AAA Abstract and Applied Analysis 1687-0409 1085-3375 Hindawi Publishing Corporation 624352 10.1155/2013/624352 624352 Research Article A Lotka-Volterra Competition Model with Cross-Diffusion Chen Wenyan Chen Ya Xu Lan Department of Mathematics Southeast University Nanjing 210018 China seu.ac.bd 2013 12 3 2013 2013 09 10 2012 24 01 2013 29 01 2013 2013 Copyright © 2013 Wenyan Chen and Ya Chen. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

A Lotka-Volterra competition model with cross-diffusions under homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition is considered, where cross-diffusions are included in such a way that the two species run away from each other because of the competition between them. Using the method of upper and lower solutions, sufficient conditions for the existence of positive solutions are provided when the cross-diffusions are sufficiently small. Furthermore, the investigation of nonexistence of positive solutions is also presented.

1. Introduction

In this paper, we deal with the following Lotka-Volterra competition model with cross-diffusions: (1)-Δ(u+αv)=u(a-u-cv),xΩ,-Δ(βu+v)=v(b-v-du),xΩ,u=v=0,xΩ, where Ω is a bounded domain in RN with smooth boundary Ω and all parameters a,b,c,d,α,β are positive constants. u and v stand for the densities of the two competitors; a and b are the intrinsic growth rates of u and v, respectively; c and d are the competitive parameters between the two species; Here α and β are referred to as cross-diffusions. Cross-diffusions express the two species run away from each other because of the competition between them. In this paper, the boundary condition is under homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition which in biologically means that the boundary is not suitable for both species and they will all die on the boundary, and this is an ideal case.

In order to describe the meaning of cross-diffusions in this model (1) from the biological point, we give the general model with intrinsic diffusion and cross-diffusion: (2)ut=div{k11(u,v)u+k12(u,v)v}+f(u,v),vt=div{k21(u,v)u+k22(u,v)v}+g(u,v), where u and v stand for the densities of the two species, intrinsic diffusion parameters k11(u,v), k22(u,v)>0, cross-diffusion parameters k12(u,v),k21(u,v), (3)Ju=-{k11(u,v)u+k12(u,v)v},Jv=-{k21(u,v)u+k22(u,v)v} can be seen as the out-flux vector of u and v at x. The cross-diffusion parameters k12(u,v),k21(u,v)0 imply that the two competitors u and v diffuse in the direction of lower contrary of their competitor to avoid each other. f(u,v),  g(u,v) are response function and in this paper the classical Logistic Type is considered and α,β0. More biological meaning of the system can be seen in .

The method of upper and lower solutions is a useful tool to study the existence of solutions of elliptic systems. However, there are many difficulties in investigating the existences of positive solutions of strongly coupled elliptic systems. Recently, by changing general strongly coupled elliptic systems into weakly coupled ones, the author in paper  gives the method to judge the solutions existence of elliptic systems by using the Schauder theorem. Furthermore, the method can be used to solve the existence of solutions of strongly coupled elliptic systems. In  Ko and Ryu investigate Lotka-Volterra prey-predator model with cross-diffusion: (4)-Δu=u(a1-u-b12v),xΩ,-DΔu-Δv=v(a2+b21u-v),xΩ,u=v=0,xΩ. Here D may be positive or negative. Using the developing method of upper and lower solutions in , the author gave a sufficient conditions for the existence of positive solutions to (4). Inspired by the paper , we investigate the existence and nonexistence of positive solutions to (1).

The main goal of this paper is to provide sufficient conditions for the existence of positive solutions to (1) when the cross-diffusions α and β are small. More precisely, we have the following theorem. Let λ1>0 be the principal eigenvalue of -Δ under homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition. It is well known that the principal eigenfunction ϕ corresponding to λ1 does not change sign in Ω and ||ϕ||=1.

Theorem 1.

If min{a-cb,b-da}>λ1, then there exist positive constants α-=α-(a,b,c,d,Ω),  β-=β-(a,b,c,d,Ω), when α<α-,  β<β-, (1) has at least one positive solution.

For α=β=0, (1) is the Lotka-Volterra competition model under homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition. In [6, 7], the authors use different methods to prove the existence of positive solutions, a sufficient condition for the existence is min{a-cb,b-da}>λ1. The conclusion implies that weakly cross-diffusion does not affect the existence of positive solution.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the existence theorem of solutions for a general class of strongly coupled elliptic systems is presented using the method of upper and lower solutions. In Section 3, sufficient conditions for the existence and nonexistence of positive solutions of (1) are investigated. Moreover, we give the corresponding results simply if the competitive system only has one cross-diffusion.

2. The Existence Theorem of Solutions for a Class of Strongly Coupled Elliptic Systems

In this section, we presented the existence theorem of solutions for a general class of strongly coupled elliptic systems: (5)-ΔA(u,v)=f1(u,v),xΩ,-ΔB(u,v)=f2(u,v),xΩ,u=v=0,xΩ. Here let A,B,f1,f2 satisfy the following hypotheses conditions.

U,V are domain in R2, (0,0)U. (A,B) is a C2 function about (u,v) from U to V, A(0,0)=B(0,0)=0, and have a continuous inverse (A*,B*)C2(V,U). Then for all (u,v)U, let (6)w=A(u,v),z=B(u,v). There exists only one (w,z)V, satisfying (7)u=A*(w,z),  v=B*(w,z).

The function A* is increasing in w and decreasing in z; B* is decreasing in w and increasing in z.

The functions f1(u,v),f2(u,v) are Lipschitz continuous in U, and there exist positive constants M1,M2 such that for all (u,v)U, the function f1(u,v)+M1A(u,v) is increasing in u; the function f2(u,v)+M2B(u,v) is increasing in v.

According to the hypothesis (H1), (5) can be rewritten as the following equal PDE equations: (8)-Δw+M1w=f1(u,v)+M1A(u,v),xΩ,-Δz+M2z=f2(u,v)+M2B(u,v),xΩ,u=A*(w,z),v=B*(w,z),xΩ,w=z=0,xΩ.

Remark 2.

According to the hypothesis (H1), (5) can also be equal to the following weakly coupled elliptic equations: (9)-Δw=f1(A*(w,z),B*(w,z)):=g1(w,z),xΩ,-Δz=f2(A*(w,z),B*(w,z)):=g2(w,z),xΩ,w=z=0,xΩ.

In its pure form, (9) is simpler than (8). However, due to the complicity of mixed functions g1(w(x),z(x)) and g2(w(x),z(x)), it is difficult to find the solutions of (9) directly. Therefore, we discuss (8).

Assume functions u-,v-,u_,v_C(Ω-),w-,z-,w_,z_Cα(Ω-)C2(Ω), the values of functions (u-,v-) and (u_,v_) are in V and the values of functions (w-,z-) and (w_,z_) are in U. To describe easily, let (10)U={uC(Ω-):u_(x)u(x)u-(x)},V={uC(Ω-):v_(x)v(x)v-(x)}.

According the definition of upper and lower solutions in  and conditions (H1)–(H3), we give the definition of upper and lower solutions of (5).

Definition 3.

A pair of functions ((u-,v-,w-,z-),(u_,v_,w_,z_)) are called upper and lower solutions of (9) provided that they satisfy the relation (u-,v-,w-,z-)(u_,v_,w_,z_), and for all (u,v)U×V, satisfy the following inequalities: (11)-Δw-+M1w-f1(u-,v)+M1A(u-,v),xΩ,-Δz-+M2z-f2(u,v-)+M2B(u,v-),xΩ,-Δw_+M1w_f1(u_,v)+M1A(u_,v),xΩ,-Δz_+M2z_f2(u,v_)+M2B(u,v_),xΩ,u-A*(w-,z_),v-B*(w_,z-),xΩ,u_A*(w_,z-),v_B*(w-,z_),xΩ,w-0w_,z-0z_,xΩ.

We can have the following conclusion from [4, Theorem 2.1].

Proposition 4.

Assume that (8) has coupled upper and lower solutions ((u-,v-,w-,z-),(u_,v_,w_,z_)), then there exists at least one solution (u,v,w,z), satisfying the relation (12)(u_,v_,w_,z_)(u,v,w,z)(u-,v-,w-,z-). Furthermore, (u,v) is the solution of (5).

Next, if u-,v-,u_,v_ satisfy (13)u-=A*(w-,z_),v-=B*(w_,z-),u_=A*(w_,z-),v_=B*(w-,z_), then (14)w-=A(u-,v_),z-=B(u_,v-),w_=A(u_,v-),z_=B(u-,v_), (11) can be rewritten as (15)-ΔA(u-,v_)+M1A(u-,v_)f1(u-,v)+M1A(u-,v),xΩ,-ΔB(u_,v-)+M2B(u_,v-)f2(u,v-)+M2B(u,v-),xΩ,-ΔA(u_,v-)+M1A(u_,v-)f1(u_,v)+M1A(u_,v),xΩ,-ΔB(u-,v_)+M2B(u-,v_)f2(u,v_)+M2B(u,v_),xΩ,A(u-,v_)0A(u_,v-),      B(u_,v-)0B(u-,v_),xΩ. Synthetically, we have the following result.

Theorem 5.

If there is a pair of functions ((u-,v-),(u_,v_)), satisfying (16)(u-,v-,A(u-,v_),B(u_,v-))(u_,v_,A(u_,v-),B(u-,v_)), and for all (u,v)U×V, (15) is satisfied, then (5) has at least one solution (u,v), satisfying the relation (u_,v_)(u,v)(u-,v-).

To make sure the upper and lower solutions reasonable, we give the following two lemmas; more details can be found in [8, 9].

Lemma 6.

If the functions u,vC1(Ω-) satisfy u|Ω=v|Ω=0,  u|Ω>0,  (u/ν)|Ω<0, ν is the outer unit normal vector of Ω, then there exists positive constant ε, such that u(x)>εv(x), for all xΩ.

For the equation: (17)-Δu=u(a-u),xΩ,u=0,xΩ.

Lemma 7.

If a>λ1, then (17) has a unique positive solution θa satisfying θaa. In addition, θa is increasing with respect to a.

3. A Lotka-Volterra Competition Model with Two Cross-Diffusions

In this section, the existence of positive solutions of (1) corresponding to α0,  β0, is investigated by applying Theorem 5 to prove Theorem 1.

Proof.

We seek some positive constants R,K,δ,R,K>λ1 sufficiently large and δ sufficiently small, Lemma 6 may guarantee the existence of θR and θK. It can be easily known from Hopf boundary lemma: (18)ϕν(x)<0,θRν(x)<0,θKν(x)<0,xΩ. Observe that min{a-cb,b-da}>λ1, using Lemma 7, we can have R,K,δ,  a<R<(b-λ1)/d,  b<K<(a-λ1)/c, satisfying the following three conditions:

δϕ(x)<θR(x),δϕ(x)<θK(x), for all xΩ;

((θR-δϕ)/ν)(x)<0,((θK-δϕ)/ν)(x)<0;

δ<min{a-λ1-cK,b-λ1-dR}.

Let M1=2R+cK,  M2=2K+dR. Using Lemma 7 again, there exist α-=α-(a,b,c,d,Ω)<1,  β-=β-(a,b,c,d,Ω)<1, for all (ρ,τ)[0,α-)×[0,β-), for all xΩ, satisfying

θR-δϕ>ρ(θK-δϕ),  θK-δϕ>τ(θR-δϕ);

(R-a)θR>ρ[M1θK-(M1+λ1)δϕ],(K-b)θK>τ[M2θR-(M2+λ1)δϕ];

(a-λ1-δ-cK)δϕ>ρ[(K+M1-θK)θK-M1δϕ];

(b-λ1-δ-dR)δϕ>τ[(R+M2-θR)θR-M2δϕ].

We will verify α-,β- satisfying Theorem 5. Suppose that (α,β)[0,α-)×[0,β-). Then we construct a pair of upper and lower solutions of the form (19)(u-,v-)=(θR,θK),(u_,v_)=(δϕ,δϕ), where δ satisfies conditions (i)–(iii). Let (20)A(u,v)=u+αv,B(u,v)=βu+v. Then (21)A*(w,z)=w-αz1-αβ,B*(w,z)=z-βw1-αβ. By simply computing, (H1) and (H2) are satisfied, where U=[0,R]×[0,K],  V=[0,R+αK]×[0,K+βR].

Note (22)f1(u,v)=u(a-u-cv),f2(u,v)=v(b-v-du). And for all (u,v)U, we have (23)[f1(u,v)+M1A(u,v)]u=a-2u-cv+M1-2R-cK+M1=0,[f2(u,v)+M2B(u,v)]v=b-2v-du+M2-2K-dR+M2=0. So (H3) is satisfied; observer that u-|Ω=v-|Ω=u_|Ω=v_|Ω=0, (u-,v-)(u_,v_) and (iv) and (15) and the boundary conditions of (16) can be checked. Therefore, if we want to obtain the existence of solutions through [4, Theorem 2.1], we should only verify for all (u,v)U×V, (24)-ΔA(u-,v_)+M1A(u-,v_)f1(u-,v)+M1A(u-,v),xΩ,-ΔB(u_,v-)+M2B(u_,v-)f2(u,v-)+M2B(u,v-),xΩ,-ΔA(u_,v-)+M1A(u_,v-)f1(u_,v)+M1A(u_,v),xΩ,-ΔB(u-,v_)+M2B(u-,v_)f2(u,v_)+M2B(u,v_),xΩ. Because f1 is decreasing in v, f2 is decreasing in u, and A(u,v) is increasing in v, B(u,v) is increasing in u, only to verify the following inequations: (25)-ΔA(u-,v_)+M1A(u-,v_)f1(u-,v_)+M1A(u-,v-),xΩ,-ΔB(u_,v-)+M2B(u_,v-)f2(u_,v-)+M2B(u-,v-),xΩ,-ΔA(u_,v-)+M1A(u_,v-)f1(u_,v-)+M1A(u_,v_),xΩ,-ΔB(u-,v_)+M2B(u-,v_)f2(u-,v_)+M2B(u_,v_),xΩ. It is easy to check (25) by (v), (vi), and (vii). So from [4, Theorem 2.1], (1) has a solution (u,v), in addition (u-,v-)(u,v)(u_,v_)>(0,0).

In the end, before investigating the nonexistence of positive solutions of (1), we give its priori bound of positive solutions.

Theorem 8.

Any positive solutions (u,v) of (1) have a priori bound; that is (26)u(x)bd,v(x)ac.

Proof.

Let w=u+αv,z=βu+v; then (27)u=w-αz1-αβ,v=z-βw1-αβ. Equation (1) can be rewritten as (28)-Δw=w-αz1-αβ(a-w-αz1-αβ-cz-βw1-αβ),xΩ,-Δz=z-βw1-αβ(b-z-βw1-αβ-dw-αz1-αβ),xΩ,(w,z)=(0,0),xΩ. Since (u,v)>(0,0), it easily follows that w-αz>0,  z-βw>0. Assume that z(x) attains its positive maximum at x0Ω, then (29)a(1-αβ)-w(x0)+αz(x0)-cz(x0)+cβw(x0)>0a(1-αβ)-cz(x0)+cβαz(x0)>0,z(x)z(x0)ac so that (30)v=z-βuz(x0)ac. Similarly, we can obtain the desired result (31)ubd.

Theorem 9.

If one of the following conditions:

bad,λ1(b+cβ(b/d))/(1-αβ);

(1-(α+β)/2)λ1max{a,b};

is satisfied, then (1) with α<α-,β<β- has no positive solution.

Proof.

Multiplying u and v to the first and second equations in (1), and integrating these equations on Ω, we have (32)Ω|u|2dx+αΩuvdx=Ωu2(a-u-cv)dx,αΩ|v|2dx+Ωuvdx=Ωuv(a-u-cv)dx,βΩ|u|2dx+Ωuvdx=Ωuv(b-v-du)dx,Ω|v|2dx+βΩuvdx=Ωv2(b-v-du)dx.

(i) Suppose, by contradiction that (1) has a positive solution (u,v), then the second and fourth equations in (32) yield (33)Ωv3dx+βΩuv(a-u)dx=-(1-αβ)Ω|v|2dx+βΩcuv2dx+Ωv2(b-du)dx. Since ub/d by Theorem 8, the left-hand side of (33) must be positive. On the other hand, the Poincare inequality, vL22λ1vL22, for vW21(Ω) and the given assumption shows the following contradiction: (34)-(1-αβ)Ω|v|2dx+βΩcuv2dx+Ωv2(b-du)dx-[(1-αβ)λ1-cβbd-b]Ωv2dx0.

(ii) A contraction argument is also used assuming that (1) has a positive solution (u,v). Adding the first equation to the fourth equation, and then subtracting aΩu2dx+bΩv2dx from the both sides, the following identity is obtained: (35)Ω|u|2dx+(α+β)Ωuvdx+Ω|v|2dx-aΩu2dx-bΩv2dx=-Ωu2(u+cv)dx-Ωv2(v+du)dx. Since 2uv=|(u+v)|2-|u|2-|v|2 and (1-(α+β)/2)λ1max{a,b}, the Poincare inequality shows that the left-hand side of (35) must be nonnegative, more precisely, (36)Ω|u|2dx+(α+β)Ωuvdx+Ω|v|2dx-aΩu2dx-bΩv2dx=(1-α+β2)Ω|u|2dx+α+β2Ω|(u+v)|2dx+(1-α+β2)Ω|v|2dx-aΩu2dx-bΩv2dx[(1-α+β2)λ1-a]Ωu2dx+α+β2·Ω|(u+v)|2dx+[(1-α+β2)λ1-b]Ωv2dx[(1-α+β2)λ1-a]Ωu2dx+[(1-α+β2)λ1-b]Ωv2dx0. However, this results in a contradiction since the right-hand side of (35) is clearly strictly negative by the positivity of u and v.

Remark 10.

Before closing this section, more sufficient conditions of the nonexistence of positive solutions of (1) with α+β>0, αβ=0 are investigated. Take α=0,  β>0 for example, then (1) may be reduced as (37)-Δu=u(a-u-cv),xΩ,-Δ(βu+v)=v(b-v-du),xΩ,(u,v)=(0,0),xΩ. Using the same method, we can obtain that (37) has no positive solution, if one of the following conditions is satisfied:

λ1b+βca;

λ1a;

(1-β/2)λ1max{a,b};

c<1<a/b and (1-d)/βλ1/(b+βa)1.

Lou Y. Ni W.-M. Diffusion, self-diffusion and cross-diffusion Journal of Differential Equations 1996 131 1 79 131 10.1006/jdeq.1996.0157 MR1415047 ZBL0867.35032 Ling Z. Pedersen M. Coexistence of two species in a strongly coupled cooperative model Mathematical and Computer Modelling 2007 45 3-4 371 377 10.1016/j.mcm.2006.05.011 MR2284950 ZBL1173.35711 Lou Y. Ni W.-M. Diffusion vs cross-diffusion: an elliptic approach Journal of Differential Equations 1999 154 1 157 190 10.1006/jdeq.1998.3559 MR1685622 ZBL0934.35040 Pao C. V. Strongly coupled elliptic systems and applications to Lotka-Volterra models with cross-diffusion Nonlinear Analysis. Theory, Methods & Applications A 2005 60 7 1197 1217 10.1016/j.na.2004.10.008 MR2112950 ZBL1074.35034 Ko W. Ryu K. On a predator-prey system with cross diffusion representing the tendency of predators in the presence of prey species Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2008 341 2 1133 1142 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.11.018 MR2398275 ZBL1160.35021 Leung A. Equilibria and stabilities for competing-species reaction-diffusion equations with Dirichlet boundary data Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 1980 73 1 204 218 10.1016/0022-247X(80)90028-1 MR560943 ZBL0427.35011 Lakoš N. Existence of steady-state solutions for a one-predator—two-prey system SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis 1990 21 3 647 659 10.1137/0521034 MR1046793 ZBL0705.92019 Li L. Coexistence theorems of steady states for predator-prey interacting systems Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 1988 305 1 143 166 10.2307/2001045 MR920151 ZBL0655.35021 Pao C. V. Nonlinear Parabolic and Elliptic Equations 1992 New York, NY, USA Plenum Press MR1212084