Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/GeneralPunctuation.js
Research article Special Issues

Threshold control strategy for a Filippov model with group defense of pests and a constant-rate release of natural enemies


  • Received: 29 January 2023 Revised: 27 March 2023 Accepted: 17 April 2023 Published: 15 May 2023
  • In this paper, we establish an integrated pest management Filippov model with group defense of pests and a constant rate release of natural enemies. First, the dynamics of the subsystems in the Filippov system are analyzed. Second, the dynamics of the sliding mode system and the types of equilibria of the Filippov system are discussed. Then the complex dynamics of the Filippov system are investigated by using numerical analysis when there is a globally asymptotically stable limit cycle and a globally asymptotically stable equilibrium in two subsystems, respectively. Furthermore, we analyze the existence region of a sliding mode and pseudo equilibrium, as well as the complex dynamics of the Filippov system, such as boundary equilibrium bifurcation, the grazing bifurcation, the buckling bifurcation and the crossing bifurcation. These complex sliding bifurcations reveal that the selection of key parameters can control the population density no more than the economic threshold, so as to prevent the outbreak of pests.

    Citation: Baolin Kang, Xiang Hou, Bing Liu. Threshold control strategy for a Filippov model with group defense of pests and a constant-rate release of natural enemies[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(7): 12076-12092. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023537

    Related Papers:

    [1] Shishi Wang, Yuting Ding, Hongfan Lu, Silin Gong . Stability and bifurcation analysis of SIQR for the COVID-19 epidemic model with time delay. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 5505-5524. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021278
    [2] Hongfan Lu, Yuting Ding, Silin Gong, Shishi Wang . Mathematical modeling and dynamic analysis of SIQR model with delay for pandemic COVID-19. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(4): 3197-3214. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021159
    [3] Sarita Bugalia, Jai Prakash Tripathi, Hao Wang . Mathematical modeling of intervention and low medical resource availability with delays: Applications to COVID-19 outbreaks in Spain and Italy. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 5865-5920. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021295
    [4] Honghua Bin, Daifeng Duan, Junjie Wei . Bifurcation analysis of a reaction-diffusion-advection predator-prey system with delay. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(7): 12194-12210. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023543
    [5] Yuting Ding, Gaoyang Liu, Yong An . Stability and bifurcation analysis of a tumor-immune system with two delays and diffusion. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(2): 1154-1173. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022053
    [6] Fang Liu, Yanfei Du . Spatiotemporal dynamics of a diffusive predator-prey model with delay and Allee effect in predator. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(11): 19372-19400. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023857
    [7] Xin-You Meng, Yu-Qian Wu . Bifurcation analysis in a singular Beddington-DeAngelis predator-prey model with two delays and nonlinear predator harvesting. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(4): 2668-2696. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019133
    [8] Jinhu Xu, Yicang Zhou . Bifurcation analysis of HIV-1 infection model with cell-to-cell transmission and immune response delay. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2016, 13(2): 343-367. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2015006
    [9] Xinyu Liu, Zimeng Lv, Yuting Ding . Mathematical modeling and stability analysis of the time-delayed SAIM model for COVID-19 vaccination and media coverage. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(6): 6296-6316. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022294
    [10] Zuolin Shen, Junjie Wei . Hopf bifurcation analysis in a diffusive predator-prey system with delay and surplus killing effect. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(3): 693-715. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018031
  • In this paper, we establish an integrated pest management Filippov model with group defense of pests and a constant rate release of natural enemies. First, the dynamics of the subsystems in the Filippov system are analyzed. Second, the dynamics of the sliding mode system and the types of equilibria of the Filippov system are discussed. Then the complex dynamics of the Filippov system are investigated by using numerical analysis when there is a globally asymptotically stable limit cycle and a globally asymptotically stable equilibrium in two subsystems, respectively. Furthermore, we analyze the existence region of a sliding mode and pseudo equilibrium, as well as the complex dynamics of the Filippov system, such as boundary equilibrium bifurcation, the grazing bifurcation, the buckling bifurcation and the crossing bifurcation. These complex sliding bifurcations reveal that the selection of key parameters can control the population density no more than the economic threshold, so as to prevent the outbreak of pests.



    Consider with the following fourth-order elliptic Navier boundary problem

    {Δ2u+cΔu=λa(x)|u|s2u+f(x,u)inΩ,u=Δu=0onΩ, (1.1)

    where Δ2:=Δ(Δ) denotes the biharmonic operator, ΩRN(N4) is a smooth bounded domain, c<λ1 (λ1 is the first eigenvalue of Δ in H10(Ω)) is a constant, 1<s<2,λ0 is a parameter, aL(Ω),a(x)0,a(x)0, and fC(ˉΩ×R,R). It is well known that some of these fourth order elliptic problems appear in different areas of applied mathematics and physics. In the pioneer paper Lazer and Mckenna [13], they modeled nonlinear oscillations for suspensions bridges. It is worth mentioning that problem (1.1) can describe static deflection of an elastic plate in a fluid, see [21,22]. The static form change of beam or the motion of rigid body can be described by the same problem. Equations of this type have received more and more attentions in recent years. For the case λ=0, we refer the reader to [3,7,11,14,16,17,20,23,27,29,34,35,36,37] and the reference therein. In these papers, existence and multiplicity of solutions have been concerned under some assumptions on the nonlinearity f. Most of them considered the case f(x,u)=b[(u+1)+1] or f having asymptotically linear growth at infinity or f satisfying the famous Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition at infinity. Particularly, in the case λ0, that is, the combined nonlinearities for the fourth-order elliptic equations, Wei [33] obtained some existence and multiplicity by using the variational method. However, the author only considered the case that the nonlinearity f is asymptotically linear. When λ=1, Pu et al. [26] did some similar work. There are some latest works for problem (1.1), for example [10,18] and the reference therein. In this paper, we study problem (1.1) from two aspects. One is that we will obtain two multiplicity results when the nonlinearity f is superlinear at infinity and has the standard subcritical polynomial growth but not satisfy the Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition, the other is we can establish some existence results of multiple solutions when the nonlinearity f has the exponential growth but still not satisfy the Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition. In the first case, the standard methods for the verification of the compactness condition will fail, we will overcome it by using the functional analysis methods, i.e., Hahn-Banach Theorem combined the Resonance Theorem. In the last case, although the original version of the mountain pass theorem of Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz [1] is not directly applied for our purpose. Therefore, we will use a suitable version of mountain pass theorem and some new techniques to finish our goal.

    When N>4, there have been substantial lots of works (such as [3,7,11,16,17,26,34,35,36,37]) to study the existence of nontrivial solutions or the existence of sign-changing for problem (1.1). Furthermore, almost all of the works involve the nonlinear term f(x,u) of a standard subcritical polynomial growth, say:

    (SCP): There exist positive constants c1 and q(1,p1) such that

    |f(x,t)|c1(1+|t|q)for alltRandxΩ,

    where p=2NN4 expresses the critical Sobolev exponent. In this case, people can deal with problem (1.1) variationally in the Sobolev space H2(Ω)H10(Ω) owing to the some critical point theory, such as, the method of invariant sets of descent flow, mountain pass theorem and symmetric mountain pass theorem. It is worth while to note that since Ambrosetti and Rabinowitz presented the mountain pass theorem in their pioneer paper [1], critical point theory has become one of the main tools on looking for solutions to elliptic equation with variational structure. One of the important condition used in many works is the so-called Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition:

    (AR) There exist θ>2 and R>0 such that

    0<θF(x,t)f(x,t)t,forxΩand|t|R,

    where F(x,t)=t0f(x,s)ds. A simple computation explains that there exist c2,c3>0 such that F(x,t)c2|t|θc3 for all (x,t)ˉΩ×R and f is superlinear at infinity, i.e., limtf(x,t)t=+ uniformly in xΩ. Thus problem (1.1) is called strict superquadratic if the nonlinearity f satisfies the (AR) condition. Notice that (AR) condition plays an important role in ensuring the boundedness of Palais-Smale sequences. However, there are many nonlinearities which are superlinear at infinity but do not satisfy above (AR) condition such as f(x,t)=tln(1+|t|2)+|sint|t.

    In the recent years many authors tried to study problem (1.1) with λ=0 and the standard Laplacian problem where (AR) is not assumed. Instead, they regard the general superquadratic condition:

    (WSQC) The following limit holds

    lim|t|+F(x,t)t2=+,uniformly forxΩ

    with additional assumptions (see [3,5,7,11,12,15,17,19,24,26,31,37] and the references therein). In the most of them, there are some kind of monotonicity restrictions on the functions F(x,t) or f(x,t)t, or some convex property for the function tf(x,t)2F(x,t).

    In the case N=4 and c=0, motivated by the Adams inequality, there are a few works devoted to study the existence of nontrivial solutions for problem (1.1) when the nonlinearity f has the exponential growth, for example [15] and the references therein.

    Now, we begin to state our main results: Let μ1 be the first eigenvalue of (Δ2cΔ,H2(Ω)H10(Ω)) and suppose that f(x,t) satisfies:

    (H1) f(x,t)t0,(x,t)Ω×R;

    (H2) limt0f(x,t)t=f0 uniformly for a.e. xΩ, where f0[0,+);

    (H3) limtF(x,t)t2=+ uniformly for a.e. xΩ, where F(x,t)=t0f(x,s)ds.

    In the case of N>4, our results are stated as follows:

    Theorem 1.1. Assume that f has the standard subcritical polynomial growth on Ω (condition (SCP)) and satisfies (H1)(H3). If f0<μ1 and a(x)a0 (a0 is a positive constant ), then there exists Λ>0 such that for λ(0,Λ), problem (1.1) has five solutions, two positive solutions, two negative solutions and one nontrivial solution.

    Theorem 1.2. Assume that f has the standard subcritical polynomial growth on Ω (condition (SCP)) and satisfies (H2) and (H3). If f(x,t) is odd in t.

    a) For every λR, problem (1.1) has a sequence of solutions {uk} such that Iλ(uk),k, definition of the functional Iλ will be seen in Section 2.

    b) If f0<μ1, for every λ>0, problem (1.1) has a sequence of solutions {uk} such that Iλ(uk)<0 and Iλ(uk)0,k.

    Remark. Since our the nonlinear term f(x,u) satisfies more weak condition (H3) compared with the classical condition (AR), our Theorem 1.2 completely contains Theorem 3.20 in [32].

    In case of N=4, we have p=+. So it's necessary to introduce the definition of the subcritical exponential growth and critical exponential growth in this case. By the improved Adams inequality (see [28] and Lemma 2.2 in Section 2) for the fourth-order derivative, namely,

    supuH2(Ω)H10(Ω),

    So, we now define the subcritical exponential growth and critical exponential growth in this case as follows:

    (SCE): f satisfies subcritical exponential growth on \Omega , i.e., \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{|f(x, t)|}{\exp(\alpha t^2)} = 0 uniformly on x\in \Omega for all \alpha > 0 .

    (CG): f satisfies critical exponential growth on \Omega , i.e., there exists \alpha_0 > 0 such that

    \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{|f(x, t)|}{\exp\left(\alpha t^2\right)} = 0, \; \text{uniformly on} \; x\in \Omega, \; \forall \alpha > \alpha_0,

    and

    \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{|f(x, t)|}{\exp\left(\alpha t^2\right)} = +\infty, \; \text{uniformly on} \; x\in \Omega, \; \forall \alpha < \alpha_0.

    When N = 4 and f satisfies the subcritical exponential growth (SCE), our work is still to consider problem (1.1) where the nonlinearity f satisfies the (WSQC)-condition at infinity. As far as we know, this case is rarely studied by other people for problem (1.1) except for [24]. Hence, our results are new and our methods are technique since we successfully proved the compactness condition by using the Resonance Theorem combined Adams inequality and the truncated technique. In fact, the new idea derives from our work [25]. Our results are as follows:

    Theorem 1.3. Assume that f satisfies the subcritical exponential growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(SCE)} ) and satisfies (H_1) (H_3) . If f_0 < \mu_1 and a(x)\geq a_0 (a_0 is a positive constant ) , then there exists \Lambda^* > 0 such that for \lambda\in (0, \Lambda^*), problem (1.1) has five solutions, two positive solutions, two negative solutions and one nontrivial solution.

    Remark. Let F(x, t) = t^2e^{\sqrt{|t|}}, \forall (x, t) \in \Omega\times \mathbb{R}. Then it satisfies that our conditions (H_1) (H_3) but not satisfy the condition \mathrm{(AR)} . It's worth noting that we do not impose any monotonicity condition on \frac{f(x, t)}{t} or some convex property on tf(x, t)-2F(x, t) . Hence, our Theorem 1.3 completely extends some results contained in [15,24] when \lambda = 0 in problem (1.1).

    Theorem 1.4. Assume that f satisfies the subcritical exponential growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(SCE)} ) and satisfies (H_2) and (H_3) . If f_0 < \mu_1 and f(x, t) is odd in t .

    a) For \lambda > 0 small enough, problem (1.1) has a sequence of solutions \{u_k\} such that I_\lambda(u_k)\rightarrow \infty, k\rightarrow \infty.

    b) For every \lambda > 0 , problem (1.1) has a sequence of solutions \{u_k\} such that I_\lambda(u_k) < 0 and I_\lambda(u_k)\rightarrow 0, k\rightarrow \infty.

    When N = 4 and f satisfies the critical exponential growth \mathrm{(CG)} , the study of problem (1.1) becomes more complicated than in the case of subcritical exponential growth. Similar to the case of the critical polynomial growth in \mathbb{R}^N\; (N\geq 3) for the standard Laplacian studied by Brezis and Nirenberg in their pioneering work [4], our Euler-Lagrange functional does not satisfy the Palais-Smale condition at all level anymore. For the class standard Laplacian problem, the authors [8] used the extremal function sequences related to Moser-Trudinger inequality to complete the verification of compactness of Euler-Lagrange functional at some suitable level. Here, we still adapt the method of choosing the testing functions to study problem (1.1) without (AR) condition. Our result is as follows:

    Theorem 1.5. Assume that f has the critical exponential growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(CG)} ) and satisfies (H_1) (H_3) . Furthermore, assume that

    (H_4) \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}f(x, t) \exp(-\alpha_0t^2)t\geq \beta > \frac{64}{\alpha_0r_0^4} , uniformly in (x, t), where r_0 is the inner radius of \Omega , i.e., r_0: = radius of the largest open ball \subset \Omega. and

    (H_5) f is in the class (H_0) , i.e., for any \{u_n\} in H^2(\Omega)\cap H_0^1(\Omega) , if u_n\rightharpoonup 0 in H^2(\Omega)\cap H_0^1(\Omega) and f(x, u_n)\rightarrow 0 in L^1(\Omega), then F(x, u_n)\rightarrow 0 in L^1(\Omega) (up to a subsequence).

    If f_0 < \mu_1, then there exists \Lambda^* > 0 such that for \lambda\in (0, \Lambda^*), problem (1.1) has at least four nontrivial solutions.

    Remark. For standard biharmonic problems with Dirichlet boundary condition, Lam and Lu [15] have recently established the existence of nontrivial nonnegative solutions when the nonlinearity f has the critical exponential growth of order \exp(\alpha u^2) but without satisfying the Ambrosetti- Rabinowitz condition. However, for problem (1.1) with Navier boundary condition involving critical exponential growth and the concave term, there are few works to study it. Hence our result is new and interesting.

    The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present some necessary preliminary knowledge and some important lemmas. In Section 3, we give the proofs for our main results. In Section 4, we give a conclusion.

    We let \lambda_k (k = 1, 2, \cdot\cdot\cdot) denote the eigenvalue of -\Delta in H_0^1(\Omega) , then 0 < \mu_1 < \mu_2 < \cdot\cdot\cdot < \mu_k < \cdot\cdot\cdot be the eigenvalues of (\Delta^2-c\Delta, H^2(\Omega)\cap H_0^1(\Omega)) and \varphi_k(x) be the eigenfunction corresponding to \mu_k . Let X_k denote the eigenspace associated to \mu_k. In fact, \mu_k = \lambda_k(\lambda_k-c). Throughout this paper, we denote by \|\cdot\|_p the L^p(\Omega) norm, c < \lambda_1 in \Delta^2-c\Delta and the norm of u in H^2(\Omega)\cap H_0^1(\Omega) will be defined by the

    \|u\|: = \left(\int_\Omega (|\Delta u|^2-c|\nabla u|^2)dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.

    We also denote E = H^2(\Omega)\cap H_0^1(\Omega) .

    Definition 2.1. Let ( \mathbb{E}, ||\cdot||_\mathbb{E}) be a real Banach space with its dual space (\mathbb{E}^*, ||\cdot||_{\mathbb{E}^*}) and I\in C^1(\mathbb{E}, \mathbb{R}) . For c^*\in \mathbb{ R}, we say that I satisfies the \mathrm{(PS)_{c^*}} condition if for any sequence \{x_n\}\subset \mathbb{E} with

    I(x_n)\rightarrow c^*, I'(x_n)\rightarrow 0 \ \mbox{in}\ \mathbb{E}^*,

    there is a subsequence \{x_{n_k}\} such that \{x_{n_k}\} converges strongly in \mathbb{E} . Also, we say that I satisfy the \mathrm{(C)_{c^*}} condition if for any sequence \{x_n\}\subset \mathbb{E} with

    I(x_n)\rightarrow c^*, \ ||I'(x_n)||_{\mathbb{E}^*}(1+||x_n||_\mathbb{E})\rightarrow 0,

    there exists subsequence \{ x_{n_k}\} such that \{ x_{n_k}\} converges strongly in \mathbb{E}.

    Definition 2.2. We say that u\in E is the solution of problem (1.1) if the identity

    \int_\Omega (\Delta u \Delta \varphi-c\nabla u \nabla \varphi)dx = \lambda\int_\Omega a(x)|u|^{s-2}u\varphi dx+\int_\Omega f(x, u)\varphi dx

    holds for any \varphi\in E.

    It is obvious that the solutions of problem (1.1) are corresponding with the critical points of the following C^1 functional:

    I_\lambda(u) = \frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2-\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|u|^sdx-\int_\Omega F(x, u)dx, \quad u\in E.

    Let u^+ = \max\{u, 0\}, u^- = \min\{u, 0\}.

    Now, we concern the following problem

    \begin{equation} \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \Delta^2u+c\Delta u = \lambda a(x)|u^+|^{s-2}u^++f^+(x, u) \; &\text{in}\; \Omega, \\ u = \Delta u = 0 \; &\text{on}\; \partial \Omega, \end{array}\right. \end{equation} (2.1)

    where

    f^+(x, t) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} f(x, t) \; &t\geq 0, \\ 0, \; &t < 0. \end{array}\right.

    Define the corresponding functional I_\lambda^+:E\rightarrow \mathbb{R} as follows:

    I_\lambda^+(u) = \frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2-\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|u^+|^sdx-\int_\Omega F^+(x, u)dx,

    where F^+(x, u) = \int_0^u f^+(x, s)ds. Obviously, the condition \mathrm{(SCP)} or \mathrm{(SCE)} ( \mathrm{(CG)} ) ensures that I_\lambda^+\in C^1(E, \mathbb{R}). Let u be a critical point of I_\lambda^+, which means that u is a weak solution of problem (2.1). Furthermore, since the weak maximum principle (see [34]), it implies that u\geq 0 in \Omega . Thus u is also a solution of problem (1.1) and I_\lambda^+(u) = I_\lambda(u) .

    Similarly, we define

    f^-(x, t) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} f(x, t) \; &t\leq 0, \\ 0, \; &t > 0, \end{array}\right.

    and

    I_\lambda^-(u) = \frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2-\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|u^-|^sdx-\int_\Omega F^-(x, u)dx,

    where F^-(x, u) = \int_0^u f^-(x, s)ds. Similarly, we also have I_\lambda^-\in C^1(E, \mathbb{R}) and if v is a critical point of I_\lambda^- then it is a solution of problem (1.1) and I_\lambda^-(v) = I_\lambda(v) .

    Prosition 2.1. ([6,30]). Let \mathbb{E} be a real Banach space and suppose that I \in C^1(\mathbb{E}, \mathbb{R}) satisfies the condition

    \max\{I(0), I(u_1)\}\leq\alpha < \beta\leq\inf\limits_{||u|| = \rho}I(u),

    for some \alpha < \beta, \rho > 0 and u_1\in \mathbb{E} with ||u_1|| > \rho. Let c^*\geq\beta be characterized by

    c^* = \inf\limits_{\gamma\in \Gamma}\max\limits_{0\leq t\leq1}I(\gamma(t)),

    where \Gamma = \{\gamma\in C([0, 1], \mathbb{E}), \gamma(0) = 0, \gamma(1) = u_1\} is the set of continuous paths joining 0 and u_1. Then, there exists a sequence \{u_n\}\subset \mathbb{E} such that

    I(u_n)\rightarrow c^*\geq\beta\ \mathit{\mbox{and}}\ (1+||u_n|| )||I'(u_n)||_{\mathbb{E}^*}\rightarrow0\ \mathit{\mbox{as}}\ n\rightarrow \infty.

    Lemma 2.1. ([28]). Let \Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^4 be a bounded domain. Then there exists a constant C > 0 such that

    \sup\limits_{u\in E, \|\Delta u\|_2\leq 1}\int_\Omega e^{32\pi^2u^2}dx < C|\Omega|,

    and this inequality is sharp.

    Next, we introduce the following a revision of Adams inequality:

    Lemma 2.2. Let \Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^4 be a bounded domain. Then there exists a constant C^* > 0 such that

    \sup\limits_{u\in E, \| u\|\leq 1}\int_\Omega e^{32\pi^2 u^2}dx < C^*|\Omega|,

    and this inequality is also sharp.

    Proof. We will give a summarize proof in two different cases. In the case of c\leq0 in the definition of \|.\| , if \|u\|\leq 1, we can deduce that \|\Delta u\|_2\leq 1 and by using Lemma 2.1 combined with the Proposition 6.1 in [28], the conclusion holds.

    In the case of 0 < c < \lambda_1 in the definition of \|.\| , from Lemma 2.1, the proof and remark of Theorem 1 in [2] and the proof of Proposition 6.1 in [28], we still can establish this revised Adams inequality.

    Lemma 2.3. Assume (H_{1}) and (H_{3}) hold. If f has the standard subcritical polynomial growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(SCP)} ), then I_\lambda^+ ( I_\lambda^- ) satisfies \mathrm{(C)}_{c^*} .

    Proof. We only prove the case of I_\lambda^+ . The arguments for the case of I_\lambda^- are similar. Let \{u_n\}\subset E be a \mathrm{(C)}_{c^*} sequence such that

    \begin{equation} I_\lambda^+(u_n) = \frac{1}{2}||u_n||^2-\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|u_n^+|^sdx-\int_\Omega F^+(x, u_n)dx = c^*+\circ(1), \end{equation} (2.2)
    \begin{equation} (1+||u_n||)||I_\lambda^{+'}(u_n)||_{E^*}\rightarrow 0\ \mbox{as}\ n\rightarrow \infty. \end{equation} (2.3)

    Obviously, (2.3) implies that

    \begin{equation} \langle I_\lambda^{+'}(u_n), \varphi\rangle = \langle u_n, \varphi \rangle-\lambda\int_\Omega a(x)|u_n^+|^{s-2}u_n^+\varphi dx-\int_\Omega f^+(x, u_n(x))\varphi dx = \circ(1). \end{equation} (2.4)

    Step 1. We claim that \{u_n\} is bounded in E . In fact, assume that

    \|u_n\|\rightarrow \infty, \ \ \text{as}\ n\rightarrow \infty.

    Define

    v_n = \frac{u_n}{\|u_n\|}.

    Then, \|v_n\| = 1 , \forall n\in {\bf N} and then, it is possible to extract a subsequence (denoted also by \{v_n\} ) converges weakly to v in E , converges strongly in L^p(\Omega) (1\leq p < p^*) and converges v a.e. x\in\Omega .

    Dividing both sides of (2.2) by \|u_n\|^2 , we get

    \begin{equation} \int_{\Omega} \frac{F^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|^2}dx\rightarrow \frac{1}{2}. \end{equation} (2.5)

    Set

    \Omega_+ = \{x\in \Omega: v(x) > 0\}.

    By (H_3) , we imply that

    \begin{equation} \frac{F^+(x, u_n)}{u_n^2}v_n^2\rightarrow \infty, \; \; x\in \Omega_+. \end{equation} (2.6)

    If |\Omega_+| is positive, since Fatou's lemma, we get

    \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\int_{\Omega} \frac{F^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|^2}dx\geq\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\int_{\Omega_+} \frac{F^+(x, u_n)}{u_n^2}v_n^2dx = +\infty,

    which contradicts with (2.5). Thus, we have v\leq 0 . In fact, we have v = 0 . Indeed, again using (2.3), we get

    (1+\|u_n\|) |\langle I_\lambda^{+'}(u_n), v\rangle|\leq \circ(1)\|v\|.

    Thus, we have

    \begin{eqnarray*} \int_\Omega (\Delta u_n \Delta v-c\nabla u_n \nabla v)dx &\leq& \int_\Omega (\Delta u_n \Delta v-c\nabla u \nabla v)dx-\lambda\int_\Omega a(x)|u_n^+|^{s-2}u_n^+vdx\\ &-&\int_\Omega f^+(x, u_n)vdx\leq \frac{\circ(1)\|v\|}{1+\|u_n\|}, \end{eqnarray*}

    by noticing that since v\leq 0, f^+(x, u_n)v\leq 0 \ \text{a.e.} \ x\in\Omega, thus -\int_\Omega f^+(x, u_n)vdx\geq 0. So we get

    \int_\Omega (\Delta v_n \Delta v-c\nabla v_n \nabla v)dx\rightarrow 0.

    On the other hand, from v_n\rightharpoonup v in E , we have

    \int_\Omega (\Delta v_n \Delta v-c\nabla v_n \nabla v)dx\rightarrow \|v\|^2

    which implies v = 0 .

    Dividing both sides of (2.4) by \|u_n\| , for any \varphi \in E , then there exists a positive constant M(\varphi) such that

    \begin{equation} \left|\int_\Omega \frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\varphi dx\right|\leq M(\varphi), \; \forall n\in {\bf N}. \end{equation} (2.7)

    Set

    {\bf f}_n(\varphi) = \int_\Omega \frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\varphi dx, \; \varphi \in E.

    Thus, by (SCP), we know that \{{\bf f}_n\} is a family bounded linear functionals defined on E . Combing (2.7) with the famous Resonance Theorem, we get that \{|{\bf f}_n|\} is bounded, where |{\bf f}_n| denotes the norm of {\bf f}_n . It means that

    \begin{equation} |{\bf f}_n|\leq C_*. \end{equation} (2.8)

    Since E\subset L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega) , using the Hahn-Banach Theorem, there exists a continuous functional \hat{{\bf f}}_n defined on L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega) such that \hat{{\bf f}}_n is an extension of {\bf f}_n , and

    \begin{equation} \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) = {\bf f}_n(\varphi), \; \varphi\in E, \end{equation} (2.9)
    \begin{equation} \|\hat{{\bf f}}_n\|_{\frac{p^*}{q}} = |{\bf f}_n|, \end{equation} (2.10)

    where \|\hat{{\bf f}}_n\|_{\frac{p^*}{q}} denotes the norm of \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) in L^{\frac{p^*}{q}}(\Omega) which is defined on L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega) .

    On the other hand, from the definition of the linear functional on L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega), we know that there exists a function S_n(x)\in L^{\frac{p^*}{q}}(\Omega) such that

    \begin{equation} \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) = \int_\Omega S_n(x)\varphi (x)dx, \; \varphi \in L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega). \end{equation} (2.11)

    So, from (2.9) and (2.11), we obtain

    \int_\Omega S_n(x)\varphi (x)dx = \int_\Omega \frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\varphi dx, \; \varphi \in E,

    which implies that

    \int_\Omega \left(S_n(x)-\frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\right)\varphi dx = 0, \; \varphi \in E.

    According to the basic lemma of variational, we can deduce that

    S_n(x) = \frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\; \; \text{a.e.}\; x\in \Omega.

    Thus, by (2.8) and (2.10), we have

    \begin{equation} \|\hat{{\bf f}}_n\|_{\frac{p^*}{q}} = \|S_n\|_{\frac{p^*}{q}} = |{\bf f}_n| < C_*. \end{equation} (2.12)

    Now, taking \varphi = v_n-v in (2.4), we get

    \begin{equation} \langle A(v_n), v_n-v \rangle-\lambda\int_\Omega a(x)|u_n^+|^{s-2}u_n^+v_ndx-\int_\Omega \frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}v_ndx\rightarrow 0, \end{equation} (2.13)

    where A: E\rightarrow E^* defined by

    \langle A(u), \varphi\rangle = \int_\Omega \Delta u \Delta \varphi dx-c\int_\Omega \nabla u \nabla \varphi dx, \ u, \varphi \in E.

    By the H \mathrm{\ddot{o}} lder inequality and (2.12), we obtain

    \int_\Omega \frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}v_ndx\rightarrow 0.

    Then from (2.13), we can conclude that

    v_n\rightarrow v\; \; \text{in} \; E.

    This leads to a contradiction since \|v_n\| = 1 and v = 0. Thus, \{u_n\} is bounded in E .

    Step 2. We show that \{u_n\} has a convergence subsequence. Without loss of generality, we can suppose that

    \begin{align*} &u_n\rightharpoonup u\ \mbox{ in }\ E, \\ &u_n \rightarrow u \ \mbox{in}\ L^\gamma(\Omega), \ \forall1\leq \gamma < p^*, \\ &u_n(x)\rightarrow u(x)\ \mbox{a.e.}\ x\in \Omega. \end{align*}

    Now, it follows from f satisfies the condition (SCP) that there exist two positive constants c_4, c_5 > 0 such that

    f^+(x, t)\leq c_4 +c_5|t|^{q}, \ \forall (x, t)\in \Omega\times \mathbb{R},

    then

    \begin{eqnarray*} &&\left|\int_\Omega f^+(x, u_n)(u_n-u)dx\right|\\ && \leq c_4 \int_\Omega |u_n-u|dx+ c_5\int_\Omega |u_n-u||u_n|^{q}dx \\&&\leq c_4\int_\Omega |u_n-u|dx+c_5\left( \int_\Omega \left(|u_n|^{q}\right)^{\frac{p^*}{q}}dx\right)^{\frac{q}{p^*}}\left(\int_\Omega |u_n-u|^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}dx\right)^{\frac{p^*-q}{p^*}}. \end{eqnarray*}

    Similarly, since u_n\rightharpoonup u in E, \int_\Omega |u_n-u|dx\rightarrow 0 and \int_\Omega |u_n-u|^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}dx\rightarrow 0.

    Thus, from (2.4) and the formula above, we obtain

    \langle A(u_n), u_n-u\rangle\rightarrow 0, \; \text{as}\; n\rightarrow \infty.

    So, we get \|u_n\|\rightarrow \|u\| . Thus we have u_n\rightarrow u in E which implies that I_\lambda^+ satisfies \mathrm{(C)}_{c^*} .

    Lemma 2.4. Let \varphi _{1} > 0 be a \mu_{1} -eigenfunction with \| \varphi_{1} \| = 1 and assume that (H_{1}) (H_{3}) and \mathrm{(SCP)} hold. If f_{0} < \mu _{1}, then:

    \mathrm{(i)}\ For \lambda > 0 small enough, there exist \rho, \alpha > 0 such that I_\lambda^{\pm}(u)\geq \alpha for all u\in E with \| u \| = \rho,

    \mathrm{(ii)}\ I_\lambda^{\pm}(t\varphi_1)\rightarrow -\infty as t\rightarrow +\infty .

    Proof. Since \mathrm{(SCP)} and (H_1) (H_3), for any \varepsilon > 0, there exist A = A(\varepsilon), M large enough and B = B(\varepsilon) such that for all (x, s)\in \Omega\times \mathbb{R},

    \begin{equation} F^{\pm}(x, s)\leq \frac{1}{2}(f_0+\epsilon)s^2+A|s|^q, \end{equation} (2.14)
    \begin{equation} F^{\pm}(x, s)\geq \frac{M}{2}s^2-B. \end{equation} (2.15)

    Choose \varepsilon > 0 such that (f_0+\varepsilon) < \mu_1. By (2.14), the Poincaré inequality and the Sobolev embedding, we obtain

    \begin{eqnarray*} I_\lambda^{\pm}(u)&\geq&\frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2 -\frac{\lambda \|a\|_\infty}{s}\int_\Omega |u|^s dx-\int_\Omega{F^{\pm}(x, u)}dx\\&\geq& \frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2-\frac{\lambda \|a\|_\infty}{s}\int_\Omega |u|^s dx-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{2}\|u\|_2^2-A\int_\Omega |u|^qdx\\ &\geq&\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{\mu_1}\right)\|u\|^2-\lambda K\|u\|^s-C^{**}\|u\|^q \\ &\geq&\|u\|^2\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{\mu_1}\right)-\lambda K\|u\|^{s-2}-C^{**}\|u\|^{q-2}\right), \end{eqnarray*}

    where K, C^{**} are constant.

    Write

    h(t) = \lambda Kt^{s-2}+ C^{**}t^{q-2}.

    We can prove that there exists t^* such that

    h(t^*) < \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{\mu_1}\right).

    In fact, letting h'(t) = 0 , we get

    t^* = \left(\frac{\lambda K(2-s)}{C^{**}(q-2)} \right)^{\frac{1}{q-s}}.

    According to the knowledge of mathematical analysis, h(t) has a minimum at t = t^* . Denote

    \vartheta = \frac{K(2-s)}{C^{**}(q-2)}, \ \hat{\vartheta} = \frac{s-2}{q-s}, \ \bar{\vartheta} = \frac{q-2}{q-s}, \ \nu = \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{\mu_1}\right).

    Taking t^* in h(t) , we get

    h(t^*) < \nu, \; 0 < \lambda < \Lambda^*,

    where \Lambda^* = (\frac{\nu}{K\vartheta^{\hat{\vartheta}}+C^{**}\vartheta^{\bar{\vartheta}}})^{\frac{1}{\bar{\vartheta}}}. So, part (i) holds if we take \rho = t^* .

    On the other hand, from (2.15), we get

    I_\lambda^+(t\varphi_1)\leq\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{M}{\mu_1}\right)t^2-t^s\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|\varphi_1|^sdx +B|\Omega|\rightarrow -\infty\ \mbox{as}\ t\rightarrow +\infty.

    Similarly, we have

    I_\lambda^-(t(-\varphi_1))\rightarrow -\infty, \ \text{as}\ t\rightarrow +\infty.

    Thus part \mathrm{(ii)} holds.

    Lemma 2.5. Let \varphi _{1} > 0 be a \mu_{1} -eigenfunction with \| \varphi_{1} \| = 1 and assume that (H_{1}) (H_{3}) and \mathrm{(SCE)} (or \mathrm{(CG)} ) hold. If f_{0} < \mu _{1}, then:

    \mathrm{(i)}\ For \lambda > 0 small enough, there exist \rho, \alpha > 0 such that I_\lambda^{\pm}(u)\geq \alpha for all u\in E with \| u \| = \rho,

    \mathrm{(ii)}\ I_\lambda^{\pm}(t\varphi_1)\rightarrow -\infty as t\rightarrow +\infty .

    Proof. From \mathrm{(SCE)} (or (CG)) and (H_1) - (H_3), for any \varepsilon > 0, there exist A_1 = A_1(\varepsilon), M_1 large enough, B_1 = B_1(\varepsilon), \kappa_1 > 0 and q_1 > 2 such that for all (x, s)\in \Omega\times \mathbb{R},

    \begin{equation} F^{\pm}(x, s)\leq \frac{1}{2}(f_0+\epsilon)s^2+A_1\exp(\kappa_1 s^{2})|s|^{q_1}, \end{equation} (2.16)
    \begin{equation} F^{\pm}(x, s)\geq \frac{M_1}{2}s^2-B_1. \end{equation} (2.17)

    Choose \varepsilon > 0 such that (f_0+\varepsilon) < \mu_1. By (2.16), the Hölder inequality and the Adams inequality (see Lemma 2.2), we obtain

    \begin{eqnarray*} I_\lambda^{\pm}(u)&\geq&\frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2-\frac{\lambda \|a\|_\infty}{s}\int_\Omega |u|^s dx -\int_\Omega{F^{\pm}(x, u)}dx\\&\geq& \frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2-\frac{\lambda \|a\|_\infty}{s}\int_\Omega |u|^s dx-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{2}\|u\|_2^2-A_1\int_\Omega \exp(\kappa_1 u^{2})|u|^{q_1}dx\\ &\geq&\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{\mu_1}\right)\|u\|^2-\lambda K\|u\|^s -A_1\left(\int_\Omega \exp(\kappa_1 r_1\|u\|^{2}(\frac{|u|}{\|u\|})^{2}\right)dx)^{\frac{1}{r_1}}\left(\int_\Omega |u|^{r_1'q}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{r_1'}}\\ &\geq&\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{\mu_1}\right)\|u\|^2-\lambda K\|u\|^s-\hat{C}^{**}\|u\|^{q_1}, \end{eqnarray*}

    where r_1 > 1 sufficiently close to 1 , \|u\|\leq \sigma and \kappa_1 r_1\sigma^{2} < 32\pi^2. Remained proof is completely similar to the proof of part (ⅰ) of Lemma 2.4, we omit it here. So, part (ⅰ) holds if we take \|u\| = \rho > 0 small enough.

    On the other hand, from (2.17), we get

    I_\lambda^+(t\varphi_1)\leq\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{M_1}{\mu_1}\right)t^2-t^s\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|\varphi_1|^sdx +B_1|\Omega|\rightarrow -\infty\ \mbox{as}\ t\rightarrow +\infty.

    Similarly, we have

    I_\lambda^-(t(-\varphi_1))\rightarrow -\infty, \ \text{as}\ t\rightarrow +\infty.

    Thus part \mathrm{(ii)} holds.

    Lemma 2.6. Assume (H_{1}) and (H_{3}) hold. If f has the subcritical exponential growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(SCE)} ), then I_\lambda^+ ( I_\lambda^- ) satisfies \mathrm{(C)}_{c^*} .

    Proof. We only prove the case of I_\lambda^+ . The arguments for the case of I_\lambda^- are similar. Let \{u_n\}\subset E be a \mathrm{(C)}_{c^*} sequence such that the formulas (2.2)–(2.4) in Lemma 2.3 hold.

    Now, according to the previous section of Step 1 of the proof of Lemma 2.3, we also obtain that the formula (2.7) holds. Set

    {\bf f}_n(\varphi) = \int_{\Omega} \frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\varphi dx, \; \varphi \in E.

    Then from for any u\in E , e^{\alpha u^2}\in L^1(\Omega) for all \alpha > 0 , we can draw a conclusion that \{{\bf f}_n\} is a family bounded linear functionals defined on E . Using (2.7) and the famous Resonance Theorem, we know that \{|{\bf f}_n|\} is bounded, where |{\bf f}_n| denotes the norm of {\bf f}_n . It means that the formula (2.8) (see the proof of Lemma 2.3) holds.

    Since E\subset L^{q_0}(\Omega) for some q_0 > 1 , using the Hahn-Banach Theorem, there exists a continuous functional \hat{{\bf f}}_n defined on L^{q_0}(\Omega) such that \hat{{\bf f}}_n is an extension of {\bf f}_n , and

    \begin{equation} \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) = {\bf f}_n(\varphi), \; \varphi\in E, \end{equation} (2.18)
    \begin{equation} \|\hat{{\bf f}}_n\|_{q_0^*} = |{\bf f}_n|, \end{equation} (2.19)

    where \|\hat{{\bf f}}_n\|_{q_0^*} is the norm of \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) in L^{q_0^*}(\Omega) which is defined on L^{q_0}(\Omega) and q_0^* is the dual number of q_0 .

    By the definition of the linear functional on L^{q_0}(\Omega), we know that there is a function S_n(x)\in L^{q_0^*}(\Omega) such that

    \begin{equation} \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) = \int_{\Omega} S_n(x)\varphi (x)dx, \; \varphi \in L^{q_0}(\Omega). \end{equation} (2.20)

    Similarly to the last section of the Step 1 of the proof of Lemma 2.3, we can prove that \mathrm{(C)}_{c^*} sequence \{u_n\} is bounded in E . Next, we show that \{u_n\} has a convergence subsequence. Without loss of generality, assume that

    \begin{align*} & \|u_n\|\leq \beta^*, \\ &u_n\rightharpoonup u\ \mbox{ in }\; E, \\ &u_n \rightarrow u \ \mbox{in}\ L^\gamma(\Omega), \ \forall \gamma\geq 1, \\ &u_n(x)\rightarrow u(x)\ \mbox{a.e.}\ x\in \Omega. \end{align*}

    Since f has the subcritical exponential growth \mathrm{(SCE)} on \Omega , we can find a constant C_{\beta^*} > 0 such that

    |f^+(x, t)|\leq C_{\beta^*} \exp\left(\frac{32\pi^2}{k(\beta^*)^{2}}t^{2}\right), \ \forall (x, t)\in \Omega \times \mathbb{R}.

    Thus, from the revised Adams inequality (see Lemma 2.2),

    \begin{eqnarray*} &&\left|\int_{\Omega} f^+(x, u_n)(u_n-u)dx\right|\\ && \leq C_{\beta^*}\left(\int_{\Omega} \exp\left(\frac{32\pi^2}{(\beta^*)^{2}}u_n^{2}\right)dx\right)^{\frac{1}{k}}|u_n-u|_{k'} \\ &&\leq C_{**}|u_n-u|_{k'}\rightarrow0, \end{eqnarray*}

    where k > 1 and k' is the dual number of k . Similar to the last proof of Lemma 2.3, we have u_n\rightarrow u in E which means that I_\lambda^+ satisfies \mathrm{(C)}_{c^*} .

    Lemma 2.7. Assume (H_{3}) holds. If f has the standard subcritical polynomial growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(SCP)} ), then I_\lambda satisfies \mathrm{(PS)}_{c^*} .

    Proof. Let \{u_n\}\subset E be a \mathrm{(PS)}_{c^*} sequence such that

    \begin{equation} \frac{\|u_n\|^2}{2}-\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|u_n|^sdx-\int_\Omega F(x, u_n)dx\rightarrow c^*, \end{equation} (2.21)
    \begin{equation} \int_\Omega \Delta u_n\Delta\varphi dx-c\int_\Omega \nabla u_n \nabla \varphi dx-\lambda \int_\Omega a(x)|u_n|^{s-2}u_n\varphi dx-\int_\Omega f(x, u_n)\varphi dx = \circ(1)\|\varphi\|, \ \varphi\in E. \end{equation} (2.22)

    Step 1. To prove that \{u_n\} has a convergence subsequence, we first need to prove that it is a bounded sequence. To do this, argue by contradiction assuming that for a subsequence, which is still denoted by \{u_n\} , we have

    \|u_n\|\rightarrow \infty.

    Without loss of generality, assume that \|u_n\|\geq 1 for all n\in {\bf N} and let

    v_n = \frac{u_n}{\|u_n\|}.

    Clearly, \|v_n\| = 1 , \forall n\in {\bf N} and then, it is possible to extract a subsequence (denoted also by \{v_n\} ) converges weakly to v in E , converges strongly in L^p(\Omega) (1\leq p < p^*) and converges v a.e. x\in\Omega .

    Dividing both sides of (2.21) by \|u_n\|^2 , we obtain

    \begin{equation} \int_{\Omega} \frac{F(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|^2}dx\rightarrow \frac{1}{2}. \end{equation} (2.23)

    Set

    \Omega_0 = \{x\in \Omega: v(x)\neq 0\}.

    By (H_3) , we get that

    \begin{equation} \frac{F(x, u_n)}{u_n^2}v_n^2\rightarrow \infty, \; \; x\in \Omega_0. \end{equation} (2.24)

    If |\Omega_0| is positive, from Fatou's lemma, we obtain

    \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\int_{\Omega} \frac{F(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|^2}dx\geq\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\int_{\Omega_0} \frac{F(x, u_n)}{u_n^2}v_n^2dx = +\infty,

    which contradicts with (2.23).

    Dividing both sides of (2.22) by \|u_n\| , for any \varphi \in E , then there exists a positive constant M(\varphi) such that

    \begin{equation} \left|\int_\Omega \frac{f(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\varphi dx\right|\leq M(\varphi), \; \forall n\in {\bf N}. \end{equation} (2.25)

    Set

    {\bf f}_n(\varphi) = \int_\Omega \frac{f(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\varphi dx, \; \varphi \in E.

    Thus, by (SCP), we know that \{{\bf f}_n\} is a family bounded linear functionals defined on E . By (2.25) and the famous Resonance Theorem, we get that \{|{\bf f}_n|\} is bounded, where |{\bf f}_n| denotes the norm of {\bf f}_n . It means that

    \begin{equation} |{\bf f}_n|\leq \tilde{C}_*. \end{equation} (2.26)

    Since E\subset L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega) , using the Hahn-Banach Theorem, there exists a continuous functional \hat{{\bf f}}_n defined on L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega) such that \hat{{\bf f}}_n is an extension of {\bf f}_n , and

    \begin{equation} \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) = {\bf f}_n(\varphi), \; \varphi\in E, \end{equation} (2.27)
    \begin{equation} \|\hat{{\bf f}}_n\|_{\frac{p^*}{q}} = |{\bf f}_n|, \end{equation} (2.28)

    where \|\hat{{\bf f}}_n\|_{\frac{p^*}{q}} denotes the norm of \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) in L^{\frac{p^*}{q}}(\Omega) which is defined on L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega) .

    Remained proof is completely similar to the last proof of Lemma 2.3, we omit it here.

    Lemma 2.8. Assume (H_{3}) holds. If f has the subcritical exponential growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(SCE)} ), then I_\lambda satisfies \mathrm{(PS)}_{c^*} .

    Proof. Combining the previous section of the proof of Lemma 2.7 with slightly modifying the last section of the proof of Lemma 2.6, we can prove it. So we omit it here.

    To prove the next Lemma, we firstly introduce a sequence of nonnegative functions as follows. Let \Phi(t)\in C^\infty[0, 1] such that

    \Phi(0) = \Phi'(0) = 0,
    \Phi(1) = \Phi'(1) = 0.

    We let

    H(t) = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{n}\Phi(nt), &\quad \text{if}\; t\leq \frac{1}{n}, \\ t, &\quad \text{if}\; \frac{1}{n} < t < 1-\frac{1}{n}, \\ 1-\frac{1}{n}\Phi(n(1-t)), &\quad \text{if}\; 1-\frac{1}{n}\leq t\leq1, \\ 1, &\quad \text{if}\; 1\leq t, \end{cases}

    and \psi_n(r) = H((ln n)^{-1}ln \frac{1}{r}). Notice that \psi_n(x)\in E , B the unit ball in \mathbb{R}^N , \psi_n(x) = 1 for |x|\leq \frac{1}{n} and, as it was proved in [2],

    \|\Delta \psi_n\|_2 = 2\sqrt{2}\pi(ln n)^{-\frac{1}{2}}A_n = \|\psi_n\|+\circ(1), \; \text{as}\; n\rightarrow \infty.

    where 0\leq \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty} A_n\leq 1. Thus, we take x_0\in \Omega and r_0 > 0 such that B(x_0, r)\subset \Omega, denote

    \Psi_n(x) = \begin{cases} \frac{\psi_n(|x-x_0|)}{\|\psi_n\|}, &\quad \text{if}\; x\in B(x_0, r_0), \\ 0, &\quad \text{if}\; x\in \Omega\backslash B(x_0, r_0).\\ \end{cases}

    Lemma 2.9. Assume (H_{1}) and (H_{4}) hold. If f has the critical exponential growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(CG)} ), then there exists n such that

    \max\{I_\lambda^{\pm}(\pm t\Psi_n):t\geq 0\} < \frac{16\pi^2}{\alpha_0}.

    Proof. We only prove the case of I_\lambda^+ . The arguments for the case of I_\lambda^- are similar. Assume by contradiction that this is not the case. So, for all n , this maximum is larger or equal to \frac{16\pi^2}{\alpha_0}. Let t_n > 0 be such that

    \begin{equation} \mathcal{I_\lambda^+}(t_n\Psi_n)\geq\frac{16\pi^2}{\alpha_0}. \end{equation} (2.29)

    From (H_1) and (2.29), we conclude that

    \begin{equation} t_n^{2}\geq \frac{32\pi^2}{\alpha_0}. \end{equation} (2.30)

    Also at t = t_n , we have

    t_n-t_n^{s-1}\lambda\int_\Omega a(x)|\Psi_n|^{s}dx-\int_\Omega f(x, t_n\Psi_n)\Psi_ndx = 0,

    which implies that

    \begin{equation} t_n^{2}\geq t_n^{s}\lambda\int_\Omega a(x)|\Psi_n|^{s}dx+\int_{B(x_0, r_0)} f(x, t_n\Psi_n)t_n\Psi_ndx. \end{equation} (2.31)

    Since (H_4) , for given \epsilon > 0 there exists R_\epsilon > 0 such that

    tf(x, t)\geq (\beta-\epsilon)\exp\left(\alpha_0t^{2}\right), \ t\geq R_\epsilon.

    So by (2.31), we deduce that, for large n

    \begin{equation} t_n^{2}\geq t_n^{s}\lambda\int_\Omega a(x)|\Psi_n|^{s}dx+ (\beta-\epsilon)\frac{\pi^2}{2}r_0^4\exp\left[ \left((\frac{t_n}{ A_n})^2\frac{\alpha_0}{32\pi^2}-1\right)4ln n\right]. \end{equation} (2.32)

    By (2.30), the inequality above is true if, and only if

    \begin{equation} \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}A_n = 1 \ \ \text{and}\ \ t_n\rightarrow \left( \frac{32\pi^2}{\alpha_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}. \end{equation} (2.33)

    Set

    A_n^* = \{x\in B(x_0, r_0): t_n \Psi_n(x)\geq R_{\epsilon}\}, \; \; B_n = B(x_0, r_0)\setminus A_n^*,

    and break the integral in (2.31) into a sum of integrals over A_n^* and B_n . By simple computation, we have

    \begin{equation} \left[\frac{32\pi^2}{\alpha_0}\right]\geq (\beta-\epsilon) \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty} \int_{B(x_0, r_0)}\exp\left[\alpha_0t_n^2|\Psi_n(x)|^2\right]dx-(\beta-\epsilon)r_0^4\frac{\pi^2}{2}. \end{equation} (2.34)

    The last integral in (2.34), denote I_n is evaluated as follows:

    I_n\geq (\beta-\epsilon)r_0^4\pi^2.

    Thus, finally from (2.34) we get

    \left[\frac{32\pi^2}{\alpha_0}\right]\geq(\beta-\epsilon)r_0^4\frac{\pi^2}{2},

    which means \beta\leq \frac{64}{\alpha_0r_0^4}. This results in a contradiction with (H_4) .

    To conclude this section we state the Fountain Theorem of Bartsch [32].

    Define

    \begin{equation} Y_k = \oplus_{j = 1}^kX_j, \ \ Z_k = \overline{\oplus_{j\geq k}X_j}. \end{equation} (2.35)

    Lemma 2.10. (Dual Fountain Theorem). Assume that I_\lambda\in C^1(\mathbb{E}, \mathbb{R}) satisfies the \mathrm{(PS)_c^*} condition (see [32]), I_\lambda(-u) = I_\lambda(u) . If for almost every k\in {\bf N}, there exist \rho_k > r_k > 0 such that

    \mathrm{(i)} a_k: = \inf\limits_{u\in Z_k, \|u\| = \rho_k}I_\lambda(u)\geq 0,

    \mathrm{(ii)} b_k: = \max\limits_{u\in Y_k, \|u\| = r_k}I_\lambda(u) < 0,

    \mathrm{(iii)} b_k = \inf\limits_{u\in Z_k, \|u\| = \rho_k}I_\lambda(u)\rightarrow 0, \ \mathit{\text{as}}\ k\rightarrow \infty,

    then I_\lambda has a sequence of negative critical values converging 0 .

    Proof of Theorem 1.1. For I_\lambda^{\pm}, we first demonstrate that the existence of local minimum v_{\pm} with I_\lambda^{\pm}(v_{\pm}) < 0 . We only prove the case of I_\lambda^+. The arguments for the case of I_\lambda^- are similar.

    For \rho determined in Lemma 2.4, we write

    \bar{B}(\rho) = \{u\in E, \ \|u\|\leq \rho\}, \ \ \partial B(\rho) = \{u\in E, \ \|u\| = \rho\}.

    Then \bar{B}(\rho) is a complete metric space with the distance

    \text{dist}(u, v) = \|u-v\|, \quad \forall u, v\in \bar{B}(\rho).

    From Lemma 2.4, we have for 0 < \lambda < \Lambda^*,

    I_\lambda^+(u)|_{\partial B(\rho)}\geq \alpha > 0.

    Furthermore, we know that I_\lambda^+\in C^1(\bar{B}(\rho), \mathbb{R}), hence I_\lambda^+ is lower semi-continuous and bounded from below on \bar{B}(\rho) . Set

    c_1^* = \inf\{ I_\lambda^+(u), u\in \bar{B}(\rho)\}.

    Taking \tilde{\phi}\in C_0^\infty (\Omega) with \tilde{\phi} > 0, and for t > 0 , we get

    \begin{eqnarray*} I_\lambda^+(t\tilde{\phi})& = &\frac{t^2}{2}\|\tilde{\phi}\|^2-\frac{\lambda t^s}{s}\int_\Omega a(x) |\tilde{\phi}|^s dx -\int_\Omega{F^+(x, t\tilde{\phi})}dx\\ &\leq& \frac{t^2}{2}\|\tilde{\phi}\|^2-\frac{\lambda t^s}{s}\int_\Omega a(x) |\tilde{\phi}|^s dx\\ & < & 0, \end{eqnarray*}

    for all t > 0 small enough. Hence, c_1^* < 0 .

    Since Ekeland's variational principle and Lemma 2.4, for any m > 1 , there exists u_m with \|u_m\| < \rho such that

    I_\lambda^+(u_m)\rightarrow c_1^*, \quad I_\lambda^{+'}(u_m)\rightarrow 0.

    Hence, there exists a subsequence still denoted by \{u_m\} such that

    u_m\rightarrow v_+, \quad I_\lambda^{+'}(v_+) = 0.

    Thus v_+ is a weak solution of problem (1.1) and I_\lambda^+(v_+) < 0 . In addition, from the maximum principle, we know v_+ > 0 . By a similar way, we obtain a negative solution v_- with I_\lambda^-(v_-) < 0 .

    On the other hand, from Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4, the functional I_\lambda^+ has a mountain pass-type critical point u_+ with I_\lambda^+(u_+) > 0. Again using the maximum principle, we have u_+ > 0 . Hence, u_+ is a positive weak solution of problem (1.1). Similarly, we also obtain a negative mountain pass-type critical point u_- for the functional I_\lambda^- . Thus, we have proved that problem (1.1) has four different nontrivial solutions. Next, our method to obtain the fifth solution follows the idea developed in [33] for problem (1.1). We can assume that v_+ and v_- are isolated local minima of I_\lambda . Let us denote by b_\lambda the mountain pass critical level of I_\lambda with base points v_+, v_-:

    b_\lambda = \inf\limits_{\gamma\in \Gamma}\max\limits_{0\leq t\leq1}I_\lambda(\gamma(t)),

    where \Gamma = \{\gamma\in C([0, 1], E), \gamma(0) = v_+, \gamma(1) = v_-\} . We will show that b_\lambda < 0 if \lambda is small enough. To this end, we regard

    I_\lambda(tv_{\pm}) = \frac{t^2}{2}\|v_{\pm}\|^2-\frac{\lambda t^s}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|v_{\pm}|^sdx-\int_\Omega F(x, tv_{\pm})dx.

    We claim that there exists \delta > 0 such that

    \begin{equation} I_\lambda(tv_{\pm}) < 0, \ \forall t\in (0, 1), \ \forall \lambda\in (0, \delta). \end{equation} (3.1)

    If not, we have t_0\in (0, 1) such that I_\lambda(t_0v_{\pm})\geq 0 for \lambda small enough. Similarly, we also have I_\lambda(tv_{\pm}) < 0 for t > 0 small enough. Let \rho_0 = t_0\|v_{\pm}\| and \check{c}_*^{\pm} = \inf \{I_\lambda^{\pm}(u), u\in \bar{B}(\rho_0)\}. Since previous arguments, we obtain a solution v_{\pm}^* such that I_\lambda(v_{\pm}^*) < 0, a contradiction. Hence, (3.1) holds.

    Now, let us consider the 2 -dimensional plane \Pi_2 containing the straightlines tv_- and tv_+ , and take v\in \Pi_2 with \|v\| = \epsilon. Note that for such v one has \|v\|_s = c_s\epsilon. Then we get

    I_\lambda(v)\leq \frac{\epsilon^2}{2}-\frac{\lambda}{s}c_s^sh_0\epsilon^s.

    Thus, for small \epsilon ,

    \begin{equation} I_\lambda(v) < 0. \end{equation} (3.2)

    Consider the path \bar{\gamma} obtained gluing together the segments \{tv_-:\epsilon \|v_-\|^{-1}\leq t\leq 1\}, \{tv_+:\epsilon \|v_+\|^{-1}\leq t\leq 1\} and the arc \{v\in \Pi_2: \|v\| = \epsilon\} . by (3.1)and (3.2), we get

    b_\lambda\leq \max\limits_{v\in \bar{\gamma}}I_\lambda(v) < 0,

    which verifies the claim. Since the (PS) condition holds because of Lemma 2.3, the level \{I_\lambda(v) = b_\lambda\} carries a critical point v_3 of I_\lambda , and v_3 is different from v_{\pm} .

    Proof of Theorem 1.2. We first use the symmetric mountain pass theorem to prove the case of a) . It follows from our assumptions that the functional I_\lambda is even. Since the condition (SCP), we know that (I_1') of Theorem 9.12 in [30] holds. Furthermore, by condition (H_3) , we easily verify that (I_2') of Theorem 9.12 also holds. Hence, by Lemma 2.7, our theorem is proved.

    Next we use the dual fountain theorem (Lemma 2.10) to prove the case of b) . Since Lemma 2.7, we know that the functional I_\lambda satisfies \mathrm{(PS)_c^*} condition. Next, we just need to prove the conditions (ⅰ)-(ⅲ) of Lemma 2.10.

    First, we verify (ⅰ) of Lemma 2.10. Define

    \beta_k: = \sup\limits_{u\in Z_k, \|u\| = 1}\|u\|_s.

    From the conditions (SCP) and (H_2) , we get, for u\in Z_k, \|u\|\leq R,

    \begin{align} I_\lambda(u)&\geq \frac{\|u\|^2}{2}-\lambda \beta_k^s\frac{\|u\|^s}{s}-\frac{f_0+\epsilon}{2}\|u\|_2^2-c_6\|u\|^q\\ &\geq \frac{1}{4}(1-\frac{f_0+\epsilon}{\mu_1})\|u\|^2-\lambda \beta_k^s\frac{\|u\|^s}{s}. \end{align} (3.3)

    Here, R is a positive constant and \epsilon > 0 small enough. We take \rho_k = (4\mu_1\lambda \beta_k^s/[(\mu_1-f_0-\epsilon)s])^{\frac{1}{2-s}}. Since \beta_k\rightarrow 0, k\rightarrow \infty, it follows that \rho_k\rightarrow 0, k\rightarrow \infty. There exists k_0 such that \rho_k\leq R when k\geq k_0 . Thus, for k\geq k_0, u\in Z_k and \|u\| = \rho_k, we have I_\lambda(u)\geq 0 and (ⅰ) holds. The verification of (ⅱ) and (ⅲ) is standard, we omit it here.

    Proof of Theorem 1.3. According to our assumptions, similar to previous section of the proof of Theorem 1.1, we obtain that the existence of local minimum v_{\pm} with I_\lambda^{\pm}(v_{\pm}) < 0 . In addition, by Lemmas 2.5 and 2.6, for I_\lambda^{\pm} , we obtain two mountain pass type critical points u_+ and u_- with positive energy. Similar to the last section of the proof of Theorem 1.1, we can also get another solution u_3 , which is different from v_{\pm} and u_{\pm} . Thus, this proof is completed.

    Proof of Theorem 1.4. We first use the symmetric mountain pass theorem to prove the case of a) . It follows from our assumptions that the functional I_\lambda is even. Since the condition (SCE), we know that (I_1') of Theorem 9.12 in [30] holds. In fact, similar to the proof of (ⅰ) of Lemma 2.5, we can conclude it. Furthermore, by condition (H_3) , we easily verify that (I_2') of Theorem 9.12 also holds. Hence, by Lemma 2.8, our theorem is proved.

    Next we use the dual fountain theorem (Lemma 2.10) to prove the case of b) . Since Lemma 2.8, we know that the functional I_\lambda satisfies \mathrm{(PS)_c^*} condition. Next, we just need to prove the conditions (ⅰ)-(ⅲ) of Lemma 2.10.

    First, we verify (ⅰ) of Lemma 2.10. Define

    \beta_k: = \sup\limits_{u\in Z_k, \|u\| = 1}\|u\|_s.

    From the conditions (SCE), (H_2) and Lemma 2.2, we get, for u\in Z_k, \|u\|\leq R,

    \begin{align} I_\lambda(u)&\geq \frac{\|u\|^2}{2}-\lambda \beta_k^s\frac{\|u\|^s}{s}-\frac{f_0+\epsilon}{2}\|u\|_2^2-c_7\|u\|^q\\ &\geq \frac{1}{4}(1-\frac{f_0+\epsilon}{\mu_1})\|u\|^2-\lambda \beta_k^s\frac{\|u\|^s}{s}. \end{align} (3.4)

    Here, R is a positive constant small enough and \epsilon > 0 small enough. We take \rho_k = (4\mu_1\lambda \beta_k^s/[(\mu_1-f_0-\epsilon)s])^{\frac{1}{2-s}}. Since \beta_k\rightarrow 0, k\rightarrow \infty, it follows that \rho_k\rightarrow 0, k\rightarrow \infty. There exists k_0 such that \rho_k\leq R when k\geq k_0 . Thus, for k\geq k_0, u\in Z_k and \|u\| = \rho_k, we have I_\lambda(u)\geq 0 and (ⅰ) holds. The verification of (ⅱ) and (ⅲ) is standard, we omit it here.

    Proof of Theorem 1.5. According to our assumptions, similar to previous section of the proof of Theorem 1.1, we obtain that the existence of local minimum v_{\pm} with I_\lambda^{\pm}(v_{\pm}) < 0 . Now, we show that I_\lambda^+ has a positive mountain pass type critical point. Since Lemmas 2.5 and 2.9, then there exists a \mathrm{(C)_{c_M}} sequence \{u_n\} at the level 0 < c_M\leq \frac{16\pi^2}{\alpha_0} . Similar to previous section of the proof of Lemma 2.6, we can prove that \mathrm{(C)_{c_M}} sequence \{u_n\} is bounded in E . Without loss of generality, we can suppose that

    u_n\rightharpoonup u_+\; \; \text{in}\; E.

    Following the proof of Lemma 4 in [9], we can imply that u_+ is weak of problem (1.1). So the theorem is proved if u_+ is not trivial. However, we can get this due to our technical assumption (H_5) . Indeed, assume u_+ = 0 , similarly as in [9], we obtain f^+(x, u_n)\rightarrow 0 in L^1(\Omega) . Since (H_5), F^+(x, u_n)\rightarrow 0 in L^1(\Omega) and we get

    \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\|u_n\|^{2} = 2c_M < \frac{32\pi^2}{\alpha_0} ,

    and again following the proof in [9], we get a contradiction.

    We claim that v_+ and u_+ are distinct. Since the previous proof, we know that there exist sequence \{u_n\} and \{v_n\} in E such that

    \begin{equation} u_n\rightarrow v_+, \ I_\lambda^+(u_n)\rightarrow c_*^+ < 0, \ \langle I_\lambda^{+'}(u_n), u_n\rangle\rightarrow 0, \end{equation} (3.5)

    and

    \begin{equation} v_n\rightharpoonup u_+, \ I_\lambda^+(v_n)\rightarrow c_M > 0, \ \langle I_\lambda^{+'}(v_n), v_n\rangle\rightarrow 0. \end{equation} (3.6)

    Now, argue by contradiction that v_+ = u_+. Since we also have v_n\rightharpoonup v_+ in E , up to subsequence, \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\|v_n\|\geq \|v_+\| > 0. Setting

    w_n = \frac{v_n}{\|v_n\|}, \ \ w_0 = \frac{v_+}{\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\|v_n\|},

    we know that \|w_n\| = 1 and w_n\rightharpoonup w_0 in E .

    Now, we consider two possibilities:

    \mathrm{ (i)} \ \|w_0\| = 1, \quad \mathrm{(ii)}\ \|w_0\| < 1.

    If (ⅰ) happens, we have v_n\rightarrow v_+ in E , so that I_\lambda^+(v_n)\rightarrow I_\lambda^+(v_+) = c_*^+. This is a contradiction with (3.5) and (3.6).

    Now, suppose that (ⅱ) happens. We claim that there exists \delta > 0 such that

    \begin{equation} h\alpha_0\|v_n\|^2\leq \frac{32\pi^2}{1-\|w_0\|^2}-\delta \end{equation} (3.7)

    for n large enough. In fact, by the proof of v_+ and Lemma 2.9, we get

    \begin{equation} 0 < c_M < c_*^++ \frac{16\pi^2}{\alpha_0}. \end{equation} (3.8)

    Thus, we can choose h > 1 sufficiently close to 1 and \delta > 0 such that

    h\alpha_0\|v_n\|^2\leq \frac{16\pi^2}{c_M-I_\lambda^+(v_+)}\|v_n\|^2-\delta.

    Since v_n\rightharpoonup v_+, by condition (H_5) , up to a subsequence, we conclude that

    \begin{equation} \frac{1}{2}\|v_n\|^2 = c_M+\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x) v_+^s dx +\int_\Omega F^+(x, v_+)dx+\circ (1). \end{equation} (3.9)

    Thus, for n sufficiently large we get

    \begin{equation} h\alpha_0\|v_n\|^2\leq 32\pi^2\frac{ c_M+\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x) v_+^s dx +\int_\Omega F^+(x, v_+)dx+\circ (1)}{c_M-I_\lambda^+(v_+)}-\delta. \end{equation} (3.10)

    Thus, from (3.9) and the definition of w_0 , (3.10) implies (3.7) for n large enough.

    Now, taking \tilde{h} = (h+\epsilon)\alpha_0\|v_n\|^2, it follows from (3.7) and a revised Adams inequality (see [28]), we have

    \begin{equation} \int_\Omega \exp((h+\epsilon)\alpha_0\|v_n\|^2|w_n|^2dx\leq C \end{equation} (3.11)

    for \epsilon > 0 small enough. Thus, from our assumptions and the Hölder inequality we get v_n\rightarrow v_+ and this is absurd.

    Similarly, we can find a negative mountain pass type critical point u_- which is different that v_- . Thus, the proof is completed.

    In this research, we mainly studied the existence and multiplicity of nontrivial solutions for the fourth-order elliptic Navier boundary problems with exponential growth. Our method is based on the variational methods, Resonance Theorem together with a revised Adams inequality.

    The authors would like to thank the referees for valuable comments and suggestions in improving this article. This research is supported by the NSFC (Nos. 11661070, 11764035 and 12161077), the NSF of Gansu Province (No. 22JR11RE193) and the Nonlinear mathematical physics Equation Innovation Team (No. TDJ2022-03).

    There is no conflict of interest.



    [1] W. Peng, N. L. Ma, D. Zhang, Q. Zhou, X. Yue, S. C. Khoo, et al., A review of historical and recent locust outbreaks: Links to global warming, food security and mitigation strategies, Environ. Res., 191 (2020), 110046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110046 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.110046
    [2] X. Gao, G. Li, X. Wang, S. Wang, F. Li, Y. Wang, et al., The locust plagues of the Ming and Qing dynasties in the Xiang-E-Gan region, China, Nat. Hazards, 107 (2021), 1149–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04622-y doi: 10.1007/s11069-021-04622-y
    [3] H. I. Freedman, G. S. Wolkowicz, Predator-prey systems with group defence: the paradox of enrichment revisited, Bull. Math. Biol., 48 (1986), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02462320 doi: 10.1007/BF02462320
    [4] H. I. Freedman, S. Ruan, Hopf bifurcation in three-species food chain models with group defense, Math. Biosci., 111 (1992), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-5564(92)90079-C doi: 10.1016/0025-5564(92)90079-C
    [5] J. C. Holmes, W. M. Bethel, Modification of intermediate host behaviour by parasites, Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 51 (1972), 123–149.
    [6] A. A. Salih, M. Baraibar, K. K. Mwangi, G. Artan, Climate change and locust outbreak in East Africa, Nat. Clim. Change, 10 (2020), 584–585. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0835-8 doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-0835-8
    [7] C. N. Meynard, M. Lecoq, M. P. Chapuis, C. Piou, On the relative role of climate change and management in the current desert locust outbreak in East Africa, Global. Change. Biol., 26 (2020), 3753–3755. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15137 doi: 10.1111/gcb.15137
    [8] M. L. Flint, Integrated Pest Management for Walnuts, 2nd edition, University of California, Oakland, 1987.
    [9] J. C. V. Lenteren, J. Woets, Biological and integrated pest control in greenhouses, Ann. Rev. Entomol, 33 (1988), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.33.010188.001323 doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.33.010188.001323
    [10] S. Y. Tang, Y. Tian, R. A. Cheke, Dynamic complexity of a predator-prey model for IPM with nonlinear impulsive control incorporating a regulatory factor for predator releases, Math. Model. Anal., 24 (2019), 134–154. https://doi.org/10.3846/mma.2019.010 doi: 10.3846/mma.2019.010
    [11] T. T. Yu, Y. Tian, H. J. Guo, X. Song, Dynamical analysis of an integrated pest management predator Cprey model with weak Allee effect, J. Biol. Dyn., 13 (2019), 218–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2019.1589000 doi: 10.1080/17513758.2019.1589000
    [12] B. P. Baker, T. A. Green, A. J. Loker, Biological control and integrated pest management in organic and conventional systems, Biol. Control, 140 (2020), 104095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104095 doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104095
    [13] J. C. Headley, Defining the Economic Threshold, in Pest Control Strategies for the Future, National Academy of Sciences, (1972), 100–108.
    [14] L. G. Higley, D. J. Boethel, Handbook of Soybean Insect Pests, Entomological Society of America, 1994.
    [15] L. P. Pedigo, S. H. Hutchins, L. G. Higley, Economic injury levels in theory and practice, Ann. Rev. Entomol., 31 (1986), 341–368. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.31.010186.002013 doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.31.010186.002013
    [16] Y. Tian, K. Sun, L. S. Chen, Geometric approach to the stability analysis of the periodic solution in a semi-continuous dynamic system, Int. J. Biomath., 7 (2014), 1450018. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793524514500181 doi: 10.1142/S1793524514500181
    [17] S. Y. Tang, W. H. Pang, R. A. Cheke, J. Wu, Global dynamics of a state-dependent feedback control system, Adv. Differ. Equ-Ny, 1 (2015).
    [18] B. Liu, Y. Tian, B. L. Kang, Dynamics on a Holling II predator Cprey model with state-dependent impulsive control, Int. J. Biomath., 5 (2012), 1260006. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793524512600066 doi: 10.1142/S1793524512600066
    [19] Y. Tian, S. Y. Tang, Dynamics of a density-dependent predator-prey biological system with nonlinear impulsive control, Math. Biosci. Eng., 18 (2021), 7318–7343. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2021362 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021362
    [20] I. Ullah Khan, S. Ullah, E. Bonyah, B. A. Alwan, A. Alshehri, A state-dependent impulsive nonlinear system with ratio-dependent action threshold for investigating the pest-natural enemy model, Complexity, 2022 (2022), 7903450. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7903450 doi: 10.1155/2022/7903450
    [21] V. I. Utkin, Sliding Modes and Their Applications in Variable Structure Systems, Mir Publishers, Moscow, 1994.
    [22] A. F. Filippov, Differential Equations with Discontinuous Righthand Sides, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1988.
    [23] V. I. Utkin, Sliding Modes in Control and Optimization, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.
    [24] Y. A. Kuznetsov, S. Rinaldi, A. Gragnani, One parameter bifurcations in planar Filippov systems, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos, 13 (2003), 2157–2188. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218127403007874 doi: 10.1142/S0218127403007874
    [25] W. J. Qin, S. Y. Tang, C. C. Xiang, Y. Yang, Effects of limited medical resource on a Filippov infectious disease model induced by selection pressure, Appl. Math. Comput., 283 (2016), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2016.02.042 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2016.02.042
    [26] D. Y. Wu, H. Y. Zhao, Y. Yuan, Complex dynamics of a diffusive predator-prey model with strong Allee effect and threshold harvesting, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 469 (2019), 982–1014.
    [27] Y. N. Xiao, X. X. Xu, S. Y. Tang, Sliding mode control of outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases, Bull. Math. Biol., 74 (2012), 2403–2422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-012-9758-5 doi: 10.1007/s11538-012-9758-5
    [28] W. J. Qin, X. W. Tan, X. T. Shi, J. Chen, X. Liu, Dynamics and bifurcation analysis of a Filippov predator-prey ecosystem in a seasonally fluctuating environment, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos, 29 (2019), 1950020. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218127419500202 doi: 10.1142/S0218127419500202
    [29] J. Bhattacharyya, P. T. Piiroinen, S. Banerjee, Dynamics of a Filippov predator-prey system with stage-specific intermittent harvesting, Nonlinear Dyn., 105 (2021), 1019–1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-021-06549-2 doi: 10.1007/s11071-021-06549-2
    [30] K. Enberg, Benefits of threshold strategies and age-selective harvesting in a fluctuating fish stock of Norwegian spring spawning herring Clupea harengus, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 298 (2005), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps298277 doi: 10.3354/meps298277
    [31] V. I. Utkin, J. Guldner, J. X. Shi, Sliding Model Control in Electromechanical Systems, Taylor Francis Group, London, 2009.
    [32] C. Dong, C. Xiang, W. Qin, Y. Yang, Global dynamics for a Filippov system with media effects, Math. Biosci. Eng., 19 (2022), 2835–2852. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2022130 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022130
    [33] C. Erazo, M. E. Homer, P. T. Piiroinen, M. Bernardo, Dynamic cell mapping algorithm for computing basins of attraction in planar Filippov systems, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos, 27 (2017), 1730041. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218127417300415 doi: 10.1142/S0218127417300415
    [34] J. Deng, S. Tang, H. Shu, Joint impacts of media, vaccination and treatment on an epidemic Filippov model with application to COVID-19, J. Theor. Biol., 523 (2021), 110698.
    [35] D. M. Xiao, S. R. Ruan, Codimension two bifurcations in a predator Cprey system with group defense, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos, 11 (2001), 2123–2131.
    [36] X. Hou, B. Liu, Y. Wang, Z. Zhao, Complex dynamics in a Filippov pest control model with group defense, Int. J. Biomath., 15 (2022), 2250053. https://doi.org/10.1142/S179352452250053X doi: 10.1142/S179352452250053X
    [37] R. M. Corless, G. H. Gonnet, D. E. G. Hare, D. J. Jeffrey, D. E. Knuth, On the LambertW function, Adv. Comput. Math., 5 (1996), 329–359.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Yongxiang Li, Yanyan Wang, The Existence and Uniqueness of Radial Solutions for Biharmonic Elliptic Equations in an Annulus, 2024, 13, 2075-1680, 383, 10.3390/axioms13060383
    2. Danni Zhang, Ziheng Zhang, Sign-changing Solutions for Fourth Order Elliptic Equation with Concave-convex Nonlinearities, 2024, 11, 2409-5761, 1, 10.15377/2409-5761.2024.11.1
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 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

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1897) PDF downloads(91) Cited by(1)

Figures and Tables

Figures(9)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog