem 5.1 hold true. By applying Matlab software, one can get $\theta^\star\approx2.20$ . To validate the correctness of the acquired assertions of Theorem 5.1, we choose both different delay values: $\theta = 2.00$ and $\theta = 2.75.$ For $\theta = 2.00 < \theta^\star\approx2.20$ , we get simulation diagrams which are presented in . Based on , we find that $u_1\rightarrow0.7092, u_2\rightarrow0.5185, u_3\rightarrow0.1224$ when $t\rightarrow +\infty.$ In other words, the equilibrium point $E(0.7092, 0.5185, 0.1224)$ of model (6.3) holds a locally asymptotically stable state. For $\theta = 2.75 > \theta^\star\approx2.20$ , we get simulation diagrams which are presented in . Based on , we find that $u_1$ maintains a periodic vibrating level around $0.7092$ , whereas $u_2$ maintains a level around $0.5185$ and $u_3$ maintains a periodic vibrating level around $0.1224$ . That is to say, a family of periodic solutions (namely, Hopf bifurcations) appear near the equilibrium point $E(0.7092, 0.5185, 0.1224)$ .

Figure 5. Matlab simulation figures of system (6.2) under the delay

$\theta = 2.00 < \theta^{\star}\approx2.20$ , and the equilibrium point

$E(u_{1\ast}, u_{2\ast}, u_{3\ast}) = E(0.7092, 0.5185, 0.1224)$ holds a locally asymptotically stable level.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 6. Matlab simulation figures of system (6.3) under the delay

$\theta = 2.75 > \theta^{\star}\approx2.20$ , and a cluster of periodic solutions (i.e., Hopf bifurcations) arise around the equilibrium point

$E(u_{1\ast}, u_{2\ast}, u_{3\ast}) = E(0.7092, 0.5185, 0.1224)$ .

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Remark 6.1. It follows from the Matlab simulation results of Examples 6.1–6.3 that one can know that the bifurcation value of system (6.1) is equal to $1.3$ , the bifurcation value of system (6.2) is equal to $1.8$ and the bifurcation value of system (6.3) is equal to $2.20$ , which indicates that we can expand the domain of stability of system (6.1) and postpone the time of emergence of Hopf bifurcation of system (6.1) via the formulated two hybrid delayed feedback controllers.

7. Conclusions

It is generally recognized that the delayed dynamical model is an important tool for understanding the interactions of many biological populations in the natural environment ^[35,36,37]. Many studies on predator-prey models have conducted and yielded numerous results over the last few decades ^[38,39,40]. In this study, we provide a novel delayed Lotka-Volterra commensal symbiosis model. This paper discusses the uniqueness, nonnegativeness, and boundedness of the delayed Lotka-Volterra commensal symbiosis solution. The Hopf bifurcation issue is addressed. Then, the critical delay value $\theta_0$ is retrieved. In order to modify the domain of stability and the time of the bifurcation phenomenon in this model, we have successfully developed two distinct hybrid delayed feedback controllers. Two critical delay values, $\theta_{\star}, \theta^\star,$ are acquired. In these two controllers, the role of delay is displayed. Theoretically, the exploration fruits are very useful for managing and balancing the populations of two species. Furthermore, the exploratory concepts may be used for other fractional-order and integer-order dynamical systems in a wide range of disciplines to dominate the bifurcation phenomena, stability, and chaos ^[41,42,43]. During the past decades, many works on this topis is explored, see ^[44,45,46]. In this paper, we only deal with the Hopf bifurcation onset and Hopf bifurcation control in this paper. We leave the stability and direction of Hopf bifurcation periodic solutions for future work and we will refer to the works in ^[47,48,49]. In addition, we will explore the Hopf bifurcation of fractional-order dynamical models ^[50,51,52].

Author contributions

Yingyan Zhao: Conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, software, writing-original draft, writing-review & editing; Changjin Xu: Conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, software, writing-original draft, writing-review & editing; Yiya Xu: Formal analysis, investigation, software, writing-review & editing; Jinting Lin: Conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, writing-original draft, writing-review & editing; Yicheng Pang: Conceptualization, investigation, methodology, writing-review & editing; Zixin Liu: Conceptualization, investigation, methodology, writing-review & editing; Jianwei Shen: Conceptualization, investigation, methodology, writing-review & editing. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 12261015, No. 62062018), Project of High-level Innovative Talents of Guizhou Province ([2016]5651), Guizhou Provincial Science and Technology Projects (ZK[2022]025) and Science Project of Guizhou University of Finance and Economics (2022XSXMB08).

The authors would like to thank the referees and the editor for helpful suggestions incorporated into this paper.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

[1]	Q. Din, N. Saleem, M. S. Shabbir, A class of discrete predator-prey interaction with bifurcation analysis and chaos control, Math. Model. Nat. Pheno., 15 (2020), 60. https://doi.org/10.1051/mmnp/2020042 doi: 10.1051/mmnp/2020042
[2]	C. F. Liu, S. J. Guo, Dynamics of a predator-prey system with nonlinear prey-taxis, Nonlinearity, 35 (2022), 4283. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6544/ac78bc doi: 10.1088/1361-6544/ac78bc
[3]	M. O. Al-Kaff, H. I. El-Metwally, A. A. Elsadany, E. M. Elabbasy, Exploring chaos and bifurcation in a discrete prey-predator based on coupled logistic map, Sci. Rep., 14 (2024), 16118. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-62439-8 doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-62439-8
[4]	E. D. Pita, M. V. O. Espinar, Predator-prey models: A review of some recent advances, Mathematics, 9 (2021), 1783. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9151783 doi: 10.3390/math9151783
[5]	S. Q. Zhang, S. L. Yuan, T. H. Zhang, A predator-prey model with different response functions to juvenile and adult prey in deterministic and stochastic environments, Appl. Math. Comput., 413 (2022), 126598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2021.126598 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2021.126598
[6]	P. Mishra, B. Tiwari, Drivers of pattern formation in a predator-prey model with defense in fearful prey, Nonlinear Dynam., 105 (2021), 2811–2838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-021-06719-2 doi: 10.1007/s11071-021-06719-2
[7]	H. Y. Zhang, T. S. Huang, L. M. Dai, Nonlinear dynamic analysis and characteristics diagnosis of seasonally perturbed predator-prey systems, Commun. Nonlinear Sci., 22 (2015), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2014.08.028 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2014.08.028
[8]	Q. Din, Stability, bifurcation analysis and chaos control for a predator-prey system, J. Vib. Control, 25 (2018), 612–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546318790871 doi: 10.1177/1077546318790871
[9]	P. Panja, S. Gayen, T. Kar, D. K. Jana, Complex dynamics of a three species predator-prey model with two nonlinearly competing species, Results Control Optim., 8 (2022), 100153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rico.2022.100153 doi: 10.1016/j.rico.2022.100153
[10]	S. Hsu, S. Ruan, T. Yang, Analysis of three species Lotka-Volterra food web models with omnivory, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 426 (2015), 659–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2015.01.035 doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2015.01.035
[11]	G. Bunin, Ecological communities with Lotka-Volterra dynamics, Phys. Rev. E, 95 (2017), 042414. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.95.042414 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.042414
[12]	L. F. Wu, S. F. Liu, Y. N. Wang, Grey Lotka-Volterra model and its application, Technol. Forecast. Soc., 79 (2012), 1720–1730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.020 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.020
[13]	P. H. Kloppers, J. C. Greeff, Lotka-Volterra model parameter estimation using experiential data, Appl. Math. Comput., 224 (2013), 817–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2013.08.093 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2013.08.093
[14]	A. Marasco, A. Picucci, A. Romano, Market share dynamics using Lotka-Volterra models, Technol. Forecast. Soc., 105 (2016), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.017 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.017
[15]	M. X. Wang, J. F. Zhao, Free boundary problems for a Lotka-Volterra competition system, J. Dyn. Differ. Equ., 26 (2014), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10884-014-9363-4 doi: 10.1007/s10884-014-9363-4
[16]	P. Zhou, On a Lotka-Volterra competition system: Diffusion vs advection, Calc. Var. Partial. Dif., 55 (2016), 137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-016-1082-8 doi: 10.1007/s00526-016-1082-8
[17]	R. Cherniha, V. Davydovych, Construction and application of exact solutions of the diffusive Lotka-Volterra system: A review and new results, Commun. Nonlinear Sci., 113 (2022), 106579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2022.106579 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2022.106579
[18]	P. Panja, S. Gayen, T. Kar, D. K. Jana, Complex dynamics of a three species predator-prey model with two nonlinearly competing species, Results Control Optim., 8 (2022), 100153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rico.2022.100153 doi: 10.1016/j.rico.2022.100153
[19]	F. Eizakshiri, P. W. Chan, M. W. Emsley, Where is intentionality in studying project delays? Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus., 8 (2015), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-05-2014-0048 doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-05-2014-0048
[20]	Z. W. Liang, X. Y. Meng, Stability and Hopf bifurcation of a multiple delayed predator-prey system with fear effect, prey refuge and Crowley Martin function, Chaos Soliton. Fract., 175 (2023), 113955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113955 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113955
[21]	X. Z. Feng, X. Liu, C. Sun, Y. L. Jiang, Stability and Hopf bifurcation of a modified Leslie-Gower predator-prey model with Smith growth rate and B-D functional response, Chaos Soliton. Fract., 174 (2023), 113794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113794 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113794
[22]	Z. S. Cheng, J. D. Cao, Hybrid control of Hopf bifurcation in complex networks with delays, Neurocomputing, 131 (2014), 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2013.10.028 doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2013.10.028
[23]	C. X. Lei, H. W. Li, Y. J. Zhao, Dynamical behavior of a reaction-diffusion SEIR epidemic model with mass action infection mechanism in a heterogeneous environment, Discrete Cont. Dyn.-B, 29 (2024), 3163–3198. https://doi.org/10.3934/dcdsb.2023216 doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2023216
[24]	X. R. Tong, H. J. Jiang, X. Y. Chen, J. R. Li, Z. Cao, Deterministic and stochastic evolution of rumor propagation model with media coverage and class-age-dependent education, Math. Method. Appl. Sci., 46 (2023), 7125–7139. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.8959 doi: 10.1002/mma.8959
[25]	M. M. Yu, S. C. Wu, X. D. Li, Exponential stabilization of nonlinear systems under saturated control involving impulse correction, Nonlinear Anal.-Hybri., 48 (2023), 101335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nahs.2023.101335 doi: 10.1016/j.nahs.2023.101335
[26]	Y. C. Xu, Y. Liu, Q. H. Ruan, J. A. Lou, Data-driven optimal tracking control of switched linear systems, Nonlinear Anal.-Hybri., 49 (2023), 101355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nahs.2023.101355 doi: 10.1016/j.nahs.2023.101355
[27]	Y. L. Jin, D. M. Zhang, N. N. Wang, D. M. Zhu, Bifurcations of twisted fine heteroclinic loop for high-dimensional systems, J. Appl. Anal. Comput., 13 (2023), 2906–2921. https://doi.org/10.11948/20230052 doi: 10.11948/20230052
[28]	C. J. Xu, J. T. Lin, Y. Y. Zhao, Q. Y. Cui, W. Ou, New results on bifurcation for fractional-order octonion-valued neural networks involving delays, Network-Comp. Neural, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954898X.2024.2332662 doi: 10.1080/0954898X.2024.2332662
[29]	C. J. Xu, D. Mu, Y. L. Pan, C. Aouiti, Y. C. Pang, L. Y. Yao, Probing into bifurcation for fractional-order BAM neural networks concerning multiple time delays, J. Comput. Sci., 62 (2022), 101701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2022.101701 doi: 10.1016/j.jocs.2022.101701
[30]	C. J. Xu, Y. Y. Zhao, J. T. Lin, Y. C. Pang, Z. X. Liu, Bifurcation investigation and control scheme of fractional neural networks owning multiple delays, Comput. Appl. Math., 43 (2024), 186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-024-02718-2 doi: 10.1007/s40314-024-02718-2
[31]	T. Williams, Assessing extension of time delays on major projects, Int. J. Prod. Manag., 21 (2003), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00060-6 doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00060-6
[32]	M. Xiao, D. W. C. Ho, J. Cao, Time-delayed feedback control of dynamical small-world networks at Hopf bifurcation, Nonlinear Dynam., 58 (2009), 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-009-9485-0 doi: 10.1007/s11071-009-9485-0
[33]	K. Mokni, M. C. Chaoui, B. Mondal, U. Ghosh, Rich dynamics of a discrete two dimensional predator-prey model using the NSFD scheme, Math. Comput. Simulat., 225 (2024), 992–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2023.09.024 doi: 10.1016/j.matcom.2023.09.024
[34]	E. Balci, Predation fear and its carry-over effect in a fractional order prey-predator model with prey refuge, Chaos Soliton. Fract., 175 (2023), 114016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2023.114016 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2023.114016
[35]	M. R. Xu, S. Liu, Y. Lou, Persistence and extinction in the anti-symmetric Lotka-Volterra systems, J. Differ. Equations, 387 (2024), 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2023.12.032 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2023.12.032
[36]	Y. L. Tang, F. Li, Multiple stable states for a class of predator-prey systems with two harvesting rates, J. Appl. Anal. Comput., 14 (2024), 506–514. https://doi.org/10.11948/20230295 doi: 10.11948/20230295
[37]	V. K. Shukla, M. C. Joshi, P. K. Mishra, C. J. Xu, Adaptive fixed-time difference synchronization for different classes of chaotic dynamical systems, Phys. Scripta, 99 (2024), 095264. https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ad6ec4 doi: 10.1088/1402-4896/ad6ec4
[38]	C. J. Xu, W. Ou, Q. Y. Cui, Y. C. Pang, M. X. Liao, J. W. Shen, et al., Theoretical exploration and controller design of bifurcation in a plankton population dynamical system accompanying delay, Discrete Cont. Dyn.-S, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3934/dcdss.2024036 doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2024036
[39]	C. J. Xu, M. Farman, A. Shehzad, Analysis and chaotic behavior of a fish farming model with singular and non-singular kernel, Int. J. Biomath., 2024. https://doi.org/10.1142/S179352452350105X doi: 10.1142/S179352452350105X
[40]	C. J. Xu, M. X. Liao, M. Farman, A. Shehzad, Hydrogenolysis of glycerol by heterogeneous catalysis: A fractional order kinetic model with analysis, MATCH Commun. Math. Co., 91 (2024), 635–664. https://doi.org/10.46793/match.91-3.635X doi: 10.46793/match.91-3.635X
[41]	M. Z. Baber, M. W. Yasin, C. J. Xu, N. Ahmed, M. S. Iqbal, Numerical and analytical study for the stochastic spatial dependent prey-predator dynamical system, J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 19 (2024), 101003. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4066038 doi: 10.1115/1.4066038
[42]	C. J. Xu, M. Farman, A. Shehzad, K. S. Nisar, Modeling and Ulam-Hyers stability analysis of oleic acid epoxidation by using a fractional order kinetic model, Math. Methed. Appl. Sci., 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.10510 doi: 10.1002/mma.10510
[43]	Y. Wang, Positive solutions for fractional differential equation involving the Riemann-Stieltjes integral conditions with two parameters, J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl., 9 (2016), 5733–5740. https://doi.org/10.22436/jnsa.009.11.02 doi: 10.22436/jnsa.009.11.02
[44]	Y. Wang, L. S. Liu, X. G. Zhang, Y. H. Wu, Positive solutions of an abstract fractional semipositone differential system model for bioprocesses of HIV infection, Appl. Math. Comput., 258 (2015), 312–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2015.01.080 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2015.01.080
[45]	Y. Q. Yang, Q. W. Qi, J. Y. Hu, J. S. Dai, C. D. Yang, Adaptive fault-tolerant control for consensus of nonlinear fractional-order multi-agent systems with diffusion, Fractal Fract., 7 (2023), 760. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract7100760 doi: 10.3390/fractalfract7100760
[46]	T. Y. Jia, X. Y. Chen, L. P. He, F. Zhao, J. L. Qiu, Finite-time synchronization of uncertain fractional-order delayed memristive neural networks via adaptive slidingmode control and its application, Fractal Fract., 6 (2022), 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract6090502 doi: 10.3390/fractalfract6090502
[47]	Y. G. Zhao, Y. B. Sun, Z. Liu, Y. L. Wang, Solvability for boundary value problems of nonlinear fractional differential equations with mixed perturbations of the second type, AIMS Math., 5 (2020), 557–567. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2020037 doi: 10.3934/math.2020037
[48]	L. M. Guo, Y. Wang, H. M. Liu, C. Li, J. B. Zhao, H. L. Chu, On iterative positive solutions for a class of singular infinite-point p-Laplacian fractional differential equations with singular source terms, J. Appl. Anal. Comput., 13 (2023), 2827–2842. https://doi.org/10.11948/20230008 doi: 10.11948/20230008
[49]	Y. L. Jin, D. M. Zhang, N. N. Wang, D. M. Zhu, Bifurcations of twisted fine heteroclinic loop for high-dimensional systems, J. Appl. Anal. Comput., 13 (2023), 2906–2921. https://doi.org/10.11948/20230052 doi: 10.11948/20230052
[50]	R. T. Xing, M. Xiao, Y. Z. Zhang, J. L. Qiu, Stability and Hopf bifurcation analysis of an (n plus m)-neuron double-ring neural network model with multiple time delays, J. Syst. Sci. Complex., 35 (2022), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-021-0108-2 doi: 10.1007/s11424-021-0108-2
[51]	X. W. Jiang, X. Y. Chen, M. Chi, J. Chen, On Hopf bifurcation and control for a delay systems, Appl. Math. Comput., 370 (2020), 124906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2019.124906 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2019.124906
[52]	Y. M. Zi, Y. Wang, Positive solutions for Caputo fractional differential system with coupled boundary conditions, Adv. Differential Equ., 2019 (2019), 80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-019-2016-5 doi: 10.1186/s13662-019-2016-5

This article has been cited by:

1.	Maysaa Al-Qurashi, Sehrish Ramzan, Sobia Sultana, Saima Rashid, Sayed K. Elagan, Spatiotemporal dynamics of a novel hybrid modified ABC fractional monkeypox virus involving environmental disturbance and their stability analysis, 2025, 16, 20904479, 103273, 10.1016/j.asej.2025.103273
2.	Ali Akgül, Nauman Ahmed, Sadiya Ali Rano, Qasem Al-Mdallal, A hybrid fractional model for cervical cancer due to human papillomavirus infection, 2025, 26662027, 101098, 10.1016/j.ijft.2025.101098
3.	Yanhua Zhu, Xiangyi Ma, Tonghua Zhang, Jinliang Wang, Regulating spatiotemporal dynamics of tussock-sedge coupled map lattices model via PD control, 2025, 194, 09600779, 116168, 10.1016/j.chaos.2025.116168
4.	Fathima Nasrin Shajahan, Rajivganthi Chinnathambi, Dynamical Analysis of Breast Cancer Progression with Noise Effects and Impulsive Therapeutic Interventions, 2025, 2513-0390, 10.1002/adts.202401425
5.	Animesh Phukan, Hemanta Kumar Sarmah, Bifurcation analysis of a non linear 6D financial system with three time delay feedback, 2025, 194, 09600779, 116248, 10.1016/j.chaos.2025.116248
6.	Mukhtiar Khan, Nadeem Khan, Ibad Ullah, Kamal Shah, Thabet Abdeljawad, Bahaaeldin Abdalla, A novel fractal fractional mathematical model for HIV/AIDS transmission stability and sensitivity with numerical analysis, 2025, 15, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-025-93436-0
7.	Mansour A. Abdulwasaa, Esam Y. Salah, Mohammed S. Abdo, Bhausaheb Sontakke, Sahar Ahmed Idris, Mohammed Amood Al-Kamarany, Kuo Shou Chiu, A Detailed Study of ABC‐Type Fractal–Fractional Dynamical Model of HIV/AIDS, 2025, 2025, 2577-7408, 10.1155/cmm4/9946126
8.	Shanwei Li, Yimamu Maimaiti, Stability and bifurcation analysis of a time-order fractional model for water-plants: Implications for vegetation pattern formation, 2025, 234, 03784754, 342, 10.1016/j.matcom.2025.03.007

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

AIMS Mathematics

1.8 3.4

Metrics

Article views(823) PDF downloads(100) Cited by(8)

Preview PDF

Download XML

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(6)

AIMS Mathematics

Mathematical exploration on control of bifurcation for a 3D predator-prey model with delay

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Feature of solution

3. Bifurcation analysis

4. Bifurcation domination using extended hybrid controller Ⅰ

5. Bifurcation domination using extended hybrid controller Ⅱ

6. Software experiments

7. Conclusions

Author contributions

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

This article has been cited by:

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Catalog

AIMS Mathematics

Mathematical exploration on control of bifurcation for a 3D predator-prey model with delay

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Feature of solution

3. Bifurcation analysis

4. Bifurcation domination using extended hybrid controller Ⅰ

5. Bifurcation domination using extended hybrid controller Ⅱ

6. Software experiments

7. Conclusions

Author contributions

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

This article has been cited by:

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

Export File

Citation

Format

Content

Catalog