This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Stability, bifurcation and spikes of stationary solutions in a chemotaxis system with singular sensitivity and logistic source

Halil Ibrahim Kurt
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Auburn University
Auburn, AL 36849, USA

Wenxian Shen
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Auburn University
Auburn, AL 36849, USA

and
Shuwen Xue
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115, USA
Abstract

In the current paper, we study stability, bifurcation, and spikes of positive stationary solutions of the following parabolic-elliptic chemotaxis system with singular sensitivity and logistic source,

{ut=uxxχ(uvvx)x+u(abu),0<x<L,t>0,0=vxxμv+νu,0<x<L,t>0ux(t,0)=ux(t,L)=vx(t,0)=vx(t,L)=0,t>0,\begin{cases}u_{t}=u_{xx}-\chi(\frac{u}{v}v_{x})_{x}+u(a-bu),&0<x<L,\,t>0,\cr 0=v_{xx}-\mu v+\nu u,&0<x<L,\,t>0\cr u_{x}(t,0)=u_{x}(t,L)=v_{x}(t,0)=v_{x}(t,L)=0,&t>0,\cr\end{cases} (0.1)

where χ\chi, aa, bb, μ\mu, ν\nu are positive constants. Among others, we prove there are χ>0\chi^{*}>0 and {χk}[χ,)\{\chi_{k}^{*}\}\subset[\chi^{*},\infty) (χ{χk}\chi^{*}\in\{\chi_{k}^{*}\}) such that the constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) of (0.1) is locally stable when 0<χ<χ0<\chi<\chi^{*} and is unstable when χ>χ\chi>\chi^{*}, and under some generic condition, for each k1k\geq 1, a (local) branch of non-constant stationary solutions of (0.1) bifurcates from (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) when χ\chi passes through χk\chi_{k}^{*}, and global extension of the local bifurcation branch is obtained. We also prove that any sequence of non-constant positive stationary solutions {(u(;χn),v(;χn))}\{(u(\cdot;\chi_{n}),v(\cdot;\chi_{n}))\} of (0.1) with χ=χn()\chi=\chi_{n}(\to\infty) develops spikes at any xx^{*} satisfying lim infnu(x;χn)>ab\liminf_{n\to\infty}u(x^{*};\chi_{n})>\frac{a}{b}. Some numerical analysis is carried out. It is observed numerically that the local bifurcation branch bifurcating from (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*} can be extended to χ=\chi=\infty and the stationary solutions on this global bifurcation extension are locally stable when χ1\chi\gg 1 and develop spikes as χ\chi\to\infty.

Keywords: Chemotaxis, singular sensitivity, logistic source, stationary solutions, stability, local bifurcation, global bifurcation, spikes.

Mathematics Subject Classification. 35B20, 35B32, 35B40, 35Q92, 92C17, 92D25.

1 Introduction

The current paper is devoted to the study of stability, bifurcation, and spikes of positive stationary solutions of the following parabolic-elliptic chemotaxis system with singular sensitivity and logistic source on a bounded interval [0,L][0,L] complemented with Neumann boundary condition,

{ut=uxxχ(uvvx)x+u(abu),0<x<L0=vxxμv+νu,0<x<Lux(t,0)=ux(t,L)=vx(t,0)=vx(t,L)=0,\begin{cases}u_{t}=u_{xx}-\chi(\frac{u}{v}v_{x})_{x}+u(a-bu),&0<x<L\cr 0=v_{xx}-\mu v+\nu u,&0<x<L\cr u_{x}(t,0)=u_{x}(t,L)=v_{x}(t,0)=v_{x}(t,L)=0,\end{cases} (1.1)

where u(t,x)u(t,x) and v(t,x)v(t,x) represent the cellular density and chemical concentration at time tt and location xx, χ>0\chi>0 is the chemotaxis sensitivity coefficient, a>0a>0 is the growth rate of the cell population, b>0b>0 is the self-limitation rate of the cell population, μ>0\mu>0 represents the degradation rate of the chemical signal substance and ν>0\nu>0 is the production rate of the chemical signal substance by the cell population.

Chemotaxis models are used to describe the movements of cells or living organisms in response to gradients of some chemical substances. Various chemotaxis systems, also known as Keller-Segel systems, have been widely studied since the pioneering works [16, 17] by Keller and Segel at the beginning of 1970s on the mathematical modeling of the aggregation process of Dictyostelium discoideum.

Consider the following parabolic-elliptic chemotaxis system with singular sensitivity and logistic source in general dimensional setting,

{ut=Δuχ(uvv)+u(abu),xΩ0=Δvμv+νu,xΩun=vn=0,xΩ,\begin{cases}u_{t}=\Delta u-\chi\nabla\cdot(\frac{u}{v}\nabla v)+u(a-bu),\quad&x\in\Omega\cr 0=\Delta v-\mu v+\nu u,\quad&x\in\Omega\cr\frac{\partial u}{\partial n}=\frac{\partial v}{\partial n}=0,\quad&x\in\partial\Omega,\end{cases} (1.2)

where ΩN\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{N} is a bounded smooth domain, and χ,μ\chi,\mu and ν\nu are positive constants, and a,ba,b are nonnegative constants. A considerable amount of research has been carried out on the global existence and boundedness of positive classical solutions of (1.2).

For example, in the case that a=b=0a=b=0 and μ=ν=1\mu=\nu=1, Biler in [3] proved the global existence of positive solutions of (1.2) when χ1\chi\leq 1 and N=2N=2, or χ<2/N\chi<2/N and N2N\geq 2. Fujie, Winkler, and Yokota in [11] proved the boundedness of globally defined positive solutions of (1.2) when χ<2N\chi<\frac{2}{N} and N2N\geq 2. Fujie and Senba in [9] proved the global existence and boundedness of classical positive solutions of (1.2) for the case of N=2N=2 for any χ>0\chi>0.

In the case that aa and bb are positive constants, when N=2,N=2, Fujie, Winkler, and Yokota in [10] proved that finite-time blow-up does not occur in (1.2), and moreover, if

a>{μχ24if 0<χ2μ(χ1)if χ>2,a>\begin{cases}\frac{\mu\chi^{2}}{4}&\text{if $0<\chi\leq 2$}\\ \mu(\chi-1)&\text{if $\chi>2$},\end{cases} (1.3)

then any globally defined positive solution of (1.2) is bounded. Furthermore, Cao et al. in [5] proved that, if

a>2(χ+11)2+χ216η|Ω|a>2(\sqrt{\chi+1}-1)^{2}+\frac{\chi^{2}}{16\eta|\Omega|}

with the constant η\eta depending on Ω\Omega, then for any nonnegative initial data u0C(Ω¯)u_{0}\in C(\bar{\Omega}), where

C(Ω¯):={u|uiscontinuousonΩ¯},C(\bar{\Omega}):=\{u\,|\,u{\rm\,\ is\,\ continuous\,\ on\,\ \bar{\Omega}}\}, (1.4)

and u00u_{0}\not\equiv 0 satisfying that Ωu01<16ηb|Ω|2/χ2\int_{\Omega}u_{0}^{-1}<16\eta b|\Omega|^{2}/\chi^{2}, the globally defined positive solution of (1.2) converges to (ab,νμab)\big{(}\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}\big{)} as tt\to\infty exponentially (see [5, Theorem 1] for details).

Let

C+(Ω¯):={uC(Ω¯)|u(x)0,Ωu(x)𝑑x>0}.C^{+}(\bar{\Omega}):=\{u\in C(\bar{\Omega})\,|\,u(x)\geq 0,\,\,\int_{\Omega}u(x)dx>0\}. (1.5)

Recently, Kurt and Shen proved in [22] that classical solutions of (1.2) with initial functions u0C+(Ω¯)u_{0}\in C^{+}(\bar{\Omega}) exist globally and stay bounded as time evolves, provided that u0u_{0} is not too small and aa is large relative to χ\chi (see [22, Theorem 1.2(3)]), which is an interesting biological phenomenon. Moreover, some qualitative properties of (1.2) have been obtained in [23]. For example, assuming that aa is large relative to χ\chi, it is shown in [23] that any globally defined positive solution of (1.2) is bounded above and below eventually by some positive constants independent of its initial functions provided that they are not too small.

There are still many interesting dynamical issues to be studied for (1.2). For example, whether any globally defined positive solution of (1.2) is bounded without the assumption that aa is large relative to χ\chi; whether chemotaxis induces non-constant positive stationary solutions and if so, what about the stability of non-constant positive stationary solutions and whether non-constant stationary solutions develop spikes as χ\chi\to\infty, etc. Some of those issues are strongly related to the stability and bifurcation of stationary solutions of (1.2).

There are many works on bifurcation and spikes of stationary solutions of various chemotaxis models. For example, local and global bifurcation of constant positive stationary solutions and existence of spiky steady states for chemotaxis models with certain regular sensitivity and with or without logistic source are studied in [15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 31, 32], etc. In particular, consider the following chemotaxis system with regular sensitivity and logistic source,

{ut=uxxχ(uvx)x+u(abu),0<x<L0=vxxμv+νu,0<x<Lux(t,0)=ux(t,L)=vx(t,0)=vx(t,L)=0.\begin{cases}u_{t}=u_{xx}-\chi(uv_{x})_{x}+u(a-bu),&0<x<L\cr 0=v_{xx}-\mu v+\nu u,&0<x<L\cr u_{x}(t,0)=u_{x}(t,L)=v_{x}(t,0)=v_{x}(t,L)=0.\end{cases} (1.6)

The authors of [20] proved the existence of single boundary spikes to (1.6) when χ\chi is sufficiently large via the standard Lyapunov–Schmidt reduction. Among others, the authors of [31] carried out bifurcation analysis on (1.6) and obtained the explicit formulas of bifurcation values and small amplitude nonconstant positive solutions.

There are also some studies on bifurcation and spikes of stationary solutions of chemotaxis models with singular sensitivity but without logistic source. For example, in [24] and [34], local and global bifurcation of positive constant solutions and existence of spiky steady states are studied for parabolic-parabolic chemotaxis models with singular sensitivity and without logistic source. It is shown in [24] that positive monotone steady states exist as long as χ\chi is larger than the first bifurcation value χ\chi^{*}, and that the cell density function forms a spike. The results in [24] apply to (1.1) with a=b=0a=b=0. The paper [6] investigated the existence and nonlinear stability of boundary spike-layer solutions of a chemotaxis-consumption type system with logarithmic singular sensitivity in the half space, where the physical zero-flux and Dirichlet boundary conditions are prescribed.

However, there is little study on bifurcations and spiky solutions of (1.1) with a,b>0a,b>0. Bifurcation analysis of (1.1) with a,b>0a,b>0 is of great importance in several aspects. For example, it will show what types of bifurcations may occur in (1.1) as χ\chi changes and what types of spiky patterns may be developed in (1.1) as χ\chi\to\infty. It will discover some intrinsic similarity and/or difference between the singular and regular chemotaxis sensitivities. Note that, considering (1.2), for a positive classical solution (u(t,x),v(t,x))(u(t,x),v(t,x)) to exist globally and stay bounded, it requires that u(t,x)u(t,x) does not become arbitrarily large and v(t,x)v(t,x) (equivalently, u(t,x)u(t,x)) does not become arbitrarily small on any finite time interval. Consider the following chemotaxis model with regular sensitivity,

{ut=Δuχ(uv)+u(abu),xΩ0=Δvμv+νu,xΩun=vn=0,xΩ.\begin{cases}u_{t}=\Delta u-\chi\nabla\cdot(u\nabla v)+u(a-bu),\quad&x\in\Omega\cr 0=\Delta v-\mu v+\nu u,\quad&x\in\Omega\cr\frac{\partial u}{\partial n}=\frac{\partial v}{\partial n}=0,\quad&x\in\partial\Omega.\end{cases} (1.7)

For a positive classical solution (u(t,x),v(t,x))(u(t,x),v(t,x)) of (1.7) to exist globally and stay bounded, it only requires that u(t,x)u(t,x) does not become arbitrarily large on any finite time interval. It is of great interest to explore intrinsic similarity and difference between singular and regular chemotaxis sensitivity via various analysis.

In this paper, we carry out some bifurcation analysis of (1.1) and some relevant study on stationary solutions of (1.1). In particular, we study the local stability and instability of the positive constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) of (1.1); bifurcation solutions of (1.1) from the positive constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}); properties of non-constant positive stationary solutions; spikes developed by non-constant positive stationary solutions. Among others, we obtain the following results:

  • (i)

    There is χ:=χ(a,μ)>0\chi^{*}:=\chi^{*}(a,\mu)>0 depending only on aa and μ\mu such that when 0<χ<χ0<\chi<\chi^{*}, the positive constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) of (1.1) is locally exponentially stable with respect to small perturbations in C([0,L])C([0,L]), and when χ>χ\chi>\chi^{*}, (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) is unstable (see Theorem 2.1).

  • (ii)

    There are χk:=χk(a,μ)χ\chi_{k}^{*}:=\chi_{k}^{*}(a,\mu)\geq\chi^{*} (k=1,2,k=1,2,\cdots) depending only on aa and μ\mu such that infk1χk=χk=χ\inf_{k\geq 1}\chi_{k}^{*}=\chi_{k^{*}}^{*}=\chi^{*} for some k1{k^{*}}\geq 1, χk\chi_{k}^{*} is strictly decreasing in kkk\leq{k^{*}} and strictly increasing in kkk\geq{k^{*}}, and under some generic condition, a branch of non-constant stationary solutions of (1.1), denoted by Γ~k(χ){\tilde{\Gamma}_{k}(\chi)} , bifurcates from (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) when χ\chi passes through χk\chi_{k}^{*} and χIk\chi\in I_{k}, where 0<χχk10<\chi-\chi_{k}^{*}\ll 1 or 0<χkχ10<\chi_{k}^{*}-\chi\ll 1 for χIk\chi\in I_{k} (see Theorem 3.1).

  • (iii)

    The local bifurcation branches Γ~k={(χ,Γ~k(χ))|χIk}{\tilde{\Gamma}_{k}}=\{(\chi,{\tilde{\Gamma}_{k}(\chi)})\,|\,\chi\in I_{k}\} can be extended to global branches 𝒞~k{\tilde{\mathcal{C}}_{k}} (see Theorem 4.1 for detail).

  • (iv)

    The uu-components of non-constant positive stationary solutions of (1.1) stay bounded in L2(0,L)L^{2}(0,L) and the vv-components of non-constant positive stationary solutions of (1.1) stay bounded in H2(0,L)H^{2}(0,L) as χ\chi\to\infty (see Theorem 4.3).

  • (v)

    The weak limit of the uu-components of any sequence of non-constant positive stationary solutions {(u(;χn),v(;χn))}\{(u(\cdot;\chi_{n}),v(\cdot;\chi_{n}))\} of (1.1) with χ=χn()\chi=\chi_{n}(\to\infty) is a constant lying in [0,ab][0,\frac{a}{b}] (see Theorem 4.2).

  • (vi)

    A notion of spikes is introduced (see Definition 5.1) and it is proved that any given sequence {(u(x;χn),v(x;χn))}\{(u(x;\chi_{n}),v(x;\chi_{n}))\} of non-constant positive stationary solutions of (1.1) with χ=χn()\chi=\chi_{n}(\to\infty) develops spikes as nn\to\infty at those xx^{*} satisfying that lim infnu(x;χn)>ab\liminf_{n\to\infty}u(x^{*};\chi_{n})>\frac{a}{b} (see Theorem 5.1) (hence a sequence {(u(x;χn),v(x;χn))}\{(u(x;\chi_{n}),v(x;\chi_{n}))\} of non-constant positive stationary solutions of (1.1) with χ=χn()\chi=\chi_{n}(\to\infty) can develop multiple spikes as nn\to\infty).

  • (vii)

    Several numerical simulations are carried out and it is observed numerically that the local bifurcation branch Γ~k(χ){\tilde{\Gamma}_{k^{*}}(\chi)} in (ii) extends to χ=\chi=\infty and the solutions on 𝒞~k{\tilde{\mathcal{C}}_{k^{*}}} are locally stable for χ1\chi\gg 1, stay bounded, and develop spikes as χ\chi\to\infty (see Numerical Experiment 2 in section 6 for the case a=b=μ=ν=L=1a=b=\mu=\nu=L=1, locally stable boundary spiky solutions are observed in this case, and Numerical Experiment 4 in section 6 for the case a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1, L=6L=6, locally stable spiky solutions with multiple spikes are observed in this case).

The main methods/techniques used and/or developed in this paper for the study of stability, bifurcation, and spikes of positive stationary solutions of (1.1) can be described as follows. We study local stability/instability of positive stationary solutions of (1.1) by general perturbation theory for dynamical systems/differential equations (see [12]). The investigation of local bifurcation of the constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) of (1.1) is carried out via invariant manifold theory, in particular, center manifold theory, for dynamical systems/differential equations (see [12]). We study the global extension of local bifurcation branches of (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) by the global bifurcation theory developed by Shi and Wang (see [27]). We investigate the development of spikes of non-constant positive stationary solutions of (1.1) via some important properties of positive stationary solutions of (1.1) obtained in this paper, for example, the property (v) stated in the above. This is a novel approach. The above mentioned methods/techniques would be useful for the study of bifurcation and spikes of stationary solutions in other chemotaxis models.

We would like to point out that, many people study the existence of nonconstant positive stationary solutions by applying the local bifurcation theory of Crandall-Rabinowtz (see [7]), which can also be used to study (1.1). In this paper, we employed the center manifold theory as the theoretical framework. The computations associated with this approach are elementary, and by using this method, we obtain several information simultaneously, such as the bifurcation direction and the explicit dependence of the bifurcating solutions on the parameters.

We make the following remarks on the implications of the results obtained in this paper, and some related problems, which are worthy to be studied further.

  • (a)

    Some essential difference is observed between the effects of the parameters on the dynamics of (1.1) and (1.6). For example, consider (1.1) and (1.6), and treat χ\chi as a bifurcation parameter. Let χk\chi_{k}^{*} be as in (2.6), that is,

    χk=μL2+k2π2k2π2L2k2π2+aL2μ,k=1,2,,\chi_{k}^{*}=\frac{\mu L^{2}+k^{2}\pi^{2}}{k^{2}\pi^{2}L^{2}}\cdot\frac{k^{2}\pi^{2}+aL^{2}}{\mu},\quad k=1,2,\cdots,

    and χ¯k\bar{\chi}_{k}^{*} be as in (2.10), that is,

    χ¯k=μL2+k2π2k2π2L2b(k2π2+aL2)aν,k=1,2,.{\bar{\chi}_{k}^{*}}=\frac{\mu L^{2}+k^{2}\pi^{2}}{k^{2}\pi^{2}L^{2}}\cdot\frac{b\big{(}k^{2}\pi^{2}+aL^{2}\big{)}}{a\nu},\quad k=1,2,\cdots.

    Let χ\chi^{*} and χ¯\bar{\chi}^{*} be as in (2.7) and (2.11), respectively, that is,

    χ=infk1χk,χ¯=infk1χ¯k.\chi^{*}=\inf_{k\geq 1}\chi_{k}^{*},\quad\bar{\chi}^{*}=\inf_{k\geq 1}\bar{\chi}_{k}^{*}.

    Then the constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) of (1.1) (resp. (1.6)) is locally stable when 0<χ<χ0<\chi<\chi^{*} (resp. 0<χ<χ¯0<\chi<\bar{\chi}^{*}) and unstable when χ>χ\chi>\chi^{*} (resp. χ>χ¯\chi>\bar{\chi}^{*}), and pitchfork bifurcation occurs in (1.1) (resp. (1.6)) when χ\chi passes through χk\chi_{k}^{*} (resp. χ¯k\bar{\chi}_{k}^{*}) (see (i), (ii) described in the above and [31]). Hence the larger χ\chi^{*} (resp. χ¯\bar{\chi}^{*}), the less influence of the chemotaxis on the dynamics of (1.1) (resp. (1.6)).

  • (b)

    Observe that χk\chi_{k}^{*} and χ\chi^{*} depend only on the parameters aa and μ\mu in (1.1), and χ¯k\bar{\chi}_{k}^{*} and χ¯\bar{\chi}^{*} depend on all the parameters a,b,μ,νa,b,\mu,\nu in (1.6). Hence there is some essential difference between the influence of the chemotaxis on the dynamics of (1.1) and (1.6). Mathematically, this difference is due to the following two factors: first, bb is cancelled in uv\frac{u}{v} when linearizing (1.1) at the constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}); second, ν\nu can be assumed to be 11 by changing uu to νu\nu u (after such change of variable, bb becomes bν\frac{b}{\nu}). Note that

    limaχk=,limμ0+χk=,\lim_{a\to\infty}\chi_{k}^{*}=\infty,\quad\lim_{\mu\to 0^{+}}\chi_{k}^{*}=\infty,

    and

    lima0+χ¯k=,limbχ¯k=,limν0+χ¯k=.\lim_{a\to 0^{+}}\bar{\chi}_{k}^{*}=\infty,\quad\lim_{b\to\infty}\bar{\chi}_{k}^{*}=\infty,\quad\lim_{\nu\to 0^{+}}\bar{\chi}_{k}^{*}=\infty.

    Biologically, the difference between χ\chi^{*} and χ¯\bar{\chi}^{*} can be interpreted as follows. In the chemotaxis model (1.1) with singular sensitivity, the chemotaxis has less influence on the dynamics of (1.1) if aa is large or μ\mu is small, which is natural since large aa and small μ\mu prevent vv from becoming too small as time evolves. In the chemotaxis model (1.6) with regular sensitivity, the chemotaxis has less influence on the dynamics of (1.6) if aa is small, bb is large, or ν\nu is small, which is also natural since small aa, large bb, and small ν\nu prevent vv from becoming too large as time evolves. The above intrinsic difference between singular and regular chemotaxis sensitivities resulting from the local bifurcation analysis matches in certain sense the difference between the following sufficient conditions for the global existence of positive classical solutions of (1.2) and (1.7): a positive classical solution (u(t,x),v(t,x))(u(t,x),v(t,x)) of (1.2) exists globally if aa is large relative to χ\chi and the initial distribution u(0,x)u(0,x) is not too small (see [22, Theorem 1.2(3)]), and a positive classical solution (u(t,x),v(t,x))(u(t,x),v(t,x)) of (1.7) exists globally if bb is large relative to χ\chi (see [29, Theorem 2.5]).

  • (c)

    Besides rigorous bifurcation analysis near the constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}), in this paper, we also perform some theoretical as well as numerical analysis of non-constant stationary solutions of (1.1) for χ1\chi\gg 1 and obtain several interesting results (see (iii)-(vii) described in the above). For example, it is observed that, up to a subsequence, as χn\chi_{n}\to\infty, a sequence {(u(;χn),v(;χn))}\{(u(\cdot;\chi_{n}),v(\cdot;\chi_{n}))\} of nonconstant stationary solutions of (1.1) develops spikes at any xx^{*} satisfying lim infnu(x;χn)>ab\liminf_{n\to\infty}u(x^{*};\chi_{n})>\frac{a}{b}. It is interesting to further study spiky solutions of (1.1) with χ1\chi\gg 1, for example, to derive asymptotic expansions of spiky patterns with χ1\chi\gg 1, to perform some bifurcation analysis around spiky patterns, etc. We leave such questions for future investigation. It should be pointed out that spiky patterns of logistic Keller–Segel models with regular sensitivity has been studied in [18], [20] and [21].

  • (d)

    Consider the following two parabolic-parabolic chemotaxis models

    {ut=uxxχ(uvx)x+u(abu),0<x<Lvt=vxxμv+νu,0<x<Lux(t,0)=ux(t,L)=vx(t,0)=vx(t,L)=0,\begin{cases}u_{t}=u_{xx}-\chi(uv_{x})_{x}+u(a-bu),&0<x<L\cr v_{t}=v_{xx}-\mu v+\nu u,&0<x<L\cr u_{x}(t,0)=u_{x}(t,L)=v_{x}(t,0)=v_{x}(t,L)=0,\end{cases} (1.8)
    {ut=uxxχ(uvvx)x+u(abu),0<x<Lvt=vxxμv+νu,0<x<Lux(t,0)=ux(t,L)=vx(t,0)=vx(t,L)=0.\begin{cases}u_{t}=u_{xx}-\chi(\frac{u}{v}v_{x})_{x}+u(a-bu),&0<x<L\cr v_{t}=v_{xx}-\mu v+\nu u,&0<x<L\cr u_{x}(t,0)=u_{x}(t,L)=v_{x}(t,0)=v_{x}(t,L)=0.\end{cases} (1.9)

    We want to mention that the system (1.8) has very rich spatial-temporal dynamics as demonstrated by the numerical studies in [25]. For example, the authors in [25] numerically demonstrated that the long time dynamics of solutions of (1.8) undergo homogeneous stationary solution, stationary spatial patterns in which multiple-peak patterns develop, spatial-temporal periodic solutions and spatial-temporal irregular solutions which describes a form of spatial-temporal chaos as χ\chi is increased steadily (see section 5 of [25] for details).

    Based on some numerical simulations we performed, complicated dynamics is not observed in (1.9) for various parameter sets. For example, following the same simulations performed in section 5 of [25] and using the same parameter set, we did some numerical simulations for the system (1.9). We did not observe such rich dynamics. Indeed, we only observed homogeneous stationary solution and different peak patterns depending on randomised initial conditions as χ\chi is increased steadily. Spatial-temporal periodic solutions and spatial-temporal irregular solutions are not observed in (1.9). We also used the parameter sets we used in Section 6.1 and Section 6.2 to simulate the existence of nonconstant solutions for the system (1.9). For the parameter set used in section 6.1, we observed the same phenomenon as demonstrated in section 6.1. For the parameter set in section 6.2, in addition to the phenomenon we observed in section 6.2, we also see the boundary perks. Time-dependent solutions are also not observed. The above numerical simulations indicate that the dynamics of system (1.9) is simpler than that of (1.8). It is certainly important to further explore whether (1.9) exhibits complicated dynamics or not. We also leave this question for future investigation.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is devoted to the study of the local stability and instability of the constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) of (1.1). In section 3, we study local bifurcation of (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) and stability of the local bifurcation solutions. The global extension of the local bifurcation is investigated in section 4. Several important properties of non-constant positive stationary solutions of (1.1) are also obtained in section 4. Section 5 is devoted to the study of spiky stationary solutions of (1.1). In the last section, we provide some numerical analysis on the bifurcation and spiky solutions of (1.1).

2 Local stability and instability of the positive constant solution

In this section, we analysis the local stability and instability of the positive constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) of (1.1) by general perturbation theory.

The following is the main theorem in this section.

Theorem 2.1.

There is χ=χ(a,μ)\chi^{*}=\chi^{*}(a,\mu) depending only on aa and μ\mu such that when 0<χ<χ0<\chi<\chi^{*}, the constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) of (1.1) is locally asymptotically stable with respect to perturbations in C+([0,L])C^{+}([0,L]) and when χ>χ\chi>\chi^{*}, (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) is unstable with respect to perturbations in C+([0,L])C^{+}([0,L]).

Proof.

Recall that for any u0C+([0,L)]u_{0}\in C^{+}([0,L)], (1.1) has a unique globally defined classical solution (u(t,x;u0),v(t,x;u0))(u(t,x;u_{0}),v(t,x;u_{0})) satisfying that

limt0+u(t,;u0)u0C([0,L])=0\lim_{t\to 0^{+}}\|u(t,\cdot;u_{0})-u_{0}\|_{{C([0,L])}}=0

and u(t,;u0)u(t,\cdot;u_{0}) is continuous in (t,u0)[0,)×C+([0,L])(t,u_{0})\in[0,\infty)\times C^{+}([0,L]) (see [22, Theorem 1.2]). To prove the local stability of the constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}), consider the linearized equation of (1.1) at (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) in C([0,L])C([0,L]),

{ut=uxx+(χμa)uχμ2νv,0<x<L0=vxxμv+νu,0<x<Lux(t,0)=ux(t,L)=vx(t,0)=vx(t,L)=0.\begin{cases}u_{t}=u_{xx}+(\chi\mu-a)u-\frac{\chi\mu^{2}}{\nu}v,&0<x<L\cr 0=v_{xx}-\mu v+\nu u,&0<x<L\cr u_{x}(t,0)=u_{x}(t,L)=v_{x}(t,0)=v_{x}(t,L)=0.\end{cases} (2.1)

Consider the eigenvalue problem associated with (2.1) in the space C([0,L])C([0,L]),

{uxx+(χμa)uχμ2νv=λu,0<x<L0=vxxμv+νu,0<x<Lux(0)=ux(L)=vx(0)=vx(L)=0.\begin{cases}u_{xx}+(\chi\mu-a)u-\frac{\chi\mu^{2}}{\nu}v=\lambda u,&0<x<L\cr 0=v_{xx}-\mu v+\nu u,&0<x<L\cr{u_{x}(0)=u_{x}(L)=v_{x}(0)=v_{x}(L)=0.}\end{cases} (2.2)

Let A:{uC2([0,L])|ux(0)=ux(L)=0}C([0,L])A:\{u\in C^{2}([0,L])\,|\,u_{x}(0)=u_{x}(L)=0\}\to C([0,L]) be defined by

Au=uxx+(χμa)uχμ2νv,Au=u_{xx}+(\chi\mu-a)u-\frac{\chi\mu^{2}}{\nu}v,

where vv is the unique solution of

{0=vxxμv+νu,0<x<Lvx(0)=vx(L)=0.\begin{cases}0=v_{xx}-\mu v+\nu u,\quad 0<x<L\cr v_{x}(0)=v_{x}(L)=0.\end{cases} (2.3)

Note that the spectrum of the operator AA, denoted by σ(A)\sigma(A), consists of eigenvalues of (2.2).

Suppose that λ\lambda is an eigenvalue of (2.2) and uu is a corresponding eigenfunction. Let

u=k=0ukcos(kπxL),v=k=0vkcos(kπxL).u=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}u_{k}\cos(\frac{k\pi x}{L}),\quad v=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}v_{k}\cos(\frac{k\pi x}{L}).

Then we have

k2π2L2uk+(χμa)ukχμ2k2π2L2+μuk=λuk,k=0,1,2,.-\frac{k^{2}\pi^{2}}{L^{2}}u_{k}+(\chi\mu-a)u_{k}-\frac{\chi\mu^{2}}{\frac{k^{2}\pi^{2}}{L^{2}}+\mu}u_{k}=\lambda u_{k},\quad k=0,1,2,\cdots. (2.4)

This implies that λ=λk\lambda=\lambda_{k} and u=ukcoskπxLu=u_{k}\cos\frac{k\pi x}{L} for some k+k\in\mathbb{Z}^{+} and uk{0}u_{k}\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}, where

λk(χ,a,μ):=k2π2+aL2L2+χμk2π2μL2+k2π2,k=0,1,2,.\lambda_{k}(\chi,a,\mu):=-\frac{k^{2}\pi^{2}+aL^{2}}{L^{2}}+\frac{\chi\mu k^{2}\pi^{2}}{\mu L^{2}+k^{2}\pi^{2}},\quad{k=0,1,2,\cdots}. (2.5)

It then follows that

σ(A)={λk(χ,a,μ)|k=0,1,2,}\sigma(A)=\{\lambda_{k}(\chi,a,\mu)\,|\,k=0,1,2,\cdots\}

and u=ϕk=coskπxLu=\phi_{k}=\cos\frac{k\pi x}{L} is an eigenfunction of AA associated to the eigenvalue λk(χ,a,μ)\lambda_{k}(\chi,a,\mu).

It is clear that

λ0=a<0.\lambda_{0}=-a<0.

Let

χk=μL2+k2π2k2π2L2k2π2+aL2μ,k=1,2,.\chi_{k}^{*}=\frac{\mu L^{2}+k^{2}\pi^{2}}{k^{2}\pi^{2}L^{2}}\cdot\frac{k^{2}\pi^{2}+aL^{2}}{\mu},\quad k=1,2,\cdots. (2.6)

Then

λk(χ,a,μ){<0forχ<χk=0forχ=χk>0forχ>χk\lambda_{k}(\chi,a,\mu)\begin{cases}<0&{\rm for}\,\,\chi<\chi_{k}^{*}\cr=0&{\rm for}\,\,\chi=\chi_{k}^{*}\cr>0&{\rm for}\,\,\chi>\chi_{k}^{*}\end{cases}

for k=1,2,.k=1,2,\cdots. Let

χ=infk1χk.\chi^{*}=\inf_{k\geq 1}\chi_{k}^{*}. (2.7)

Then for χ<χ\chi<\chi^{*}, all the eigenvalue of (2.2) are negative. Hence (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) is linearly exponentially stable with respect to perturbations in C([0,L])C([0,L]), where C([0,L])C([0,L]) is defined as in (1.4). By the general perturbation theory (see [12, Theorem 5.1.1]), (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) is a locally exponentially stable solution of (1.1) with respect to small perturbations in C([0,L])C([0,L]). If χ>χ\chi>\chi^{*}, then (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) is linearly unstable with respect to perturbations in C([0,L])C([0,L]). By the general perturbation theory again (see [12, Theorem 5.1.1]), (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) is an unstable solution of (1.1) with respect to small perturbations in C([0,L])C([0,L]). ∎

Remark 2.1.
  • (1)

    λk\lambda_{k} depends only on χ,a,μ\chi,a,\mu and χk\chi_{k}^{*} depends only on a,μa,\mu. Let

    h(k)=μL2+k2π2k2π2μk2π2+aL2L2.h(k)=\frac{\mu L^{2}+k^{2}\pi^{2}}{k^{2}\pi^{2}\mu}\cdot\frac{k^{2}\pi^{2}+aL^{2}}{L^{2}}.

    We have that h(k)h(k) is monotone decreasing in kk for 0<kLπ(aμ)1/40<k\leq\frac{L}{\pi}(a\mu)^{1/4} and is monotone increasing in kk for kLπ(aμ)1/4k\geq\frac{L}{\pi}(a\mu)^{1/4}. Let

    k=Lπ(aμ)1/4k_{*}=\Big{\lfloor}{\frac{L}{\pi}(a\mu)^{1/4}}\Big{\rfloor}

    be the greatest integer less than or equal to Lπ(aμ)1/4\frac{L}{\pi}(a\mu)^{1/4}. Then we have the following explicit formula for χ\chi^{*},

    χ={μL2+π2π2μπ2+aL2L2ifk=0μL2+k2π2k2π2μk2π2+aL2L2ifk1,k=Lπ(aμ)1/4min{μL2+k2π2k2π2μk2π2+aL2L2,μL2+(k+1)2π2(k+1)2π2μ(k+1)2π2+aL2L2}ifk1,kLπ(aμ)1/4.\chi^{*}=\begin{cases}\frac{\mu L^{2}+\pi^{2}}{\pi^{2}\mu}\cdot\frac{\pi^{2}+aL^{2}}{L^{2}}\quad&{\rm if}\,\,k_{*}=0\cr\cr\frac{\mu L^{2}+k_{*}^{2}\pi^{2}}{k_{*}^{2}\pi^{2}\mu}\cdot\frac{k_{*}^{2}\pi^{2}+aL^{2}}{L^{2}}\quad&{\rm if}\,\,k_{*}\geq 1,\,\,k_{*}=\frac{L}{\pi}(a\mu)^{1/4}\cr\cr\min\{\frac{\mu L^{2}+k_{*}^{2}\pi^{2}}{k_{*}^{2}\pi^{2}\mu}\cdot\frac{k_{*}^{2}\pi^{2}+aL^{2}}{L^{2}},\frac{\mu L^{2}+(k_{*}+1)^{2}\pi^{2}}{(k_{*}+1)^{2}\pi^{2}\mu}\cdot\frac{(k_{*}+1)^{2}\pi^{2}+aL^{2}}{L^{2}}\}\quad&{\rm if}\quad k_{*}\geq 1,\,\,k_{*}\not=\frac{L}{\pi}(a\mu)^{1/4}.\end{cases}

    Note that

    h(Lπ(aμ)1/4)χh(1).h\Big{(}\frac{L}{\pi}(a\mu)^{1/4}\Big{)}\leq\chi^{*}\leq h(1).

    Hence

    (1+aμ)2χ(1+aμ)2+π2μL2+aL2π2.\left(1+\sqrt{\frac{a}{\mu}}\right)^{2}\leq\chi^{*}\leq\left(1+\sqrt{\frac{a}{\mu}}\right)^{2}+\frac{\pi^{2}}{\mu L^{2}}+\frac{aL^{2}}{\pi^{2}}.
  • (2)

    kk_{*} can be any nonnegative integer by properly choosing a,μa,\mu and LL. For example, fix b=ν=1b=\nu=1, if a=μ=L=1a=\mu=L=1, then k=0k_{*}=0 and χ=χ111.9709\chi^{*}=\chi_{1}^{*}\approx 11.9709; if a=μ=1a=\mu=1 and L=6L=6, then k=1k_{*}=1 and χ=χ24.0085\chi^{*}=\chi_{2}^{*}\approx 4.0085; if a=2a=2, μ=3\mu=3, and L=6L=6, then k=2k_{*}=2 and χ=χ33.2997\chi^{*}=\chi_{3}^{*}\approx 3.2997.

Remark 2.2.
  • (1)

    It can be proved that when 0<χ10<\chi\ll 1, the constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) of (1.1) is globally asymptotically stable (see [5, Theorem 1] for details). (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) may not be globally asymptotically stable when χ<χ\chi<\chi^{*} and 0<χχ10<\chi^{*}-\chi\ll 1 (see (2) and (3) in the following).

  • (2)

    For the case a=b=μ=ν=L=1a=b=\mu=\nu=L=1, (1.1) experiences super-critical pitchfork bifurcation when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*} (see Remark 3.1 (1)). It is observed numerically that when 0<χ<χ0<\chi<\chi^{*}, the constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) of (1.1) is globally stable (see Numerical Experiment 1). But it remains open whether the constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) of (1.1) is truly globally stable for any 0<χ<χ0<\chi<\chi^{*}.

  • (3)

    For the case a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1 and L=6L=6, (1.1) experiences sub-critical pitchfork bifurcation when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*} (see Remark 3.1 (2)). It is observed numerically that when 0<χ<χ0<\chi<\chi^{*} and 0<χχ10<\chi^{*}-\chi\ll 1, there are some locally stable nonconstant positive steady-states of (1.1) and hence the constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) of (1.1) is not globally stable (see Numerical Experiment 3).

  • (4)

    For the case a=2a=2, b=ν=1b=\nu=1, μ=3\mu=3 and L=6L=6, (1.1) also experiences sub-critical pitchfork bifurcation when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*} (see Remark 3.1 (3)). It is also observed numerically that when 0<χ<χ0<\chi<\chi^{*} and 0<χχ10<\chi^{*}-\chi\ll 1, there are some locally stable nonconstant positive steady-states of (1.1) and hence the constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) of (1.1) is not globally stable (see section 6.4).

Remark 2.3.

Consider (1.6). The linearized equation of (1.6) reads as follows

{ut=uxx+(χνaba)uχμabv,0<x<L0=vxxμv+νu,0<x<Lux(t,0)=ux(t,L)=vx(t,0)=vx(t,L)=0.\begin{cases}u_{t}=u_{xx}+(\frac{\chi\nu a}{b}-a)u-\frac{\chi\mu a}{b}v,&0<x<L\cr 0=v_{xx}-\mu v+\nu u,&0<x<L\cr u_{x}(t,0)=u_{x}(t,L)=v_{x}(t,0)=v_{x}(t,L)=0.\end{cases} (2.8)

The associated eigenvalue problem to (2.8) reads as

{uxx+(χνaba)uχμabv=λu,0<x<L0=vxxμv+νu,0<x<Lux(t,0)=ux(t,L)=vx(t,0)=vx(t,L)=0.\begin{cases}u_{xx}+(\frac{\chi\nu a}{b}-a)u-\frac{\chi\mu a}{b}v=\lambda u,&0<x<L\cr 0=v_{xx}-\mu v+\nu u,&0<x<L\cr u_{x}(t,0)=u_{x}(t,L)=v_{x}(t,0)=v_{x}(t,L)=0.\end{cases} (2.9)

We have

λ¯k\displaystyle\bar{\lambda}_{k} =π2k2L2+(χνaba)χμabνμ+π2k2L2\displaystyle=-\frac{\pi^{2}k^{2}}{L^{2}}+\big{(}\frac{\chi\nu a}{b}-a\big{)}-\frac{\chi\mu a}{b}\frac{\nu}{\mu+\frac{\pi^{2}k^{2}}{L^{2}}}
=π2k2+aL2L2+χνaπ2k2b(L2μ+π2k2),k=0,1,2,\displaystyle=-\frac{\pi^{2}k^{2}+aL^{2}}{L^{2}}+\frac{\chi\nu a\pi^{2}k^{2}}{b(L^{2}\mu+\pi^{2}k^{2})},\quad{k=0,1,2,\cdots}

is an algebraic simple eigenvalue with coskπxL\cos\frac{k\pi x}{L} being a corresponding eigenfunction. Note that λ¯0=a\bar{\lambda}_{0}=-a. Let

χ¯k=μL2+k2π2k2π2L2b(k2π2+aL2)aν,k=1,2,{\bar{\chi}_{k}^{*}}=\frac{\mu L^{2}+k^{2}\pi^{2}}{k^{2}\pi^{2}L^{2}}\cdot\frac{b\big{(}k^{2}\pi^{2}+aL^{2}\big{)}}{a\nu},\quad k=1,2,\cdots (2.10)

and

χ¯=infk1χ¯k.\bar{\chi}^{*}=\inf_{k\geq 1}{\bar{\chi}_{k}^{*}}. (2.11)

Then the constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) is locally asymptotically stable when 0<χ<χ¯0<\chi<\bar{\chi}^{*} and unstable when χ>χ¯\chi>\bar{\chi}^{*}. Detailed bifurcation analysis of (1.6) can be seen in [31] over a one-dimensional bounded region and [14] over a multidimensional bounded domain. It is seen that χ¯k\bar{\chi}_{k}^{*} depends on all the parameters in (1.6) and then χ¯\bar{\chi}^{*} depends on all the parameters in (1.6), while χ\chi^{*} defined in (2.7) depends only on aa and μ\mu (see Remark 2.1 (1)).

3 Local bifurcation and stability of bifurcating solutions

In this section, we investigate the local bifurcation of (1.1) when χ\chi passes through χk\chi_{k}^{*}, where χk\chi_{k}^{*} is given in (2.6).

To state our main results on local bifurcation solutions from the constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}), we first introduce some notions. For given k01k_{0}\geq 1, let

a0=b2a,a2k0=1λ2k0(χk0,a,μ)(b2χk0μbk04π4a(μL2+k02π2)2).a_{0}=-\frac{b}{2a},\quad a_{2k_{0}}=\frac{1}{\lambda_{2k_{0}}(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*},a,\mu)}\Big{(}\frac{b}{2}-\frac{\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}\mu bk_{0}^{4}\pi^{4}}{a(\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})^{2}}\Big{)}. (3.1)

Let

αk0=μk02π2μL2+k02π2\alpha_{k_{0}}=\frac{\mu k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}} (3.2)

and

βk0=b(2a0+a2k0+χk0μk04π4νa(μL2+k02π2)(μL2+4k02π2)a2k0+χk0μ2bk04π4L24a2(μL2+k02π2)3).\beta_{k_{0}}=b\Big{(}2a_{0}+a_{2k_{0}}+\frac{\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}\mu k_{0}^{4}\pi^{4}}{\nu a(\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})(\mu L^{2}+4k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})}a_{2k_{0}}+\frac{\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}\mu^{2}bk_{0}^{4}\pi^{4}L^{2}}{4a^{2}(\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})^{3}}\Big{)}. (3.3)

We now state the main results of this section.

Theorem 3.1.
  • (1)

    (Pitchfork bifurcation) For given k01k_{0}\geq 1, if βk00\beta_{k_{0}}\not=0 and λk(χk0,a,μ)0\lambda_{k}(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*},a,\mu)\not=0 for any kk0k\not=k_{0}, where βk0\beta_{k_{0}} and λk(χk0,a,μ)\lambda_{k}(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*},a,\mu) are given in (3.3) and (2.5), respectively, then pitchfork bifurcation occurs in (1.1) near (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) when χ\chi passes through χk0\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}. Moreover, let Γk0(χ)\Gamma_{k_{0}}(\chi) be the uu-components of bifurcation solutions of (1.1) for χχk0\chi\approx\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}, we have

    Γk0(χ)=Γk0+(χ)Γk0(χ),\Gamma_{k_{0}}(\chi)=\Gamma_{k_{0}}^{+}(\chi)\cup\Gamma_{k_{0}}^{-}(\chi), (3.4)

    where, for any uΓk0+(χ)u\in\Gamma_{k_{0}}^{+}(\chi), uu is of the form

    u(x)={ab+αk0(χχk0)βk0cosk0πxL+O(χχk0)for  0<χχk01ifβk0>0ab+αk0(χχk0)βk0cosk0πxL+O(χχk0)for  0<χk0χ1ifβk0<0,u(x)=\begin{cases}\frac{a}{b}+\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_{k_{0}}(\chi-\chi_{k_{0}}^{*})}{\beta_{k_{0}}}}\cos\frac{k_{0}\pi x}{L}+O(\chi-\chi_{k_{0}}^{*})\,\,{\rm for}\,\,0<\chi-\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}\ll 1\,\,{\rm if}\,\,\beta_{k_{0}}>0\cr\cr\frac{a}{b}+\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_{k_{0}}(\chi-\chi_{k_{0}}^{*})}{\beta_{k_{0}}}}\cos\frac{k_{0}\pi x}{L}+O(\chi-\chi_{k_{0}}^{*})\,\,{\rm for}\,\,0<\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}-\chi\ll 1\,\,{\rm if}\,\,\beta_{k_{0}}<0,\end{cases} (3.5)

    where αk0\alpha_{k_{0}} is given in (3.2), and for any uΓk0(χ)u\in\Gamma_{k_{0}}^{-}(\chi), uu is of the form

    u(x)={abαk0(χχk0)βk0cosk0πxL+O(χχk0)for  0<χχk01ifβk0>0abαk0(χχk0)βk0cosk0πxL+O(χχk0)for  0<χk0χ1ifβk0<0.u(x)=\begin{cases}\frac{a}{b}-\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_{k_{0}}(\chi-\chi_{k_{0}}^{*})}{\beta_{k_{0}}}}\cos\frac{k_{0}\pi x}{L}+O(\chi-\chi_{k_{0}}^{*})\,\,{\rm for}\,\,0<\chi-\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}\ll 1\,\,{\rm if}\,\,\beta_{k_{0}}>0\cr\cr\frac{a}{b}-\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_{k_{0}}(\chi-\chi_{k_{0}}^{*})}{\beta_{k_{0}}}}\cos\frac{k_{0}\pi x}{L}+O(\chi-\chi_{k_{0}}^{*})\,\,{\rm for}\,\,0<\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}-\chi\ll 1\,\,{\rm if}\,\,\beta_{k_{0}}<0.\end{cases} (3.6)
  • (2)

    (Stability/instability of bifurcation solutions) Assume the conditions in (1). If χk0>χ\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}>\chi^{*}, then the bifurcation solutions with uΓk0(χ)u\in\Gamma_{k_{0}}(\chi) are unstable.

  • (3)

    (Stability/instability of bifurcation solutions) If χk0=χ\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}=\chi^{*} and βk0>0\beta_{k_{0}}>0, then super-critical pitchfork bifurcation occurs when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*} and the bifurcation solutions with uΓk0(χ)u\in\Gamma_{k_{0}}{(\chi)} are locally stable. If χk0=χ\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}=\chi^{*} and βk0<0\beta_{k_{0}}<0, then sub-critical pitchfork bifurcation occurs when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*} and the bifurcation solutions with uΓk0(χ)u\in\Gamma_{k_{0}}{(\chi)} are unstable.

Remark 3.1.
  • (1)

    For the case a=b=μ=ν=L=1a=b=\mu=\nu=L=1, we have

    χ=χ111.9709,χk>χk2,andβ10.4144>0.\chi^{*}=\chi_{1}^{*}\approx 11.9709,\quad\chi_{k}^{*}>\chi^{*}\quad\forall\,k\geq 2,\quad{\rm and}\,\,\,\beta_{1}\approx{0.4144}>0.\quad

    Hence supercritical pitchfork bifurcation occurs when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*}.

  • (2)

    For the case a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1 and L=6L=6, we have

    χ=χ24.0085,χk>χk1,k2,andβ20.3109<0.\chi^{*}=\chi_{2}^{*}\approx 4.0085,\quad\chi_{k}^{*}>\chi^{*}\quad\forall\,k\geq 1,\,\,k\not=2,\quad{\rm and}\,\,\,\beta_{2}\approx{-0.3109}<0.\quad

    Hence subcritical pitchfork bifurcation occurs for χ<χ\chi<\chi^{*}, 0<χχ10<\chi^{*}-\chi\ll 1.

  • (3)

    For the case a=2a=2, b=ν=1b=\nu=1, μ=3\mu=3, and L=6L=6, we have

    χ=χ33.2997,χk>χ3k1,k3,andβ30.1344<0.\chi^{*}=\chi_{3}^{*}\approx 3.2997,\quad{\chi_{k}^{*}>\chi_{3}^{*}\quad\forall\,k\geq 1,\,\,k\not=3,}\quad{\rm and}\,\,\,\beta_{3}\approx{-0.1344<0}.

    Hence subcritical pitchfork bifurcation occurs for χ<χ\chi<\chi^{*}, 0<χχ10<\chi^{*}-\chi\ll 1.

Before proving Theorem 3.1, we first make some variable changes. First, let

u=ab+u~,v=νμab+v~.u=\frac{a}{b}+\tilde{u},\quad v=\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}+\tilde{v}.

Then (1.1) becomes

{u~t=u~xxχμν((1+bau~)(1+μνbav~)v~x)xau~bu~2,0<x<L0=v~xxμv~+νu~,0<x<Lu~x(t,0)=u~x(t,L)=v~x(t,0)=v~x(t,L)=0.\begin{cases}\tilde{u}_{t}=\tilde{u}_{xx}-\frac{\chi\mu}{\nu}\Big{(}\frac{(1+\frac{b}{a}\tilde{u})}{(1+\frac{\mu}{\nu}\frac{b}{a}\tilde{v})}\tilde{v}_{x}\Big{)}_{x}-a\tilde{u}-b\tilde{u}^{2},\quad&0<x<L\cr 0=\tilde{v}_{xx}-\mu\tilde{v}+\nu\tilde{u},\quad&0<x<L\cr\tilde{u}_{x}(t,0)=\tilde{u}_{x}(t,L)=\tilde{v}_{x}(t,0)=\tilde{v}_{x}(t,L)=0.\end{cases}

This implies that

{u~t=u~xxχμν((1+bau~)(1μνbav~+μ2ν2b2a2v~2μ3ν3b3a3v~3+O(v~3))v~x)xau~bu~2,0<x<L0=v~xxμv~+νu~,0<x<Lu~x(t,0)=u~x(t,L)=v~x(t,0)=v~x(t,L)=0,\begin{cases}\tilde{u}_{t}=\tilde{u}_{xx}-\frac{\chi\mu}{\nu}\Big{(}\big{(}1+\frac{b}{a}\tilde{u}\big{)}\big{(}1-\frac{\mu}{\nu}\frac{b}{a}\tilde{v}+\frac{\mu^{2}}{\nu^{2}}\frac{b^{2}}{a^{2}}\tilde{v}^{2}-\frac{\mu^{3}}{\nu^{3}}\frac{b^{3}}{a^{3}}\tilde{v}^{3}+O({\tilde{v}^{3}})\big{)}\tilde{v}_{x}\Big{)}_{x}-a\tilde{u}-b\tilde{u}^{2},&0<x<L\cr 0=\tilde{v}_{xx}-\mu\tilde{v}+\nu\tilde{u},&0<x<L\cr\tilde{u}_{x}(t,0)=\tilde{u}_{x}(t,L)=\tilde{v}_{x}(t,0)=\tilde{v}_{x}(t,L)=0,\end{cases}

that is,

{u~t=u~xxχμν((1+bau~μνbav~μνb2a2u~v~+μ2ν2b2a2v~2+O(|u~|3+|v~|3))v~x)xau~bu~2,0<x<L0=v~xxμv~+νu~,0<x<Lu~x(t,0)=u~x(t,L)=v~x(t,0)=v~x(t,L)=0.\begin{cases}\tilde{u}_{t}=\tilde{u}_{xx}-\frac{\chi\mu}{\nu}\Big{(}\big{(}1+\frac{b}{a}\tilde{u}-\frac{\mu}{\nu}\frac{b}{a}\tilde{v}-\frac{\mu}{\nu}\frac{b^{2}}{a^{2}}\tilde{u}\tilde{v}+\frac{\mu^{2}}{\nu^{2}}\frac{b^{2}}{a^{2}}\tilde{v}^{2}+O(|\tilde{u}|^{3}+|\tilde{v}|^{3})\big{)}\tilde{v}_{x}\Big{)}_{x}-a\tilde{u}-b\tilde{u}^{2},&0<x<L\cr 0=\tilde{v}_{xx}-\mu\tilde{v}+\nu\tilde{u},&0<x<L\cr\tilde{u}_{x}(t,0)=\tilde{u}_{x}(t,L)=\tilde{v}_{x}(t,0)=\tilde{v}_{x}(t,L)=0.\end{cases} (3.7)

Next, let

{u~=i=0ui(t)cos(iπxL)v~=i=0vi(t)cos(iπxL).\begin{cases}\tilde{u}=\displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}u_{i}(t)\cos(\frac{i\pi x}{L})\cr\tilde{v}=\displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}v_{i}(t)\cos(\frac{i\pi x}{L}).\end{cases} (3.8)

Note that for any t>0t>0, u~(t,),v~(t,)C2([0,L])\tilde{u}(t,\cdot),\tilde{v}(t,\cdot)\in C^{2}([0,L]). Hence we have

u~x(t,x)=i=0iπLui(t)sin(iπxL),v~x(t,x)=i=0iπLvi(t)sin(iπxL)\tilde{u}_{x}(t,x)=-\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{i\pi}{L}u_{i}(t)\sin(\frac{i\pi x}{L}),\quad\tilde{v}_{x}(t,x)=-\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{i\pi}{L}v_{i}(t)\sin(\frac{i\pi x}{L})

and

u~xx(t,x)=i=0i2π2L2ui(t)cos(iπxL),v~xx(t,x)=i=0i2π2L2vi(t)cos(iπxL).\tilde{u}_{xx}(t,x)=-\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{i^{2}\pi^{2}}{L^{2}}u_{i}(t)\cos(\frac{i\pi x}{L}),\quad\tilde{v}_{xx}(t,x)=-\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{i^{2}\pi^{2}}{L^{2}}v_{i}(t)\cos(\frac{i\pi x}{L}).

Then the first equation in (3.7) becomes

(i=0ui(t)cos(iπxL))t=\displaystyle{\Big{(}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}u_{i}(t)\cos(\frac{i\pi x}{L})\Big{)}_{t}}= i=0i2π2L2uicosiπxLai=0uicosiπxLb(i=0uicosiπxL)2\displaystyle-\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{i^{2}\pi^{2}}{L^{2}}u_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L}-a\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}u_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L}-b\Big{(}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}u_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L}\Big{)}^{2}
+χμν((1+bai=0uicosiπxLμνbai=0vicosiπxL\displaystyle+\frac{\chi\mu}{\nu}\Big{(}\big{(}1+\frac{b}{a}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}u_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L}-\frac{\mu}{\nu}\frac{b}{a}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}v_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L}
μνb2a2(i=0uicosiπxL)(i=0vicosiπxL)+μ2ν2b2a2(i=0vicosiπxL)2\displaystyle-\frac{\mu}{\nu}\frac{b^{2}}{a^{2}}\Big{(}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}u_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L}\Big{)}\Big{(}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}v_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L}\Big{)}+\frac{\mu^{2}}{\nu^{2}}\frac{b^{2}}{a^{2}}\Big{(}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}v_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L}\Big{)}^{2}
+O(i=0(|ui|3+|vi|3)))(i=0iπLvisiniπxL))x,0<x<L.\displaystyle+O(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}(|u_{i}|^{3}+|v_{i}|^{3}))\big{)}(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{i\pi}{L}v_{i}\sin\frac{i\pi x}{L})\Big{)}_{x},\quad 0<x<L. (3.9)

By the second equation in (3.7), we have

vi(t)=νμ+i2π2L2ui(t),i=0,1,2,.v_{i}(t)=\frac{\nu}{\mu+\frac{i^{2}\pi^{2}}{L^{2}}}u_{i}(t),\quad i=0,1,2,\cdots. (3.10)

By (3) and (3.10), we obtain a system of ODEs for uk(t)u_{k}(t), k=0,1,2,k=0,1,2,\cdots. To be more precise, we first observe that

0L(i=0ui(t)cos(iπxL))tcos(kπxL)𝑑x\displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}\Big{(}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}u_{i}(t)\cos(\frac{i\pi x}{L})\Big{)}_{t}\cos(\frac{k\pi x}{L})dx =(0L(i=0ui(t)cos(iπxL))cos(kπxL)𝑑x)t\displaystyle=\Big{(}\int_{0}^{L}\big{(}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}u_{i}(t)\cos(\frac{i\pi x}{L})\big{)}\cos(\frac{k\pi x}{L})dx\Big{)}_{t}
={Lduk(t)dtifk=0L2dukdtifk1,\displaystyle=\begin{cases}L\frac{du_{k}(t)}{dt}\quad&{\rm if}\quad k=0\cr\frac{L}{2}\frac{du_{k}}{dt}\quad&{\rm if}\quad k\geq 1,\end{cases} (3.11)

and

0L(i=0uicosiπxL)2𝑑x\displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}u_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L})^{2}dx =(u02+12(u12+u22+))L.\displaystyle=\Big{(}u_{0}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\big{(}u_{1}^{2}+u_{2}^{2}+\cdots\big{)}\Big{)}L. (3.12)

We also observe that for k1k\geq 1,

0L(i=0i2π2L2uicosiπxL)coskπxLdx=k2π22Luk,\displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}\Big{(}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{i^{2}\pi^{2}}{L^{2}}u_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L}\Big{)}\cos\frac{k\pi x}{L}dx={\frac{k^{2}\pi^{2}}{2L}}u_{k}, (3.13)
0L(i=0uicosiπxL)coskπxLdx=L2uk,\displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}\Big{(}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}u_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L}\Big{)}\cos\frac{k\pi x}{L}dx=\frac{L}{2}u_{k}, (3.14)
0L(i=0uicosiπxL)2coskπxLdx=L4(ij=kuiuj+ij=kuiuj+i+j=kuiuj),\displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}\Big{(}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}u_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L}\Big{)}^{2}\cos\frac{k\pi x}{L}dx=\frac{L}{4}\Big{(}\sum_{i-j=k}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i-j=-k}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i+j=k}u_{i}u_{j}\Big{)}, (3.15)
0L(i=0iπLvisiniπxL)xcoskπxLdx\displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}\Big{(}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{i\pi}{L}v_{i}\sin\frac{i\pi x}{L}\Big{)}_{x}\cos\frac{k\pi x}{L}dx =k2π22Lvk,\displaystyle=\frac{k^{2}\pi^{2}}{2L}v_{k}, (3.16)
0L((i=0uicosiπxL)(i=0iπLvisiniπxL))xcoskπxLdx\displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}\Big{(}(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}u_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L})(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{i\pi}{L}v_{i}\sin\frac{{i}\pi x}{L})\Big{)}_{x}\cos\frac{k\pi x}{L}dx
=kπ4(ij=kjπLuivj+i+j=kjπLuivjij=kjπLuivj),\displaystyle={\frac{k\pi}{4}}\Big{(}\sum_{i-j=-k}^{\infty}\frac{j\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}+\sum_{i+j=k}\frac{j\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}-\sum_{i-j=k}^{\infty}\frac{j\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}\Big{)}, (3.17)
0L((i=0vicosiπxL)(i=0iπLvisiniπxL))xcoskπxLdx\displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}\Big{(}(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}v_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L})(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{i\pi}{L}v_{i}\sin\frac{{i}\pi x}{L})\Big{)}_{x}\cos\frac{k\pi x}{L}dx
=kπ4(ij=kjπLvivj+i+j=kjπLvivjij=kjπLvivj),\displaystyle={\frac{k\pi}{4}}\big{(}\sum_{i-j=-k}^{\infty}\frac{j\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}+\sum_{i+j=k}\frac{j\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}-\sum_{i-j=k}^{\infty}\frac{j\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}\big{)}, (3.18)
0L((i=0uicosiπxL)(i=0vicosiπxL)(i=0iπxLvisiniπxL))xcoskπxLdx\displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}\Big{(}(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}u_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L})(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}v_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L})(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{i\pi x}{L}v_{i}\sin\frac{i\pi x}{L})\Big{)}_{x}\cos\frac{k\pi x}{L}dx
=kπ8[ij+l=klπLuivjvl+ij+l=klπLuivjvl+i+j+l=klπLuivjvl+i+j+l=klπLuivjvl\displaystyle={\frac{k\pi}{8}}\Big{[}\sum_{i-j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}v_{l}+\sum_{-i-j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}v_{l}+\sum_{i+j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}v_{l}+\sum_{-i+j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}v_{l}
i+jl=klπLuivjvli+jl=klπLuivjvlijl=klπLuivjvl],\displaystyle\qquad-\sum_{-i+j-l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}v_{l}-\sum_{i+j-l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}v_{l}-\sum_{i-j-l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}v_{l}\Big{]}, (3.19)

and

0L((i=0vicosiπxL)2(i=0iπLvisiniπxL))xcoskπxLdx\displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}\Big{(}(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}v_{i}\cos\frac{i\pi x}{L})^{2}(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}{\frac{i\pi}{L}v_{i}\sin\frac{i\pi x}{L}})\Big{)}_{x}\cos\frac{k\pi x}{L}dx
=kπ8[ij+l=klπLvivjvl+ij+l=klπLvivjvl+i+j+l=klπLvivjvl+i+j+l=klπLvivjvl\displaystyle={\frac{k\pi}{8}}\Big{[}\sum_{i-j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}v_{l}+\sum_{-i-j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}v_{l}+\sum_{i+j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}v_{l}+\sum_{-i+j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}v_{l}
i+jl=klπLvivjvli+jl=klπLvivjvlijl=klπLvivjvl].\displaystyle\qquad-\sum_{-i+j-l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}v_{l}-\sum_{i+j-l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}v_{l}-\sum_{i-j-l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}v_{l}\Big{]}. (3.20)

By (3)-(3), integrating (3) over [0,L][0,L] and then dividing by LL, we get

du0dt=au0bu0212bi=1ui2.\frac{du_{0}}{dt}=-au_{0}-bu_{0}^{2}-\frac{1}{2}b\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}u_{i}^{2}. (3.21)

By (3.10) and (3)-(3), for each k1k\geq 1, multiplying (3) by 2LcoskπxL\frac{2}{L}\cos\frac{k\pi x}{L} and then integrating over [0,L][0,L], we get

dukdt=\displaystyle\frac{du_{k}}{dt}= λk(χ,a,μ)ukb2(ij=kuiuj+ij=kuiuj+i+j=kuiuj)\displaystyle\lambda_{k}(\chi,a,\mu)u_{k}-\frac{b}{2}\Big{(}\sum_{i-j=k}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i-j=-k}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i+j=k}u_{i}u_{j}\Big{)}
+χμνgk(u0,u1,),k=1,2,,\displaystyle+\frac{\chi\mu}{\nu}g_{k}(u_{0},u_{1},\cdots),\quad k=1,2,\cdots, (3.22)

where λk(χ,a,μ)\lambda_{k}(\chi,a,\mu) is as in (2.5), and

gk(u0,u1,u2,)\displaystyle g_{k}(u_{0},u_{1},u_{2},\cdots)
=bakπL12(ij=kjπLuivj+i+j=kjπLuivjij=kjπLuivj)\displaystyle=\frac{b}{a}\frac{k\pi}{L}\frac{1}{2}\Big{(}\sum_{i-j=-k}^{\infty}\frac{j\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}+\sum_{i+j=k}\frac{j\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}-\sum_{i-j=k}^{\infty}\frac{j\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}\Big{)}
μνbakπL12(ij=kjπLvivj+i+j=kjπLvivjij=kjπLvivj)\displaystyle\quad-\frac{\mu}{\nu}\frac{b}{a}\frac{k\pi}{L}\frac{1}{2}\Big{(}\sum_{i-j=-k}^{\infty}\frac{j\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}+\sum_{i+j=k}\frac{j\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}-\sum_{i-j=k}^{\infty}\frac{j\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}\Big{)}
μνb2a2kπL14[ij+l=klπLuivjvl+ij+l=klπLuivjvl+i+j+l=klπLuivjvl+i+j+l=klπLuivjvl\displaystyle\quad-\frac{\mu}{\nu}\frac{b^{2}}{a^{2}}\frac{k\pi}{L}\frac{1}{4}\Big{[}\sum_{i-j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}v_{l}+\sum_{-i-j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}v_{l}+\sum_{i+j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}v_{l}+\sum_{-i+j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}v_{l}
i+jl=klπLuivjvli+jl=klπLuivjvlijl=klπLuivjvl]\displaystyle\qquad-\sum_{-i+j-l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}v_{l}-\sum_{i+j-l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}v_{l}-\sum_{i-j-l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}u_{i}v_{j}v_{l}\Big{]}
+μ2ν2b2a2kπL14[ij+l=klπLvivjvl+ij+l=klπLvivjvl+i+j+l=klπLvivjvl+i+j+l=klπLvivjvl\displaystyle\quad+\frac{\mu^{2}}{\nu^{2}}\frac{b^{2}}{a^{2}}\frac{k\pi}{L}\frac{1}{4}\Big{[}\sum_{i-j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}v_{l}+\sum_{-i-j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}v_{l}+\sum_{i+j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}v_{l}+\sum_{-i+j+l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}v_{l}
i+jl=klπLvivjvli+jl=klπLvivjvlijl=klπLvivjvl]+O(i=0(ui4+vi4))\displaystyle\qquad-\sum_{-i+j-l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}v_{l}-\sum_{i+j-l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}v_{l}-\sum_{i-j-l=k}\frac{l\pi}{L}v_{i}v_{j}v_{l}\Big{]}{+O(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}(u_{i}^{4}+v_{i}^{4}))} (3.23)

(viv_{i} is given by (3.10)). Combing (3.21) and (3), we have the following system of ODEs for u0,u1,u2,u_{0},u_{1},u_{2},\cdots with {ui}l2\{u_{i}\}\in l^{2},

{du0dt=au0bu0212bi=1ui2dukdt=λk(χ,a,μ)ukb2(ij=kuiuj+ij=kuiuj+i+j=kuiuj)+χμνgk(u0,u1,u2,),k=1,2,.\begin{cases}\frac{du_{0}}{dt}=-au_{0}-bu_{0}^{2}-\frac{1}{2}b\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}u_{i}^{2}\cr\frac{du_{k}}{dt}=\lambda_{k}(\chi,a,\mu)u_{k}-\frac{b}{2}\Big{(}\sum_{i-j=k}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i-j=-k}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i+j=k}u_{i}u_{j}\Big{)}\cr\qquad\quad+\frac{\chi\mu}{\nu}g_{k}(u_{0},u_{1},u_{2},\cdots),\quad k=1,2,\cdots.\end{cases} (3.24)

To study the bifurcation of (1.1) near (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}), it then reduces to study the bifurcation of (3.24) from the trivial solutions uk=0u_{k}=0 for k=0,1,2k=0,1,2\cdots.

We now prove Theorem 3.1.

Proof of Theorem 3.1.

(1) Fix k01k_{0}\geq 1. Recall that λk0(χk0,a,μ)=0\lambda_{k_{0}}(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*},a,\mu)=0. We will use center manifold theory to investigate the bifurcation solutions of (3.24) near the zero solution when χ\chi passes through χk0\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}. To this end, set χ=χk0+χ~\chi=\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}+\tilde{\chi}. We can then write (3.24) as

{du0dt=au0bu0212bi=1ui2duk0dt=χ~μk02π2μL2+k02π2uk0b2(ij=k0uiuj+ij=k0uiuj+i+j=k0uiuj)+(χk0+χ~)μνgk0(u0,u1,u2,)dukdt=(λk(χk0,a,μ)+χ~μk2π2μL2+κ2π2)ukb2(ij=kuiuj+ij=kuiuj+i+j=kuiuj)+(χk0+χ~)μνgk(u0,u1,u2,),kk0,k=1,2,dχ~dt=0.\begin{cases}\frac{du_{0}}{dt}=-au_{0}-bu_{0}^{2}-\frac{1}{2}b\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}u_{i}^{2}\cr\frac{du_{k_{0}}}{dt}=\frac{\tilde{\chi}\mu k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}u_{k_{0}}-\frac{b}{2}\Big{(}\sum_{i-j=k_{0}}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i-j=-k_{0}}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i+j=k_{0}}u_{i}u_{j}\Big{)}\cr\qquad\quad+\frac{(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}+\tilde{\chi})\mu}{\nu}g_{k_{0}}(u_{0},u_{1},u_{2},\cdots)\cr\frac{du_{k}}{dt}=\Big{(}\lambda_{k}(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*},a,\mu)+\frac{\tilde{\chi}\mu k^{2}\pi^{2}}{\mu L^{2}+\kappa^{2}\pi^{2}}\Big{)}u_{k}-\frac{b}{2}\Big{(}\sum_{i-j=k}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i-j=-k}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i+j=k}u_{i}u_{j}\Big{)}\cr\qquad\quad+\frac{(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}+\tilde{\chi})\mu}{\nu}g_{k}(u_{0},u_{1},u_{2},\cdots),\quad k\not=k_{0},k=1,2,\cdots\cr\frac{d\tilde{\chi}}{dt}=0.\end{cases} (3.25)

By the assumption in (1), λk(χk0,a,μ)0\lambda_{k}(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*},a,\mu)\not=0 for all kk0k\not=k_{0}. Note that

gk(u0,u1,)=O(u02+u12+u22+),k=1,2,.g_{k}(u_{0},u_{1},\cdots)=O(u_{0}^{2}+u_{1}^{2}+u_{2}^{2}+\cdots),\quad k=1,2,\cdots.

Then by center manifold theory, for χ~=o(1)\tilde{\chi}=o(1) and uk0=o(1){u_{k_{0}}}=o(1), there are hk(χ~,uk0)h_{k}(\tilde{\chi},u_{k_{0}}), and constants ak,1,ak,2,ak,3a_{k,1},a_{k,2},a_{k,3} (kk0k{{\not=}}k_{0}) such that

hk(χ~,uk0)=ak,1uk02+ak,2χ~uk0+ak,3χ~2+O(χ~3+uk03),kk0,k=0,1,2,h_{k}(\tilde{\chi},u_{k_{0}})=a_{k,1}u_{k_{0}}^{2}+a_{k,2}\tilde{\chi}u_{k_{0}}+a_{k,3}\tilde{\chi}^{2}+O(\tilde{\chi}^{3}+u_{k_{0}}^{3}),\quad k\not=k_{0},\,\,k=0,1,2\cdots, (3.26)

and

={((u0,u1,,uk0,),χ~)|χ~=o(1),uk0=o(1),uk=hk(χ~,uk0)forkk0}\mathcal{M}=\{\big{(}(u_{0},u_{1},\cdots,u_{k_{0}},\cdots),\tilde{\chi}\big{)}|\tilde{\chi}=o(1),\,\,u_{k_{0}}=o(1),\,\,u_{k}=h_{k}(\tilde{\chi},u_{k_{0}})\,\,{\rm for}\,\,k\not=k_{0}\} (3.27)

is locally invariant under (3.25). \mathcal{M} is referred to the center manifold at 0 for (3.25).

In the following, we find the reduced ODE on the center manifold and then study the bifurcation solutions of the reduced ODE. To this end, first, differentiating u0=a0,1uk02+a0,2χ~uk0+a0,3χ~2+O(χ~3+uk03)u_{0}=a_{0,1}u_{k_{0}}^{2}+a_{0,2}\tilde{\chi}u_{k_{0}}+a_{0,3}\tilde{\chi}^{2}+O(\tilde{\chi}^{3}+u_{k_{0}}^{3}) with respect to tt and using (3.25), we get on \mathcal{M},

du0dt\displaystyle\frac{du_{0}}{dt} =2a0,1uk0duk0dt+a0,2χ~duk0dt+O(χ~3+uk03)\displaystyle=2a_{0,1}u_{k_{0}}\frac{du_{k_{0}}}{dt}+a_{0,2}\tilde{\chi}\frac{du_{k_{0}}}{dt}+O(\tilde{\chi}^{3}+u_{k_{0}}^{3})
=(2a0,1uk0+a0,2χ~)(χ~μk02π2μL2+k02π2uk0b2(ij=k0uiuj+ij=k0uiuj+i+j=k0uiuj)\displaystyle=\Big{(}2a_{0,1}u_{k_{0}}+a_{0,2}\tilde{\chi}\Big{)}\Big{(}\frac{\tilde{\chi}\mu{k_{0}^{2}}\pi^{2}}{\mu L^{2}+{k_{0}^{2}}\pi^{2}}u_{k_{0}}-\frac{b}{2}\big{(}\sum_{i-j=k_{0}}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i-j=-k_{0}}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i+j=k_{0}}u_{i}u_{j}\big{)}
+(χk0+χ~)μνgk0(u0,u1,u2,))+O(χ~3+uk03)\displaystyle\quad+\frac{(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}+\tilde{\chi})\mu}{\nu}g_{k_{0}}(u_{0},u_{1},u_{2},\cdots)\Big{)}+O(\tilde{\chi}^{3}+u_{k_{0}}^{3})
=O(χ~3+uk03)\displaystyle=O(\tilde{\chi}^{3}+u_{k_{0}}^{3}) (3.28)

for χ~=o(1)\tilde{\chi}=o(1) and uk0=o(1)u_{k_{0}}=o(1). On the other hand, we have

du0dt\displaystyle\frac{du_{0}}{dt} =au0bu0212bi=1ui2\displaystyle=-au_{0}-bu_{0}^{2}-\frac{1}{2}b\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}u_{i}^{2}
=a(a0,1uk02+a0,2χ~uk0+a0,3χ~2)12buk02+O(χ~3+uk03)\displaystyle=-a\Big{(}a_{0,1}u_{k_{0}}^{2}+a_{0,2}\tilde{\chi}u_{k_{0}}+a_{0,3}\tilde{\chi}^{2}\Big{)}-\frac{1}{2}bu_{k_{0}}^{2}+O(\tilde{\chi}^{3}+u_{k_{0}}^{3}) (3.29)

for χ~=o(1)\tilde{\chi}=o(1) and uk0=o(1)u_{k_{0}}=o(1). By (3) and (3), we must have

a0,1=b2a,a0,2=a0,3=0.a_{0,1}=-\frac{b}{2a},\,\,a_{0,2}=a_{0,3}=0. (3.30)

Next, for k1k\geq 1, kk0k\not=k_{0}, differentiating uk=ak,1uk02+ak,2χ~uk0+ak,3χ~2+O(χ~3+uk03)u_{k}=a_{k,1}u_{k_{0}}^{2}+a_{k,2}\tilde{\chi}u_{k_{0}}+a_{k,3}\tilde{\chi}^{2}+O(\tilde{\chi}^{3}+u_{k_{0}}^{3}) with respect to tt and using (3.25), we get on \mathcal{M},

dukdt\displaystyle\frac{du_{k}}{dt} =(2ak,1uk0+ak,2χ~)(χ~μk02π2μL2+k02π2uk0b2(ij=k0uiuj+ij=k0uiuj+i+j=k0uiuj)\displaystyle=(2a_{k,1}u_{k_{0}}+a_{k,2}\tilde{\chi})\Big{(}\frac{\tilde{\chi}\mu k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}u_{k_{0}}-\frac{b}{2}\big{(}\sum_{i-j=k_{0}}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i-j=-k_{0}}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i+j=k_{0}}u_{i}u_{j}\big{)}
+(χk0+χ~)μνgk0(u0,u1,u2,))+O(χ~3+uk03)\displaystyle\qquad+\frac{(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}+\tilde{\chi})\mu}{\nu}g_{k_{0}}(u_{0},u_{1},u_{2},\cdots)\Big{)}+O(\tilde{\chi}^{3}+u_{k_{0}}^{3})
=O(χ~3+uk03)\displaystyle=O(\tilde{\chi}^{3}+u_{k_{0}}^{3}) (3.31)

for χ~=o(1)\tilde{\chi}=o(1) and uk0=o(1)u_{k_{0}}=o(1). On the other hand, we have

dukdt\displaystyle\frac{du_{k}}{dt} =(λk(χk0,a,μ)+χ~μk2π2μL2+κ2π2)ukb2(ij=kuiuj+ij=kuiuj+i+j=kuiuj)\displaystyle=\Big{(}\lambda_{k}(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*},a,\mu)+\frac{\tilde{\chi}\mu k^{2}\pi^{2}}{\mu L^{2}+\kappa^{2}\pi^{2}}\Big{)}u_{k}-\frac{b}{2}\Big{(}\sum_{i-j=k}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i-j=-k}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i+j=k}u_{i}u_{j}\Big{)}
+(χk0+χ~)μνgk(u0,u1,u2,)\displaystyle\quad+\frac{(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}+\tilde{\chi})\mu}{\nu}g_{k}(u_{0},u_{1},u_{2},\cdots)
=λk(χk0,a,μ)(ak,1uk02+ak,2χ~uk0+ak,3χ~2)b2(ij=kuiuj+ij=kuiuj+i+j=kuiuj)\displaystyle=\lambda_{k}(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*},a,\mu)(a_{k,1}u_{k_{0}}^{2}+a_{k,2}\tilde{\chi}u_{k_{0}}+a_{k,3}\tilde{\chi}^{2})-\frac{b}{2}\Big{(}\sum_{i-j=k}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i-j=-k}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i+j=k}u_{i}u_{j}\Big{)}
+χk0μνgk(u0,u1,)+O(χ~3+uk03)\displaystyle\quad+\frac{\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}\mu}{\nu}g_{k}(u_{0},u_{1},\cdots)+O(\tilde{\chi}^{3}+u_{k_{0}}^{3}) (3.32)

for χ~=o(1)\tilde{\chi}=o(1) and uk0=o(1)u_{k_{0}}=o(1). By (3), when k=2k0k=2k_{0}, we have

b2(ij=2k0uiuj+ij=2k0uiuj+i+j=2k0uiuj)+χk0μνg2k0(u0,u1,)\displaystyle-\frac{b}{2}\Big{(}\sum_{i-j=2k_{0}}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i-j=-2k_{0}}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i+j=2k_{0}}u_{i}u_{j}\Big{)}+\frac{\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}\mu}{\nu}g_{2k_{0}}(u_{0},u_{1},\cdots)
=b2uk02+χk0μν[bak02π2L2uk0vk0μνbak02π2L2vk0vk0]+O(χ~3+uk03)\displaystyle=-\frac{b}{2}u_{k_{0}}^{2}+\frac{\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}\mu}{\nu}\Big{[}\frac{b}{a}\frac{k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{L^{2}}u_{k_{0}}v_{k_{0}}-\frac{\mu}{\nu}\frac{b}{a}\frac{k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{L^{2}}v_{k_{0}}v_{k_{0}}\Big{]}+O(\tilde{\chi}^{3}+u_{k_{0}}^{3})
=(b2+χk0μbak04π4L41(μ+k02π2L2)2)uk02+O(χ~3+uk03).\displaystyle=\Big{(}-\frac{b}{2}+\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}\mu\frac{b}{a}\frac{k_{0}^{4}\pi^{4}}{L^{4}}\frac{1}{\big{(}\mu+\frac{k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{L^{2}}\big{)}^{2}}\Big{)}u_{k_{0}}^{2}+O(\tilde{\chi}^{3}+u_{k_{0}}^{3}). (3.33)

When k2k0k\not=2k_{0}, we have

b2(ij=kuiuj+ij=kuiuj+i+j=kuiuj)+χk0μνgk(u0,u1,)\displaystyle-\frac{b}{2}\Big{(}\sum_{i-j=k}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i-j=-k}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i+j=k}u_{i}u_{j}\Big{)}+\frac{\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}\mu}{\nu}g_{k}(u_{0},u_{1},\cdots)
=O(χ~3+uk03).\displaystyle=O(\tilde{\chi}^{3}+u_{k_{0}}^{3}). (3.34)

By (3)-(3), we obtain that

a2k0,1=1λ2k0(χk0,a,μ)(b2χk0μbk04π4a(μL2+k02π2)2),a2k0,2=a2k0,3=0,a_{2k_{0},1}=\frac{1}{\lambda_{2k_{0}}(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*},a,\mu)}\Big{(}\frac{b}{2}-\frac{\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}\mu bk_{0}^{4}\pi^{4}}{a(\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})^{2}}\Big{)},\,\,a_{2k_{0},2}=a_{2k_{0},3}=0, (3.35)

and

ak,1=ak,2=ak,3=0,kk0,2k0,k=1,2,.a_{k,1}=a_{k,2}=a_{k,3}=0,\quad k\not=k_{0},2k_{0},\,\,k=1,2,\cdots. (3.36)

Now, by (3.30)-(3.36), we have on \mathcal{M},

gk0(u0,u1,u2,)\displaystyle g_{k_{0}}(u_{0},u_{1},u_{2},\cdots)
=bak02π2L212[2u0vk0+2uk0v2k0u2k0vk0]μνbak02π2L212[2v0vk0+vk0v2k0]\displaystyle=\frac{b}{a}\frac{k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{L^{2}}\frac{1}{2}\big{[}2u_{0}v_{k_{0}}+2u_{k_{0}}v_{2k_{0}}-u_{2k_{0}}v_{k_{0}}\big{]}-\frac{\mu}{\nu}\frac{b}{a}\frac{k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{L^{2}}\frac{1}{2}\big{[}2v_{0}v_{k_{0}}+v_{k_{0}}v_{2k_{0}}\big{]}
μνb2a2k02π2L214uk0vk02+μ2ν2b2a2k02π2L214vk03+O(uk04)\displaystyle\quad-\frac{\mu}{\nu}\frac{b^{2}}{a^{2}}\frac{k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{L^{2}}\frac{1}{4}u_{k_{0}}v_{k_{0}}^{2}+\frac{\mu^{2}}{\nu^{2}}\frac{b^{2}}{a^{2}}\frac{k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{L^{2}}\frac{1}{4}v_{k_{0}}^{3}+O(u_{k_{0}}^{4})
=bk02π22a(2νμL2+k02π2u0uk0+νμL22νk02π2(μL2+k02π2)(μL2+4k02π2)uk0u2k0)\displaystyle=\frac{bk_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{2a}\Big{(}\frac{2\nu}{\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}u_{0}u_{k_{0}}+\frac{\nu\mu L^{2}-2{\nu}k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{(\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})(\mu L^{2}+4k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})}u_{k_{0}}u_{2k_{0}}\Big{)}
bk02π22a(2νμL2+k02π2u0uk0+μνL2(μL2+k02π2)(μL2+4k02π2)uk0u2k0)\displaystyle\quad-\frac{bk_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{2a}\Big{(}\frac{2\nu}{\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}u_{0}u_{k_{0}}+\frac{\mu\nu L^{2}}{(\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})(\mu L^{2}+4k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})}u_{k_{0}}u_{2k_{0}}\Big{)}
μb2k02π24a2νL2(μL2+k02π2)2uk03+μ2b2k02π24a2νL4(μL2+k02π2)3uk03+O(χ~4+uk04)\displaystyle\quad-\frac{\mu b^{2}k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{4a^{2}}\frac{\nu L^{2}}{(\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})^{2}}u_{k_{0}}^{3}+\frac{\mu^{2}b^{2}k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{4a^{2}}\frac{\nu L^{4}}{(\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})^{3}}u_{k_{0}}^{3}+O(\tilde{\chi}^{4}+u_{k_{0}}^{4})
=bk04π4a(μL2+k02π2)(μL2+4k02π2)uk0u2k0μb2k04π4νL24a2(μL2+k02π2)3uk03+O(χ~4+uk04)\displaystyle=-\frac{bk_{0}^{4}\pi^{4}}{a(\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})(\mu L^{2}+4k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})}u_{k_{0}}u_{2k_{0}}-\frac{\mu b^{2}k_{0}^{4}\pi^{4}\nu L^{2}}{4a^{2}(\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})^{3}}u_{k_{0}}^{3}+O(\tilde{\chi}^{4}+u_{k_{0}}^{4})
=[bk04π4a(μL2+k02π2)(μL2+4k02π2)a2k0,1μb2k04π4νL24a2(μL2+k02π2)3]uk03+O(χ~4+uk04)\displaystyle=\Big{[}-\frac{bk_{0}^{4}\pi^{4}}{a(\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})(\mu L^{2}+4k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})}a_{2k_{0},1}-\frac{\mu b^{2}k_{0}^{4}\pi^{4}\nu L^{2}}{4a^{2}(\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})^{3}}\Big{]}u_{k_{0}}^{3}+O(\tilde{\chi}^{4}+u_{k_{0}}^{4})

Therefore, on the center manifold \mathcal{M}, the dynamics is determined by the following ODE,

duk0dt\displaystyle\frac{du_{k_{0}}}{dt} =χ~μk02π2μL2+k02π2uk0b2(ij=k0uiuj+ij=k0uiuj+i+j=k0uiuj)\displaystyle=\frac{\tilde{\chi}\mu k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}u_{k_{0}}-\frac{b}{2}\Big{(}\sum_{i-j=k_{0}}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i-j=-k_{0}}u_{i}u_{j}+\sum_{i+j=k_{0}}u_{i}u_{j}\Big{)}
+(χk0+χ~)μνgk0(u0,u1,u2,)\displaystyle\quad\qquad\quad+\frac{(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}+\tilde{\chi})\mu}{\nu}g_{k_{0}}(u_{0},u_{1},u_{2},\cdots)
=χ~μk02π2μL2+k02π2uk0b(2a0,1+a2k0,1+χk0μk04π4νa(μL2+k02π2)(μL2+4k02π2)a2k0,1\displaystyle=\frac{\tilde{\chi}\mu k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}u_{k_{0}}-b\Big{(}2a_{0,1}+a_{2k_{0},1}+\frac{\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}\mu k_{0}^{4}\pi^{4}}{\nu a(\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})(\mu L^{2}+4k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})}a_{2k_{0},1}
+χk0μ2bk04π4L24a2(μL2+k02π2)3)uk03+O(χ~4+uk04).\displaystyle\qquad+\frac{\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}\mu^{2}bk_{0}^{4}\pi^{4}L^{2}}{4a^{2}(\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2})^{3}}\Big{)}u_{k_{0}}^{3}+O(\tilde{\chi}^{4}+u_{k_{0}}^{4}). (3.37)

By (3.1), (3.30), and (3.35), equation (3) can be written as

duk0dt=αk0χ~uk0βk0uk03+O(χ~4+uk04),\frac{du_{k_{0}}}{dt}=\alpha_{k_{0}}\tilde{\chi}u_{k_{0}}-\beta_{k_{0}}u_{k_{0}}^{3}+O(\tilde{\chi}^{4}+u_{k_{0}}^{4}), (3.38)

where

αk0=μk02π2μL2+k02π2.\alpha_{k_{0}}=\frac{\mu k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}{\mu L^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\pi^{2}}.

Pitchfork bifurcation then occurs in (3.38) near 0 provided that βk00\beta_{k_{0}}\not=0. This proves (1).

Moreover, by the above arguments, it is clear that (3.4), (3.5), and (3.6) hold.

(2) Let k1k^{*}\geq 1 be such that χk=χ\chi_{k^{*}}^{*}=\chi^{*}. If χk0>χ\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}>\chi^{*}, then λk(χk0,a,μ)>0\lambda_{k^{*}}(\chi_{k_{0}}^{*},a,\mu)>0 and the positive constant solution (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) is linearly unstable. By the general perturbation theory (see [12, Theorem 5.1.3]), any solution with the uu-component belonging to Γk0(χ)ab\Gamma_{k_{0}}(\chi)\setminus\frac{a}{b} is linearly unstable for χχk0\chi\approx\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}.

(3) If χk0=χ\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}=\chi^{*} and βk0>0\beta_{k_{0}}>0, then (3.38) experiences super-pitchfork bifurcation near 0 when χ~\tilde{\chi} passes through 0. This implies that any solution with the uu-component belonging to Γk0(χ)ab\Gamma_{k_{0}}(\chi)\setminus\frac{a}{b} is linearly stable for χχk0\chi\approx\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}.

If χk0=χ\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}=\chi^{*} and βk0<0\beta_{k_{0}}<0, then (3.38) experiences sub-pitchfork bifurcation near 0 when χ~\tilde{\chi} passes through 0. This implies that any solution with the uu-component belonging to Γk0(χ)ab\Gamma_{k_{0}}(\chi)\setminus\frac{a}{b} is linearly unstable for χχk0\chi\approx\chi_{k_{0}}^{*}. The theorem is thus proved. ∎

4 Global bifurcation and properties of non-constant stationary solutions

In this section, we study the global extension of the local bifurcation branches Γk(χ)\Gamma_{k}(\chi) for χχk\chi\approx\chi_{k}^{*} and properties of non-constant stationary solutions.

We first introduce some notations. Let

X={uH2((0,L))|ux(0)=ux(L)=0,u(x)>0forx[0,L]},Y=L2((0,L))X=\{u\in H^{2}((0,L))\,|\,u_{x}(0)=u_{x}(L)=0,u(x)>0\,\,{\rm for}\,\,x\in[0,L]\},\quad Y=L^{2}((0,L))

Let F:(0,)×XYF:(0,\infty)\times X\to Y be defined by

F(χ,u)=uxxχ(uvvx)x+u(abu),F(\chi,u)=u_{xx}-\chi(\frac{u}{v}v_{x})_{x}+u(a-bu),

where vv is the solution of (2.3). Let

Sk={(χ,u)| 0<χ<χk+1,uX,uab,F(χ,u)=0}.S_{k}=\{(\chi,u)\,|\,0<\chi<\chi_{k}^{*}+1,\,\,u\in X,\,\,u\not=\frac{a}{b},\,\,F(\chi,u)=0\}.

For given k1k\geq 1, if λl(χk,a,μ)0\lambda_{l}(\chi_{k}^{*},a,\mu)\not=0 for all lkl\not=k, then there is ϵk>0\epsilon_{k}>0 such that χkϵk>0\chi_{k}^{*}-\epsilon_{k}>0 and λl(χ,a,μ)0\lambda_{l}(\chi,a,\mu)\not=0 for χ(χkϵk,χk+ϵk)\chi\in(\chi_{k}^{*}-\epsilon_{k},\chi_{k}^{*}+\epsilon_{k}). For such kk, let

S0,k={(χ,ab)|χkϵk<χ<χk+ϵk},S_{0,k}=\{(\chi,\frac{a}{b})\,|\,\chi_{k}^{*}-\epsilon_{k}<\chi<\chi_{k}^{*}+\epsilon_{k}\},

and 𝒞k\mathcal{C}_{k} be the connected component of S¯kS0,k\bar{S}_{k}\cup S_{0,k} containing S0,kS_{0,k}. In addition, if βk0\beta_{k}\not=0, then by Theorem 3.1, pitchfork-type bifurcation occurs in (1.1) near (ab,νμab)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}) when χ\chi passes through χk\chi_{k}^{*}. In such case, let

Γk±={{(χ,Γk±(χ)| 0<χχk1}ifβk>0{(χ,Γk±(χ)| 0<χkχ1}ifβk<0.\Gamma_{k}^{\pm}=\begin{cases}\{(\chi,\Gamma_{k}^{\pm}(\chi)\,|\,0<\chi-\chi_{k}^{*}\ll 1\}\quad{\rm if}\;\beta_{k}>0\cr\cr\{(\chi,\Gamma_{k}^{\pm}(\chi)\,|\,0<\chi_{k}^{*}-\chi\ll 1\}\quad{\rm if}\;\beta_{k}<0.\end{cases}

Next, we state the main results of this section. The first theorem is on the global bifurcation.

Theorem 4.1 (Global bifurcation).

For given k1k\geq 1, assume that βk0\beta_{k}\not=0 and λl(χk,a,μ)0\lambda_{l}(\chi_{k}^{*},a,\mu)\not=0 for any lkl\not=k. Let 𝒞k±\mathcal{C}_{k}^{\pm} be the connected component of 𝒞kΓk\mathcal{C}_{k}\setminus\Gamma_{k}^{\mp} which contains Γk±\Gamma_{k}^{\pm}. Then each of the sets 𝒞k+\mathcal{C}_{k}^{+} and 𝒞k\mathcal{C}_{k}^{-} satisfies one of the following: (i) it is not compact; (ii) it contains a point (χ,ab)(\chi,\frac{a}{b}) with χχk\chi\not=\chi_{k}^{*}; or (iii) it contains a point (χ,ab+w)(\chi,\frac{a}{b}+w), where w0w\not=0 and wWw\in W, where WW complements span{coskπxL}{\rm span}\{\cos\frac{k\pi x}{L}\}. Moreover, if 𝒞k+\mathcal{C}_{k}^{+} (resp. 𝒞k\mathcal{C}_{k}^{-}) is not compact, then 𝒞k+\mathcal{C}_{k}^{+} (resp. 𝒞k\mathcal{C}_{k}^{-}) extends to infinity in the positive direction of χ\chi.

Remark 4.1.
  • (1)

    For any uΓ1+(χ)u\in\Gamma_{1}^{+}(\chi) (resp. Γ1(χ)\Gamma_{1}^{-}(\chi)) with χχ1\chi\approx\chi_{1}^{*}, ux(x)<0u_{x}(x)<0 (resp. ux(x)>0u_{x}(x)>0) for x(0,L)x\in(0,L), and u(0)>abu(0)>\frac{a}{b} (resp. u(L)>abu(L)>\frac{a}{b}).

  • (2)

    For given k1k\geq 1, if k=kk={k^{*}} and super-critical pitchfork bifurcation occurs when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*}, it is observed numerically that the global bifurcation diagram is of the form in Figure 1(a) and the bifurcation solutions are locally stable (see numerical simulations in subsection 6.2), where the red part consists of the u-components of local bifurcation solutions and the blue parts are the global extension of the u-components of local bifurcation solutions.

  • (3)

    For given k1k\geq 1, if k=kk={k^{*}} and sub-critical pitchfork occurs when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*}, it is observed numerically that the global bifurcation diagram is of the form in Figure 1(b) and the bifurcation solutions with u-components lying in the red and green parts are unstable and the bifurcation solutions with u-components lying in the blue parts are locally stable (see numerical simulations in subsections 6.3 and 6.4), where the red part consists of the u-components of local bifurcation solutions and the green and blue parts are the global extension of the u-components of local bifurcation solutions.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 1: (a) super-critical pitchfork bifurcation (b) sub-critical pitchfork bifurcation

The next two theorems are on the properties of non-constant stationary solutions.

Theorem 4.2 (Properties of non-constant stationary solutions).

Let (u(x),v(x))(u^{*}(x),v^{*}(x)) be a non-constant positive stationary solution of (1.1). Then the following hold.

  • (1)
    |vx(x)v(x)|μx[0,L].\Big{|}\frac{v_{x}^{*}(x)}{v^{*}(x)}\Big{|}\leq\sqrt{\mu}\quad\forall\,x\in[0,L]. (4.1)
  • (2)

    There is a positive constant δ>0\delta^{*}>0 independent of uu^{*} such that

    v(x)δ0Lu(x)𝑑xx[0,L].v^{*}(x)\geq\delta^{*}\int_{0}^{L}u^{*}(x)dx\quad\forall\,x\in[0,L]. (4.2)
  • (3)
    0<infx[0,L]u(x)<ab<supx[0,L]u(x),0<\inf_{x\in[0,L]}u^{*}(x)<\frac{a}{b}<\sup_{x\in[0,L]}u^{*}(x), (4.3)

    and

    0Lu(x)𝑑x<aLb,0L(u)2(x)𝑑x<a2Lb2.\int_{0}^{L}u^{*}(x)dx<\frac{aL}{b},\quad\int_{0}^{L}(u^{*})^{2}(x)dx<\frac{a^{2}L}{b^{2}}. (4.4)
  • (4)

    There is C1(χ,a,b,μ)>0C_{1}(\chi,a,b,\mu)>0 such that

    |u(x)|,|ux(x)|C1(χ,a,b,μ)x[0,L].|u^{*}(x)|,\,\,|u_{x}^{*}(x)|\leq C_{1}(\chi,a,b,\mu)\quad\forall\,x\in[0,L]. (4.5)
  • (5)

    There is C2(a,b,μ,ν)>0C_{2}(a,b,\mu,\nu)>0 such that

    vH2(0,L)C2(a,b,μ,ν).\|v^{*}\|_{H^{2}(0,L)}\leq C_{2}(a,b,\mu,\nu). (4.6)
  • (6)

    If u(x)u^{*}(x) is monotone increasing (respectively, decreasing) on (0,L)(0,L), then v(x)v^{*}(x) is strictly increasing (respectively, decreasing) on (0,L)(0,L).

Remark 4.2.

By Theorem 4.2(3), the set of uu-components of non-constant positive stationary solutions is bounded in L2(0,L)L^{2}(0,L) as χ\chi\to\infty. By Theorem 4.2(5), the set of vv-components of non-constant positive stationary solutions is bounded in H2(0,L)H^{2}(0,L) as χ\chi\to\infty and hence is bounded in C1,γ([0,L])C^{1,\gamma}([0,L]) for some γ>0{\gamma}>0. It remains open whether the set of uu-components of non-constant positive stationary solutions is bounded in C([0,L])C([0,L]) as χ\chi\to\infty.

Theorem 4.3 (Properties of non-constant stationary solutions).

Let {(u(;χn),v(;χn))}n1\{(u(\cdot;\chi_{n}),v(\cdot;\chi_{n}))\}_{n\geq 1} be a sequence of non-constant positive stationary solutions of (1.1) with χ=χn\chi=\chi_{n} and χn\chi_{n}\to\infty.

  • (1)

    If vH2(0,L)v^{*}\in H^{2}(0,L) is such that

    limnv(x;χn)=v(x)inC1([0,L])andlimnv(x;χn)=v(x)weakly inH2(0,L),\lim_{n\to\infty}v(x;\chi_{n})=v^{*}(x)\quad\text{in}\,\,C^{1}([0,L])\quad{\rm and}\,\,\,\lim_{n\to\infty}v(x;\chi_{n})=v^{*}(x)\quad\text{weakly in}\,\,H^{2}(0,L),

    then there is a constant 0v¯νμab0\leq\bar{v}\leq\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b} such that

    v(x)=v¯a.e.x[0,L].v^{*}(x)=\bar{v}\quad a.e.\,\,x\in[0,L].
  • (2)

    If uL2(0,L)u^{*}\in L^{2}(0,L) is such that

    limnu(x;χn)=u(x)weakly inL2(0,L)orlimnu(x;χn)=u(x)a.e.x[0,L],\lim_{n\to\infty}u(x;\chi_{n})=u^{*}(x)\quad\text{weakly in}\,\,L^{2}(0,L)\quad{\rm or}\,\,\,\lim_{n\to\infty}u(x;\chi_{n})=u^{*}(x)\quad a.e.\,\,x\in[0,L],

    then there is a constant 0u¯ab0\leq\bar{u}\leq\frac{a}{b} such that

    u(x)=u¯a.e.x[0,L].u^{*}(x)=\bar{u}\quad a.e.\,\,x\in[0,L].
Remark 4.3.

Let {(u(;χn),v(;χn))}n1\{(u(\cdot;\chi_{n}),v(\cdot;\chi_{n}))\}_{n\geq 1} be a sequence of non-constant positive stationary solutions of (1.1) with χ=χn\chi=\chi_{n} and χn\chi_{n}\to\infty.

  • (1)

    By Theorem 4.2(3) and (5), there are nkn_{k}\to\infty, uL2(0,L)u^{*}\in L^{2}(0,L), and vH2(0,L)v^{*}\in H^{2}(0,L) such that

    limnku(x;χnk)=u(x)weakly inL2(0,L),\lim_{n_{k}\to\infty}u(x;\chi_{n_{k}})=u^{*}(x)\quad\text{weakly in}\,\,L^{2}(0,L),

    and

    limnkv(x;χnk)=v(x)inC1([0,L]),limnkv(x;χnk)=v(x)weakly inH2(0,L).\lim_{n_{k}\to\infty}v(x;\chi_{n_{k}})=v^{*}(x)\quad\text{in}\,\,C^{1}([0,L]),\quad\lim_{n_{k}\to\infty}v(x;\chi_{n_{k}})=v^{*}(x)\quad\text{weakly in}\,\,H^{2}(0,L).
  • (2)

    If there are uL2(0,L)u^{*}\in L^{2}(0,L) and x[0,L]x^{*}\in[0,L] such that

    limnu(x;χn)=u(x)a.e.x(0,L),andlim infnu(x;χn)>ab,\lim_{n\to\infty}u(x;\chi_{n})=u^{*}(x)\quad a.e.\,\,x\in(0,L),\quad{\rm and}\,\,\,\liminf_{n\to\infty}u(x^{*};\chi_{n})>\frac{a}{b},

    then by Theorem 4.3 (2), there is u¯[0,ab]\bar{u}\in[0,\frac{a}{b}] such that

    limnu(x;χn)=u¯aba.e.x[0,x)(x,L],\lim_{n\to\infty}u(x;\chi_{n})=\bar{u}\leq\frac{a}{b}\quad a.e.\,\,x\in[0,x^{*})\cup(x^{*},L],

    which shows in certain sense that {(u(;χn),v(;χn))}n1\{(u(\cdot;\chi_{n}),v(\cdot;\chi_{n}))\}_{n\geq 1} develops “spikes” at xx^{*} as nn\to\infty. We will give a definition of spikes and study spiky solutions in next section.

In the following, we prove Theorems 4.1-4.3. We first prove Theorem 4.2 since we need to employ Theorem 4.2 in the proof of Theorem 4.1. Next, we prove Theorem 4.3. We end this section by proving Theorem 4.1.

We first prove Theorem 4.2.

Proof of Theorem 4.2.

(1) We first extend u(x)u^{*}(x) to the following u~(x)\tilde{u}^{*}(x),

u~(x)={u(x),0xLu(2kLx),(2k1)Lx2kL,k=1,2,u(x2kL),2kLx(2k+1)L,k=1,2,\tilde{u}^{*}(x)=\begin{cases}u^{*}(x),\quad&0\leq x\leq L\cr u^{*}(2kL-x),\quad&(2k-1)L\leq x\leq 2kL,\,\,k=1,2,\cdots\cr u^{*}(x-2kL),\quad&2kL\leq x\leq(2k+1)L,\,\,k=1,2,\cdots\end{cases}

and

u~(x)=u~(x)x0.\tilde{u}^{*}(x)=\tilde{u}^{*}(-x)\quad\forall\,\,x\leq 0.

It is clear that

u~(x)=u~(x),u~(x+L)=u~(x+L),u~(x+2L)=u~(x).\tilde{u}^{*}(x)=\tilde{u}^{*}(-x),\quad\tilde{u}^{*}(x+L)=\tilde{u}^{*}(-x+L),\quad\tilde{u}^{*}(x+2L)=\tilde{u}^{*}(x). (4.7)

This implies that

u~x(kL)=0fork=0,±1,±2,.\tilde{u}^{*}_{x}(kL)=0\quad{\rm for}\,\,k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\cdots. (4.8)

Next, let v~(x)\tilde{v}^{*}(x) be the solution of

vxxμv+u~(x)=0,x.v_{xx}-\mu v+\tilde{u}^{*}(x)=0,\quad x\in\mathbb{R}. (4.9)

Then we also have

v~(x)=v~(x),v~(x+L)=v~(x+L),v~(x+2L)=v~(x)\tilde{v}^{*}(x)=\tilde{v}^{*}(-x),\quad\tilde{v}^{*}(x+L)=\tilde{v}^{*}(-x+L),\quad\tilde{v}^{*}(x+2L)=\tilde{v}^{*}(x) (4.10)

and

v~x(kL)=0fork=0,±1,±2,.\tilde{v}^{*}_{x}(kL)=0\quad{\rm for}\,\,k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\cdots. (4.11)

This implies that

v(x)=v~(x)for0xL.{v^{*}(x)}=\tilde{v}^{*}(x)\quad{\rm for}\quad 0\leq x\leq L. (4.12)

Now, by [26, Lemma 2.2],

|v~x(x)v~(x)|μx.|\frac{\tilde{v}_{x}^{*}(x)}{\tilde{v}^{*}(x)}|\leq\sqrt{\mu}\quad\forall\,x\in\mathbb{R}.

This together with (4.12) implies that (4.1) holds.

(2) It follows from [11, Lemma 2.1].

(3) First, observe that

{uxxχ(uvvx)x+u(abu)=0,0<x<Lux(0)=ux(L)=0\begin{cases}u^{*}_{xx}-\chi(\frac{u^{*}}{v^{*}}v^{*}_{x})_{x}+u^{*}(a-bu^{*})=0,\quad 0<x<L\cr u^{*}_{x}(0)=u^{*}_{x}(L)=0\end{cases} (4.13)

and vx(0)=vx(L)=0v_{x}^{*}(0)=v_{x}^{*}(L)=0. It then follows that

0=a0Lu(x)𝑑xb0L(u)2(x)𝑑xa0Lu(x)𝑑xbL(0Lu(x)𝑑x)2.0=a\int_{0}^{L}u^{*}(x)dx-b\int_{0}^{L}(u^{*})^{2}(x)dx\leq a\int_{0}^{L}u^{*}(x)dx-\frac{b}{L}\big{(}\int_{0}^{L}u^{*}(x)dx\big{)}^{2}.

This implies that

infx[0,L](abu(x))<0<supx[0,L](abu(x))(sinceu(x)constant),\inf_{x\in[0,L]}(a-bu^{*}(x))<0<\sup_{x\in[0,L]}(a-bu^{*}(x))\quad{\rm(since\,\,}u^{*}(x)\not\equiv\,{\rm constant)},
0Lu(x)𝑑xaLb,\int_{0}^{L}u^{*}(x)dx\leq\frac{aL}{b},

and

0L(u)2(x)𝑑x=ab0Lu(x)𝑑x.\int_{0}^{L}(u^{*})^{2}(x)dx=\frac{a}{b}\int_{0}^{L}u^{*}(x)dx.

(4.3) and (4.4) then follow.

(4) Integrating the first equation in (4.13) from 0 to xx and noting that ux(0)=vx(0)=0u^{*}_{x}(0)=v^{*}_{x}(0)=0, we get

ux(x)=χvx(x)v(x)u(x)+f(x)x[0,L],u^{*}_{x}(x)=\chi\frac{v^{*}_{x}(x)}{v^{*}(x)}u^{*}(x)+f^{*}(x)\quad\forall\,x\in[0,L], (4.14)

where

f(x)=0xu(z)(abu(z))𝑑zforx[0,L].f^{*}(x)=-\int_{0}^{x}u^{*}(z)(a-bu^{*}(z))dz\quad{\rm for}\quad x\in[0,L].

By (4.3), there is x0[0,L]x_{0}\in[0,L] such that u(x0)=abu^{*}(x_{0})=\frac{a}{b}. We then have

u(x)=eχx0xvx(z)v(z)𝑑zab+x0xeχzxvx(y)v(y)𝑑yf(z)𝑑zx[0,L].u^{*}(x)=e^{\chi\int_{x_{0}}^{x}\frac{v_{x}^{*}(z)}{v^{*}(z)}dz}\frac{a}{b}+\int_{x_{0}}^{x}e^{\chi\int_{z}^{x}\frac{v_{x}^{*}(y)}{v^{*}(y)}dy}f^{*}(z)dz\quad\forall\,x\in[0,L]. (4.15)

By (4.1), (4.4), (4.14), and (4.15), there is C(χ,μ,a,b)>0C(\chi,\mu,a,b)>0 such that (4.5) holds.

(5) Observe that

{vxxμv(x)+νu(x)=0,x(0,L)vx(0)=vx(L)=0.\begin{cases}v^{*}_{xx}-\mu v^{*}(x)+\nu u^{*}(x)=0,\quad x\in(0,L)\cr v^{*}_{x}(0)=v^{*}_{x}(L)=0.\end{cases}

By (4.3), (4.4), and a priori estimates for elliptic equations, there is C2(a,b,μ,ν)>0C_{2}(a,b,\mu,\nu)>0 such that (4.6) holds.

(6) Without loss of generality, we assume that u(x)u^{*}(x) is monotone increasing on (0,L)(0,L). Then ux(x)0u^{*}_{x}(x)\geq 0 on (0,L)(0,L). Let w=vxw^{*}=v^{*}_{x}. Then w(x)w^{*}(x) is the solution of

{wxxμw(x)+νux(x)=0,0<x<Lw(0)=w(L)=0.\begin{cases}w^{*}_{xx}-\mu w^{*}(x)+\nu u^{*}_{x}(x)=0,\quad 0<x<L\cr w^{*}(0)=w^{*}(L)=0.\end{cases} (4.16)

Since u(x)u^{*}(x)\not\equiv constant, we have v(x)v^{*}(x)\not\equiv constant and w(x)0w^{*}(x)\not\equiv 0. By maximum principle for elliptic equations, we have

w(x)>0,0<x<L.w^{*}(x)>0,\quad 0<x<L.

This implies that vx(x)>0v^{*}_{x}(x)>0 for every x(0,L)x\in(0,L). ∎

Next, we prove Theorem 4.3.

Proof of Theorem 4.3.

For simplicity in notation, put

(un(x),vn(x))=(u(x;χn),v(x;χn)).(u_{n}(x),v_{n}(x))=(u(x;\chi_{n}),v(x;\chi_{n})).

(1) First, By Theorem 4.2,

lim supn0Lun2(x)𝑑x<.\limsup_{n\to\infty}\int_{0}^{L}u_{n}^{2}(x)dx<\infty.

Without loss of generality, we may then assume that there is uL2(0,L)u^{*}\in L^{2}(0,L) such that

limnun(x)=u(x)weakly in L2(0,L).\lim_{n\to\infty}u_{n}(x)=u^{*}(x)\quad\text{weakly in }\,\,L^{2}(0,L).

Note that

vnxxμvn+νun=0on(0,L).v_{nxx}-\mu v_{n}+\nu u_{n}=0\quad\text{on}\,\,(0,L). (4.17)

We then have vnxxv_{nxx} converges to vxx=μvνuv^{*}_{xx}=\mu v^{*}-\nu u^{*} weakly in L2(0,L)L^{2}(0,L), and vv^{*} is a weak solution of

{vxxμv+νu=0,0<x<Lvx(0)=vx(L)=0.\begin{cases}v^{*}_{xx}-\mu v^{*}+\nu u^{*}=0,\quad 0<x<L\cr v^{*}_{x}(0)=v^{*}_{x}(L)=0.\end{cases} (4.18)

If u(x)=0u^{*}(x)=0 for a.e. x[0,L]x\in[0,L], we have v(x)=0v^{*}(x)=0 for all x[0,L]x\in[0,L]. (1) then follows.

In the following, we assume that u(x)0u^{*}(x)\not=0 for a.e. x[0,L]x\in[0,L]. Then

0Lu(x)𝑑x>0.\int_{0}^{L}u^{*}(x)dx>0.

This implies that

limn0Lun(x)𝑑x>0.\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_{0}^{L}u_{n}(x)dx>0.

This together with Theorem 4.2(2) implies that there is σ>0\sigma>0 such that

vn(x)σn1,x[0,L].v_{n}(x)\geq\sigma\quad\forall\,n\gg 1,\,\,x\in[0,L]. (4.19)

Note that

vnx(x)vn(x)un(x)=1χn(unx(x)fn(x))x(0,L),\frac{v_{nx}(x)}{v_{n}(x)}u_{n}(x)=\frac{1}{\chi_{n}}\Big{(}u_{nx}(x)-f_{n}(x)\Big{)}\quad\forall\,x\in(0,L), (4.20)

where

fn(x)=xLun(z)(abun(z))𝑑zforx(0,L).f_{n}(x)={\int_{x}^{L}}u_{n}(z)(a-bu_{n}(z))dz\quad{\rm for}\quad x\in(0,L).

By Theorem 4.2, {fn}\{f_{n}\} is a bounded sequence on C([0,L])C([0,L]). By (4.19),

v(x)σx[0,L].v^{*}(x)\geq{\sigma}\quad\forall\,x\in[0,L].

This together with (4.20) implies that, for any x1,x2[0,L]x_{1},x_{2}\in[0,L],

x1x2vx(x)v(x)u(x)𝑑x\displaystyle\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}}\frac{v_{x}^{*}(x)}{v^{*}(x)}u^{*}(x)dx =limnx1x2vnxvnun𝑑x\displaystyle=\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}}\frac{v_{nx}}{v_{n}}u_{n}dx
=limn(1χnx1x2unx𝑑x1χnx1x2fn(x)𝑑x)\displaystyle=\lim_{n\to\infty}\big{(}\frac{1}{\chi_{n}}\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}}u_{nx}dx-\frac{1}{\chi_{n}}\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}}f_{n}(x)dx\big{)}
=limn1χn(un(x2)un(x1)).\displaystyle=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{\chi_{n}}\big{(}u_{n}(x_{2})-u_{n}(x_{1})\big{)}. (4.21)

By Fatou’s Lemma, we have

00Llim infnun(x)dxlim infn0Lun(x)𝑑xaLb.0\leq\int_{0}^{L}\liminf_{n\to\infty}u_{n}(x)dx\leq\liminf_{n\to\infty}\int_{0}^{L}u_{n}(x)dx\leq\frac{aL}{b}.

Hence for a.e. x[0,L]x\in[0,L], lim infnun(x)<\liminf_{n\to\infty}u_{n}(x)<\infty. Therefore, there is c[0,L]c\in[0,L] such that

lim infnun(c)<.\liminf_{n\to\infty}u_{n}(c)<\infty.

Then there is nkn_{k}\to\infty such that limnkunk(c)\lim_{n_{k}\to\infty}u_{n_{k}}(c) exists and

limnkunk(c)=lim infnun(c)<.\lim_{n_{k}\to\infty}u_{n_{k}}(c)={\liminf_{n\to\infty}}u_{n}(c)<\infty.

By Fatou’s Lemma again,

00Llim infnkunk(x)dxlim infnk0Lunk(x)𝑑xaLb.0\leq\int_{0}^{L}\liminf_{n_{k}\to\infty}u_{n_{k}}(x)dx\leq\liminf_{n_{k}\to\infty}\int_{0}^{L}u_{n_{k}}(x)dx\leq\frac{aL}{b}.

Then for a.e. x[0,L]x\in[0,L], lim infnkunk(x)dx<\liminf_{n_{k}\to\infty}u_{n_{k}}(x)dx<\infty. Let

E={x[0,L]|lim infnkunk(x)<}.E=\{x\in[0,L]\,|\,\liminf_{n_{k}\to\infty}u_{n_{k}}(x)<\infty\}.

For any dEd\in E, there is {nk}{nk}\{n_{k}^{{}^{\prime}}\}\subset\{n_{k}\} such that

limnkunk(d)=lim infnkunk(d)<.\lim_{n_{k}^{{}^{\prime}}\to\infty}u_{n_{k}^{{}^{\prime}}}(d)=\liminf_{n_{k}\to\infty}u_{n_{k}}(d)<\infty.

Then by (4), we have

cdvx(x)v(x)u(x)𝑑x=limnk1χnk(unk(d)unk(c))=0.\int_{c}^{d}\frac{v_{x}^{*}(x)}{v^{*}(x)}u^{*}(x)dx=\lim_{n_{k}^{{}^{\prime}}\to\infty}\frac{1}{\chi_{n_{k}^{{}^{\prime}}}}\big{(}u_{n_{k}^{{}^{\prime}}}({d})-u_{n_{k}^{{}^{\prime}}}({c})\big{)}=0.

This implies that for any d1,d2Ed_{1},d_{2}\in E,

d1d2vx(x)v(x)u(x)𝑑x=cd1vx(x)v(x)u(x)𝑑x+cd2vx(x)v(x)u(x)𝑑x=0.\int_{d_{1}}^{d_{2}}\frac{v_{x}^{*}(x)}{v^{*}(x)}u^{*}(x)dx=-\int_{c}^{d_{1}}\frac{v_{x}^{*}(x)}{v^{*}(x)}u^{*}(x)dx+\int_{c}^{d_{2}}\frac{v_{x}^{*}(x)}{v^{*}(x)}u^{*}(x)dx=0.

For any x1,x2[0,L]x_{1},x_{2}\in[0,L] and ϵ>0\epsilon>0, there are d1,d2Ed_{1},d_{2}\in E such that

|x1x2vx(x)v(x)u(x)𝑑xd1d2vx(x)v(x)u(x)𝑑x|=|x1x2vx(x)v(x)u(x)𝑑x|<ϵ.|\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}}\frac{v_{x}^{*}(x)}{v^{*}(x)}u^{*}(x)dx-\int_{d_{1}}^{d_{2}}\frac{v_{x}^{*}(x)}{v^{*}(x)}u^{*}(x)dx|=|\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}}\frac{v_{x}^{*}(x)}{v^{*}(x)}u^{*}(x)dx|<\epsilon.

This implies that

x1x2vx(x)v(x)u(x)𝑑x=0x1,x2[0,L]\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}}\frac{v_{x}^{*}(x)}{v^{*}(x)}u^{*}(x)dx=0\quad\forall\,x_{1},x_{2}\in[0,L]

and then

vx(x)u(x)=0fora.e.x[0,L].v_{x}^{*}(x)u^{*}(x)=0\quad{\rm for}\,\,a.e.\,\,x\in[0,L].

Note that vx(0)=vx(L)=0v^{*}_{x}(0)=v^{*}_{x}(L)=0. Let c,d[0,L]{c^{*},d^{*}}\in[0,L] be such that

v(c)=minx[0,L]v(x),v(d)=maxx[0,L]v(x).v^{*}({c^{*}})=\min_{x\in[0,L]}v^{*}(x),\quad v^{*}(d^{*})=\max_{x\in[0,L]}v^{*}(x).

Then vx(c)=vx(d)=0v_{x}^{*}({c^{*}})=v_{x}^{*}({d^{*}})=0. By (4.18), we have

cdvxxvx𝑑xμcdvvx𝑑x+νcduvx𝑑x=0.\int_{c^{*}}^{d^{*}}v^{*}_{xx}v^{*}_{x}dx-\mu\int_{c^{*}}^{d^{*}}v^{*}v_{x}^{*}dx+\nu\int_{c^{*}}^{d^{*}}u^{*}v_{x}^{*}dx=0.

This implies that

v(c)=v(d).v^{*}(c^{*})=v^{*}(d^{*}).

Hence there is v¯0\bar{v}\geq 0 such that

v(x)=v¯x[0,L]v^{*}(x)=\bar{v}\quad\forall\,x\in[0,L] (4.22)

and then

u(x)=μνv¯a.e.x[0,L].u^{*}(x)=\frac{\mu}{\nu}\bar{v}\quad a.e.\,\,x\in[0,L].

Note that

0Lu(x)𝑑xabL.\int_{0}^{L}{u^{*}(x)}dx\leq\frac{a}{b}{L}.

Hence v¯νμab\bar{v}\leq\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b}. (1) is thus proved.

(2) First, suppose that

un(x)u(x)weakly inL2(0,L).u_{n}(x)\to u^{*}(x)\quad\text{weakly in}\,\,L^{2}(0,L).

By Theorem 4.2(5), without loss of generality, we may assume that there is vH2(0,L)v^{*}\in H^{2}(0,L) such that

limnvn(x)=v(x)inC1([0,L])andlimnvn(x)=v(x)weakly inH2(0,L),\lim_{n\to\infty}v_{n}(x)=v^{*}(x)\quad\text{in}\,\,C^{1}([0,L])\quad{\rm and}\,\,\,\lim_{n\to\infty}v_{n}(x)=v^{*}(x)\quad\text{weakly in}\,\,H^{2}(0,L),

By the arguments in (1), there is 0u¯ab0\leq\bar{u}\leq\frac{a}{b} such that

u(x)=u¯a.e.x[0,L].u^{*}(x)=\bar{u}\quad a.e.\,x\in[0,L].

Next, suppose that

un(x)u(x)a.e.x[0,L].u_{n}(x)\to u^{*}(x)\quad\,a.e.\,x\in[0,L].

By Theorem 4.2(3), unu_{n} is a bounded sequence in L2(0,L)L^{2}(0,L). Hence

limnun(x)=u(x)weakly inL2(0,L).\lim_{n\to\infty}u_{n}(x)=u^{*}(x)\quad\text{weakly in}\,\,L^{2}(0,L).

Then there is 0u¯ab0\leq\bar{u}\leq\frac{a}{b} such that

u(x)=u¯a.e.x[0,L].u^{*}(x)=\bar{u}\quad a.e.\,x\in[0,L].

The theorem is thus proved. ∎

Finally, we prove Theorem 4.1.

Proof of Theorem 4.1.

It is easy to see that

F(χ,ab)=0χ>0,F(\chi,\frac{a}{b})=0\quad\forall\,\ \chi>0,
DuF(χ,ab)u=uxx+(χμa)uχμ2νvuX,D_{u}F(\chi,\frac{a}{b})u=u_{xx}+(\chi\mu-a)u-\frac{\chi\mu^{2}}{\nu}v\quad\forall\,u\in X,

and

DχDuF(χ,ab)u=μuμ2νvuX,D_{\chi}D_{u}F(\chi,\frac{a}{b})u=\mu u-\frac{\mu^{2}}{{\nu}}v\quad\forall\,u\in X,

where vv is the solution of (2.3).

When χ=χk\chi=\chi_{k}^{{*}}, we have

𝒩(DuF(χk,ab)=span{ϕk}\mathcal{N}(D_{u}F(\chi_{k}^{{*}},\frac{a}{b})={\rm span}\{{\phi_{k}}\}

and

(DχDuF(χ,ab)ϕk)(x)=μk2π2μL2+k2π2coskπxL(Du(χk,ab)),\Big{(}D_{\chi}D_{u}F(\chi,\frac{a}{b})\phi_{k}\Big{)}(x)=\frac{{\mu}k^{2}\pi^{2}}{\mu L^{2}+k^{2}\pi^{2}}\cos\frac{k\pi x}{L}\not\in\mathcal{R}(D_{u}(\chi_{k}^{{*}},\frac{a}{b})),

where ϕk(x)=coskπxL\phi_{k}(x)=\cos\frac{k\pi x}{L}. It is clear that for any uXu\in X and χ>0\chi>0, DuF(χ,ab){{D_{u}F(\chi,\frac{a}{b})}} is a Fredholm operator. By [27, Theorem 4.4], each of the sets 𝒞k+\mathcal{C}_{k}^{+} and 𝒞k\mathcal{C}_{k}^{-} satisfies one of (i), (ii), (iii) in the statement.

Suppose that 𝒞k+\mathcal{C}_{k}^{+} satisfies (i), i.e., 𝒞k+\mathcal{C}_{k}^{+} is not compact. We claim that 𝒞k+\mathcal{C}_{k}^{+} extends to infinity in the positive direction of χ\chi. For otherwise, there are (χn,un)𝒞k+{(\chi_{n}^{*},u_{n}^{*})}\in\mathcal{C}_{k}^{+} such that χnχ<{{\chi_{n}^{*}}}\to\chi^{**}<\infty, and there is no uXu\in X such that (χ,u)𝒞k+({\chi^{**}},u)\in\mathcal{C}_{k}^{+}. By Theorem 4.2, without loss of generality, we may assume that there are (u,v)(u^{*},v^{*}) such that

un(x)u(x),vn(x)v(x)u_{n}^{*}(x)\to u^{*}(x),\quad v_{n}^{*}(x)\to v^{*}(x)

as nn\to\infty uniformly in x[0,L]x\in[0,L]. Then both u(x)u^{*}(x) and v(x)v^{*}(x) are uniformly continuous in x[0,L]x\in[0,L]. By Theorem 4.2 again, supx[0,L]un(x)ab\sup_{x\in[0,L]}u_{n}^{*}(x)\geq\frac{a}{b}, we must have supx[0,L]u(x)ab\sup_{x\in[0,L]}u^{*}(x)\geq\frac{a}{b}. This implies that

0Lu(x)𝑑x>0\int_{0}^{L}u^{*}(x)dx>0

and then

infx[0,L]v(x)>0.\inf_{x\in[0,L]}v^{*}(x)>0.

We then have that (u(x),v(x))(u^{*}(x),v^{*}(x)) is a positive stationary solution of (1.1) with χ=χ\chi=\chi^{**}. By the connectness of 𝒞k+\mathcal{C}_{k}^{+}, we have (χ,u)𝒞k+(\chi^{**},u^{*})\in\mathcal{C}_{k}^{+}, which is a contradiction. Therefore, the claim holds.

Similarly, if 𝒞k{\mathcal{C}_{k}^{-}} is not compact, then it extends to infinity in the positive direction of χ\chi. The theorem is thus proved. ∎

5 Spiky stationary solutions

In this section, we study spiky stationary solutions. We first give the following definition.

Definition 5.1.

Let {(u(;χn),v(;χn))}\{(u^{*}(\cdot;\chi_{n}),v^{*}(\cdot;\chi_{n}))\} be positive non-constant stationary solutions of (1.1) with χ=χn\chi=\chi_{n} and χn\chi_{n}\to\infty. We say that u(;χn)u^{*}(\cdot;\chi_{n}) develops spikes at x[0,L]x^{*}\in[0,L] as nn\to\infty if there are σ>0\sigma^{*}>0 and δ>0\delta^{*}>0 such that

lim infn(maxx[xδ,x+δ][0,L]u(x;χn)minx[xδ,x+δ][0,L]u(x;χn))σ  0<δ<δ.\liminf_{n\to\infty}\Big{(}\max_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta,x^{*}+\delta]\cap[0,L]}u^{*}(x;\chi_{n})-\min_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta,x^{*}+\delta]\cap[0,L]}u^{*}(x;\chi_{n})\Big{)}\geq\sigma^{*}\quad\forall\,\,0<\delta<\delta^{*}. (5.1)

Such xx^{*} is called a spiky point of {(u(;χn),v(;χn))}\{(u^{*}(\cdot;\chi_{n}),v^{*}(\cdot;\chi_{n}))\}. If x{0,L}x^{*}\in\{0,L\} (resp. x(0,L)x^{*}\in(0,L)), we say that u(;χn)u^{*}(\cdot;\chi_{n}) develops boundary spikes (resp. interior spikes).

Remark 5.1.

Let {(u(;χn),v(;χn))}\{(u^{*}(\cdot;\chi_{n}),v^{*}(\cdot;\chi_{n}))\} be positive non-constant stationary solutions of (1.1) with χ=χn\chi=\chi_{n} and χn\chi_{n}\to\infty.

  • (1)

    The condition (5.1) indicates that for any δ>0\delta>0, {(u(;χn),v(;χn))}\{(u^{*}(\cdot;\chi_{n}),v^{*}(\cdot;\chi_{n}))\} is not near a constant function on [xδ,x+δ][0,L][x^{*}-\delta,x^{*}+\delta]\cap[0,L] for n1n\gg 1.

  • (2)

    If (5.1) holds, then for any 0<δ10<\delta\ll 1,

    lim infnmaxx[xδ,x+δ][0,L]|ux(x;χn)|=,\liminf_{n\to\infty}\max_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta,x^{*}+\delta]\cap[0,L]}|u^{*}_{x}(x;\chi_{n})|=\infty, (5.2)

    which indicates that u(x;χn)u^{*}(x;\chi_{n}) changes quickly near xx^{*}. In fact, assume that (5.2) does not hold. Then there is 0<δ0<δ0<\delta_{0}<\delta^{*} such that

    lim infnmaxx[xδ0,x+δ0][0,L]|ux(x;χn)|<.\liminf_{n\to\infty}\max_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta_{0},x^{*}+\delta_{0}]\cap[0,L]}|u^{*}_{x}(x;\chi_{n})|<\infty.

    Then there are M>0M>0 and nkn_{k}\to\infty such that

    |ux(x;χnk)|Mx[xδ0,x+δ0][0,L],k1.|u^{*}_{x}(x;\chi_{n_{k}})|\leq M\quad\forall\,\,x\in[x^{*}-\delta_{0},x^{*}+\delta_{0}]\cap[0,L],\,\,k\geq 1.

    By Theorem 4.2 (3),

    0Lu(x;χn)<aLbn1.\int_{0}^{L}u^{*}(x;\chi_{n})<\frac{aL}{b}\quad\forall\,n\geq 1.

    This implies that there are M~>0\tilde{M}>0 and xn[xδ0,x+δ0][0,L]x_{n}\in[x^{*}-\delta_{0},x^{*}+\delta_{0}]\cap[0,L] such that

    u(xn;χn)=minx[xδ0,x+δ0][0,L]u(x;χn)M~n1.u^{*}(x_{n};\chi_{n})=\min_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta_{0},x^{*}+\delta_{0}]\cap[0,L]}u^{*}(x;\chi_{n})\leq\tilde{M}\quad\forall\,n\geq 1.

    Note also that

    u(x;χn)=u(xn;χn)+xnxux(x;χn)𝑑xu^{*}(x;\chi_{n})=u^{*}(x_{n};\chi_{n})+\int_{x_{n}}^{x}u^{*}_{x}(x;\chi_{n})dx

    for all x[0,L]x\in[0,L] and n1n\geq 1. This implies that

    lim infnk(maxx[xδ,x+δ][0,L]u(x;χnk)minx[xδ,x+δ][0,L]u(x;χnk))<σ 0<δδ0,\liminf_{n_{k}\to\infty}\Big{(}\max_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta,x^{*}+\delta]\cap[0,L]}u^{*}({x};\chi_{n_{k}})-\min_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta,x^{*}+\delta]\cap[0,L]}u^{*}(x;\chi_{n_{k}})\Big{)}<\sigma^{*}\quad\forall\,0<\delta\ll\delta_{0}, (5.3)

    which contradicts to (5.1). Hence (5.2) holds.

Theorem 5.1 (Spiky stationary solutions).

Let {(u(;χn),v(;χn))}n1\{(u(\cdot;\chi_{n}),v(\cdot;\chi_{n}))\}_{n\geq 1} be a sequence of non-constant positive stationary solutions of (1.1) with χ=χn\chi=\chi_{n} and χn\chi_{n}\to\infty.

  • (1)

    If x[0,L]x^{*}\in[0,L] satisfies that there is m>abm^{*}>\frac{a}{b} such that

    lim infnmaxx[xδ,x+δ][0,L]u(x;χn)m  0<δ1,\liminf_{n\to\infty}\max_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta,x^{*}+\delta]\cap[0,L]}u(x;\chi_{n})\geq m^{*}\quad\forall\,\,0<\delta\ll 1, (5.4)

    then xx^{*} is a spiky point of the sequence {(u(;χn),v(;χn))}n1\{(u(\cdot;\chi_{n}),v(\cdot;\chi_{n}))\}_{n\geq 1}. In particular, if x[0,L]x^{*}\in[0,L] satisfies that

    lim infnu(x;χn)>ab,\liminf_{n\to\infty}u(x^{*};\chi_{n})>\frac{a}{b}, (5.5)

    then xx^{*} is a spiky point of the sequence {(u(;χn),v(;χn))}n1\{(u(\cdot;\chi_{n}),v(\cdot;\chi_{n}))\}_{n\geq 1}.

  • (2)

    If

    lim infnmaxx[0,L]u(x;χn)>ab,\liminf_{n\to\infty}\max_{x\in[0,L]}u(x;\chi_{n})>\frac{a}{b}, (5.6)

    then there are {nk}\{n_{k}\} and x[0,L]x^{*}\in[0,L] such that xx^{*} is a spiky point of the sub-sequence {(u(;χnk),v(;χnk))}k1\{(u(\cdot;\chi_{n_{k}}),v(\cdot;\chi_{n_{k}}))\}_{k\geq 1}.

  • (3)

    If {u(;χn)}\{u(\cdot;\chi_{n})\} satisfies that

    {ux(x;χn)0(resp.ux(x;χn)0)x(0,L),lim infnu(0;χn)>ab(resp.lim infnu(L;χn)>ab),\begin{cases}u_{x}(x;\chi_{n})\leq 0\,\,\,({\rm resp.}\,\,u_{x}(x;\chi_{n})\geq 0)\quad\forall\,\,x\in(0,L),\cr\cr\liminf_{n\to\infty}u(0;\chi_{n})>\frac{a}{b}\,\,\,({\rm resp.}\,\,\liminf_{n\to\infty}u(L;\chi_{n})>\frac{a}{b}),\end{cases} (5.7)

    then x=0x^{*}=0 (resp. x=Lx^{*}=L) is a boundary spiky point of {(u(;χn),v(;χn))}n1\{(u(\cdot;\chi_{n}),v(\cdot;\chi_{n}))\}_{n\geq 1}. Moreover, there is u¯[0,ab]{\bar{u}}\in[0,\frac{a}{b}] such that

    limnu(x;χn)=u¯locally uniformly inx(0,L).\lim_{{n}\to\infty}u(x;\chi_{n})=\bar{u}\quad\text{locally uniformly in}\,\,x\in(0,L). (5.8)

    In addition, if lim supnu(0;χn)<\limsup_{n\to\infty}u(0;\chi_{n})<\infty (resp. lim supnu(L;χn)<\limsup_{n\to\infty}u(L;\chi_{n})<\infty) and there are 0<c<d<L0<c<d<L such that

    lim supnmaxx[c,d]u(x;χn)<ab,\limsup_{n\to\infty}\max_{x\in[c,d]}u(x;\chi_{n})<\frac{a}{b},

    then u¯=0\bar{u}=0.

Remark 5.2.
  • (1)

    For the case that a=b=μ=ν=L=1a=b=\mu=\nu=L=1, it is seen numerically that solutions in 𝒞1±\mathcal{C}_{1}^{\pm} are stable and for any (χn,u(;χn))𝒞1+(\chi_{n},{u(\cdot;\chi_{n})})\in\mathcal{C}_{1}^{+} (resp. 𝒞1\mathcal{C}_{1}^{-}) with χn\chi_{n}\to\infty, lim infnu(0;χn)>1\liminf_{n\to\infty}{u(0;\chi_{n})}>1 (resp. lim infnu(L;χn)>1\liminf_{n\to\infty}{u(L;\chi_{n})}>1), {u(;χn)}\{{u(\cdot;\chi_{n})}\} develops spikes at the boundary point x=0x^{*}=0 (resp. x=1x^{*}=1), and limnu(x;χn)=0\lim_{n\to\infty}{u(x;\chi_{n})}=0 locally uniformly in (0,1](0,1] (resp. [0,1)[0,1)) (see Numerical Experiment 2).

  • (2)

    For the case a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1 and L=6L=6, it is known that solutions with uu-components belonging to Γ2±(χ){\Gamma}_{2}^{\pm}(\chi) with χχ2\chi\approx\chi_{2}^{*} are unstable. Numerically, it is observed that solutions with uu-components belonging to 𝒞2±(χ)\mathcal{C}_{2}^{\pm}(\chi) with χχ2\chi\gg\chi_{2}^{*} are locally stable and either a double boundary spike or a single interior spike appears as χ\chi\to\infty (see Numerical Experiment 4).

  • (3)

    For the case a=2a=2, b=ν=1b=\nu=1, μ=3\mu=3 and L=6L=6, it is known that solutions with uu-components belonging to Γ3±(χ){\Gamma}_{3}^{\pm}(\chi) with χχ3\chi\approx\chi_{3}^{*} are unstable. Numerically, it is seen that solutions with uu-components belonging to 𝒞3±(χ)\mathcal{C}_{3}^{\pm}(\chi) with χχ3\chi\gg\chi_{3}^{*} are locally stable and develops spikes at some boundary point and some interior point simultaneously (see numerical simulations in subsection 5.4).

Now, we prove Theorem 5.1.

Proof of Theorem 5.1.

(1) Assume that xx^{*} satisfies (5.4). Put

(un(x),vn(x))=(u(x;χn),v(x;χn)).(u_{n}(x),v_{n}(x))=(u(x;\chi_{n}),v(x;\chi_{n})).

Note that, to prove that xx^{*} is a spiky point, it is to prove that there are δ>0\delta^{*}>0 and σ>0\sigma^{*}>0 such that

lim infn(maxx[xδ,x+δ][0,L]un(x)minx[xδ,x+δ][0,L]un(x))σ  0<δ<δ.\liminf_{n\to\infty}\Big{(}\max_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta,x^{*}+\delta]\cap[0,L]}u_{n}(x)-\min_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta,x^{*}+\delta]\cap[0,L]}u_{n}(x)\Big{)}\geq\sigma^{*}\quad\forall\,\,0<\delta<\delta^{*}. (5.9)

We prove this by contradiction. Assume that (5.9) does not hold. Then for any m1m\geq 1, there is 0<δm<1m0<\delta_{m}<\frac{1}{m} such that

lim infn(maxx[xδm,x+δm][0,L]un(x)minx[xδm,x+δm][0,L]un(x))<1m.\liminf_{n\to\infty}\Big{(}\max_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta_{m},x^{*}+\delta_{m}]\cap[0,L]}u_{n}(x)-\min_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta_{m},x^{*}+\delta_{m}]\cap[0,L]}u_{n}(x)\Big{)}<\frac{1}{m}. (5.10)

Observe that, by Theorem 4.2(3), we always have

lim supnminx[xδ,x+δ][0,L]un(x)<  0<δ1.\limsup_{n\to\infty}\min_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta,x^{*}+\delta]\cap[0,L]}u_{n}(x)<\infty\quad\forall\,\,0<\delta\ll 1. (5.11)

Assume that (5.10) holds for any m1m\geq 1. We claim that for any m1m\geq 1,

lim infnmaxx[xδm,x+δm][0,L]un(x)<.\liminf_{n\to\infty}\max_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta_{m},x^{*}+\delta_{m}]\cap[0,L]}u_{n}(x)<\infty.

For otherwise, there is m01m_{0}\geq 1 such that

lim infnmaxx[xδm0,x+δm0][0,L]un(x)=.\liminf_{n\to\infty}\max_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta_{m_{0}},x^{*}+\delta_{m_{0}}]\cap[0,L]}u_{n}(x)=\infty.

Then, by (5.11), (5.10) does not hold with m=m0m=m_{0}, which is a contradiction. Hence the claim holds.

Fix m1m\gg 1 with 1m<mab\frac{1}{m}<m^{*}-\frac{a}{b}. Let m~:=lim infnmaxx[xδm,x+δm][0,L]un(x)\tilde{m}^{*}:=\liminf_{n\to\infty}\max_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta_{m},x^{*}+\delta_{m}]\cap[0,L]}u_{n}(x). By (5.4), m~m(>ab)\tilde{m}^{*}\geq m^{*}(>\frac{a}{b}). By (5.10), there is nkn_{k}\to\infty such that

limnk(maxx[xδm,x+δm][0,L]unk(x)minx[xδm,x+δm][0,L]unk(x))=σm1m.\lim_{n_{k}\to\infty}\Big{(}\max_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta_{m},x^{*}+\delta_{m}]\cap[0,L]}u_{n_{k}}(x)-\min_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta_{m},x^{*}+\delta_{m}]\cap[0,L]}u_{n_{k}}(x)\Big{)}=\sigma_{m}^{*}\leq\frac{1}{m}. (5.12)

By (5.11), without loss of generality, we may assume that there is M[m~,)(ab,)M^{*}\in[\tilde{m}^{*},\infty)\subset(\frac{a}{b},\infty) such that

limnkmaxx[xδm,x+δm][0,L]unk(x)=M\lim_{n_{k}\to\infty}\max_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta_{m},x^{*}+\delta_{m}]\cap[0,L]}u_{n_{k}}(x)=M^{*}

This together with (5.12) implies that

limnkminx[xδm,x+δm][0,L]unk(x)>ab.\lim_{n_{k}\to\infty}\min_{x\in[x^{*}-{\delta_{m}},x^{*}+{\delta_{m}}]\cap[0,L]}{u_{n_{k}}(x)}>\frac{a}{b}. (5.13)

By Theorem 4.2(3), without loss of generality, we may assume that there is uL2(0,L)u^{*}\in L^{2}(0,L) such that

limnkunk(x)=u(x)weakly inL2(0,L).\lim_{n_{k}\to\infty}u_{n_{k}}(x)=u^{*}(x)\quad\text{weakly in}\,\,L^{2}(0,L).

and

0Lu(x)𝑑x=limnk0Lunk(x)𝑑xabL.\int_{0}^{L}u^{*}(x)dx=\lim_{n_{k}\to\infty}\int_{0}^{L}u_{n_{k}}(x)dx\leq\frac{a}{b}L.

By Theorem 4.3(2), there is u¯ab\bar{u}\leq\frac{a}{b} such that

u(x)=u¯a.e.x[0,L].u^{*}(x)=\bar{u}\quad a.e.\,x\in[0,L].

By (5.13), we must have u¯>ab\bar{u}>\frac{a}{b} and then 0Lu(x)𝑑x>abL\int_{0}^{L}u^{*}(x)dx>\frac{a}{b}L, which is a contradiction. Therefore, (5.10) cannot hold for all m1m\geq 1, and then xx^{*} is a spiky point.

(2) Let xn[0,L]x_{n}\in[0,L] be such that

un(xn)=maxx[0,L]un(x).u_{n}(x_{n})=\max_{x\in[0,L]}u_{n}(x).

Then there are nkn_{k}\to\infty and x[0,L]x^{*}\in[0,L] such that

limnkxnk=x.\lim_{n_{k}\to\infty}x_{n_{k}}=x^{*}.

This implies that for any δ>0\delta>0,

maxx[xδ,x+δ][0,L]unk(x)=unk(xnk)k1.\max_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta,x^{*}+\delta]\cap[0,L]}u_{n_{k}}(x)=u_{n_{k}}(x_{n_{k}})\quad\forall\,k\gg 1.

It then follows that for any δ>0\delta>0,

lim infnkmaxx[xδ,x+δ][0,L]unk(x)\displaystyle\liminf_{n_{k}\to\infty}\max_{x\in[x^{*}-\delta,x^{*}+\delta]\cap[0,L]}u_{n_{k}}(x) =lim infnkunk(xnk)\displaystyle=\liminf_{n_{k}\to\infty}u_{n_{k}}(x_{n_{k}})
=lim infnkmaxx[0,L]unk(x)\displaystyle=\liminf_{n_{k}\to\infty}\max_{x\in[0,L]}u_{n_{k}}(x)
lim infnmaxx[0,L]un(x)\displaystyle\geq\liminf_{n\to\infty}\max_{x\in[0,L]}u_{n}(x)
>ab.\displaystyle>\frac{a}{b}.

Then by (1), xx^{*} is a spiky point of the subsequence {unk(x)}\{u_{n_{k}}(x)\}.

(3) Assume that unx(x)0u_{nx}(x)\leq 0 for x[0,L]x\in[0,L]. The case that unx(x)0u_{nx}(x)\geq 0 for x[0,L]x\in[0,L] can be proved similarly. By (1), xx^{*} is a spiky point of {u(x;χn)}n1\{u(x;\chi_{n})\}_{n\geq 1}. We prove that (5.8) holds.

To this end, first, note that for any x0(0,L]x_{0}\in(0,L], we must have

lim supnun(x0)<.\limsup_{n\to\infty}u_{n}(x_{0})<\infty. (5.14)

For otherwise, there is x0(0,L]x_{0}\in(0,L] such that lim supnun(x0)=\limsup_{n\to\infty}u_{n}(x_{0})=\infty. Without loss of generality, we may assume that limnun(x0)=\lim_{n\to\infty}u_{n}(x_{0})=\infty. This implies that

lim infn0Lun(x)𝑑xlim infn0x0un(x)𝑑xlim infnun(x0)x0=,\liminf_{n\to\infty}\int_{0}^{L}u_{n}(x)dx\geq\liminf_{n\to\infty}\int_{0}^{x_{0}}u_{n}(x)dx\geq\liminf_{n\to\infty}u_{n}(x_{0})\cdot x_{0}=\infty,

which is a contradiction. Hence (5.14) holds for any x0(0,L]x_{0}\in(0,L]. Therefore, {un}\{u_{n}\} is a bounded sequence of monotone decreasing functions on [x0,L][x_{0},L] for any x0(0,L]x_{0}\in(0,L].

Next, by Helly’s theorem, without loss of generality, we may assume that there is a nonincreasing function u^\hat{u}^{*} on (0,L](0,L] such that

unu^pointwise in(0,L].u_{n}\to\hat{u}^{*}\quad\text{pointwise in}\,\,(0,L].

By Theorem 4.3, there is u¯ab\bar{u}\leq\frac{a}{b} such that

u^(x)=u¯a.e.x(0,L].\hat{u}^{*}(x)=\bar{u}\quad{\rm a.e.}\,\,x\in(0,L]. (5.15)

Moreover, for any [x1,x2](0,L){[x_{1},x_{2}]}\subset(0,L), there are x~1(0,x1)\tilde{x}_{1}\in(0,x_{1}) and x~2(x2,L)\tilde{x}_{2}\in(x_{2},L) such that

limnun(x~1)=u¯=limnun(x~2).\lim_{n\to\infty}u_{n}(\tilde{x}_{1})=\bar{u}=\lim_{n\to\infty}{u_{n}}(\tilde{x}_{2}).

Since

un(x~1)un(x)un(x~2)x[x1,x2],u_{n}(\tilde{x}_{1})\geq u_{n}(x)\geq u_{n}(\tilde{x}_{2})\quad\forall\,x\in[x_{1},x_{2}],

we have that

limnun(x)=u¯uniformlyin[x1,x2],\lim_{n\to\infty}u_{n}(x)=\bar{u}\quad{\rm uniformly\,\,in}\,\,[x_{1},x_{2}],

and hence (5.8) holds.

In addition, if lim supnu(0;χn)<\limsup_{n\to\infty}u(0;\chi_{n})<\infty, then {u(x;χn)}\{u(x;\chi_{n})\} is a bounded sequence in C([0,L])C([0,L]). By Dominated Convergence Theorem, we have

0=limn0L(aun(x)bun2(x))𝑑x=0L(au¯bu¯2)𝑑x.0=\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_{0}^{L}(au_{n}(x)-bu_{n}^{2}(x))dx=\int_{0}^{L}(a\bar{u}-b\bar{u}^{2})dx.

This implies that u¯=0\bar{u}=0 or u¯=ab\bar{u}=\frac{a}{b}. Moreover, if there are 0<c<d<L0<c<d<L such that

lim supnmaxx[c,d]un(x)<ab,\limsup_{n\to\infty}\max_{x\in[c,d]}u_{n}(x)<\frac{a}{b},

it is clear that u¯=0\bar{u}=0. Therefore, (3) holds and the theorem is thus proved.

6 Numerical analysis

In this section, we carry out some numerical analysis about the stability and bifurcation of stationary solutions of (1.1). First, in subsection 6.1, we describe the numerical scheme to be used in the simulations. We then discuss the simulations we carried out by the scheme for three parameter settings: a=b=μ=ν=L=1a=b=\mu=\nu=L=1; a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1 and L=6L=6; and a=2a=2, b=ν=1b=\nu=1, μ=3\mu={3}, L=6L=6 in subsections 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4, respectively.

6.1 Numerical scheme

In this subsection, we describe the scheme we use to perform numerical simulations of the solutions of (1.1).

For a given initial function u0u_{0}, to solve (1.1) numerically, we first simulate the solution of the second equation of (1.1) subject to Neumann Boundary condition to obtain the numerical solution of v(t,x;u0)v(t,x;u_{0}) using Matlab bvp4c command. Then we compute the solution of the first equation of (1.1) subject to the Neumann Boundary condition to get the numerical solution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) by the finite difference method in space and Runge-Kutta method in time. Observe that if (u(x),v(x)):=limt(u(t,x;u0),v(t,x;u0))(u(x),v(x)):=\lim_{t\to\infty}(u(t,x;u_{0}),v(t,x;u_{0})) exists, then (u(x),v(x))(u(x),v(x)) is a stationary solution of (1.1). Hence, we run the simulation until the numerical solution changes very little. Then the numerical solution at the final time can be taken as a stationary solution. In all numerical simulations, the space step size and time step size are respectively taken as 0.010.01 and 5×1055\times 10^{-5}. In the following subsections, we fix b=ν=1b=\nu=1 and choose different values for aa, μ\mu, χ\chi, LL and different initial functions to simulate the stability of the positive constant solution and bifurcation solutions from the positive constant solution.

6.2 Numerical analysis for the case a=b=μ=ν=L=1a=b=\mu=\nu=L=1

In this subsection, we carry out some numerical analysis about the stability and bifurcation of the positive constant solution for the case a=b=μ=ν=L=1a=b=\mu=\nu=L=1. In this case, it is known that χ=χ111.9709\chi^{*}=\chi_{1}^{*}\approx 11.9709; (ab,νμab)=(1,1)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b})=(1,1) is locally asymptotically stable when 0<χ<χ0<\chi<\chi^{*}; and when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*}, super-critical pitchfork bifurcation occurs. Throughout this subsection, a=b=μ=ν=L=1a=b=\mu=\nu=L=1.

Numerical Experiment 1. In this numerical experiment, we explore the global stability of the constant solution (1,1)(1,1). First, we let χ=5\chi=5 and initial function u0=1+0.5cos(πx)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\pi x). We observe that as time goes by, the numerical solution of (u(t,x;u0),v(t,x;u0))(u(t,x;u_{0}),v(t,x;u_{0})) converges to (1,1)(1,1) (see Figure 2 (a) for the limit of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) and (b) for the evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0})). Note that vv solves

{0=vxxμv+νu,0<x<Lvx(t,0)=vx(t,L)=0.\begin{cases}0=v_{xx}-\mu v+\nu u,\quad 0<x<L\cr v_{x}(t,0)=v_{x}(t,L)=0.\end{cases} (6.1)

Hence, if u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) converges to some function u1(x)u_{1}(x) as tt\to\infty, then v(t,x;u0)v(t,x;u_{0}) converges to v1(x)v_{1}(x) as tt\to\infty, where v1(x)v_{1}(x) is the unique solution of (6.1) with u()u(\cdot) being replaced by u1()u_{1}(\cdot). In Figure 2 as well as all other figures, except Figure 6, we then only present the limit profile and evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) as tt changes. The same phenomenon can be seen when u0u_{0} is replaced by u~0=10.5cos(πx)\tilde{u}_{0}=1-0.5\cos(\pi x). In fact, we have u~0(x)=u0(1x)\tilde{u}_{0}(x)=u_{0}(1-x) and then (u(t,x;u~0),v(t,x;u~0))=(u(t,1x;u0),v(t,1x;u0))(u(t,x;\tilde{u}_{0}),v(t,x;\tilde{u}_{0}))=(u(t,1-x;u_{0}),v(t,1-x;u_{0})) for any t>0t>0 and x[0,1]x\in[0,1]. Hence we do not present the pictures for this initial function.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 2: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=5\chi=5, a=b=μ=ν=L=1a=b=\mu=\nu=L=1 and initial function u0=1+0.5cos(πx)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\pi x)

Next, we take χ=11.96\chi=11.96, which is very close to χ\chi^{*}. The same phenomenon is observed as well (see Figure 3). To see numerically whether the positive constant solution (1,1)(1,1) is globally stable, we also choose initial functions u0=1±0.5cos(πx)±0.1cos(2πx)u_{0}=1\pm 0.5\cos(\pi x)\pm 0.1\cos(2\pi x). All the other parameters remain the same. We observe that the numerical solution eventually converges to (1,1)(1,1) for each initial function.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 3: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=11.96\chi=11.96, a=b=μ=ν=L=1a=b=\mu=\nu=L=1 and initial function u0=1+0.5cos(πx)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\pi x)

Observations from Experiment 1. It is known that the constant solution (1,1)(1,1) is locally stable when 0<χ<χ0<\chi<\chi^{*}, is unstable when χ>χ\chi>\chi^{*}, and super-critical pitchfork bifurcations occurs when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*}. It is observed from the experiment 1 that the constant solution (1,1)(1,1) is also stable with respect to large perturbations when 0<χ<χ0<\chi<\chi^{*}. We conjecture that the constant solution (1,1)(1,1) is globally stable when 0<χ<χ0<\chi<\chi^{*}.

Numerical Experiment 2. In this numerical experiment, we explore the global bifurcation of the constant solution (1,1)(1,1). First of all, we choose χ=11.98\chi=11.98, which is slightly larger than the first bifurcation value. Let u0=1+0.5cos(πx)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\pi x). We observe that the numerical solution of (u(t,x;u0),v(t,x;u0))(u(t,x;u_{0}),v(t,x;u_{0})) changes very little when tt large enough and converges to a nonconstant stationary solution (u1(x),v1(x))(u_{1}(x),v_{1}(x)), which is close to the constant solution (1,1)(1,1) and corresponds to the analytical nonconstant stationary solution described in the first formula of (3.5) (see Figure 4 for the profile of the numerical solution at t=360t=360, which is close to the profile of the nonconstant stationary solution). This implies that, when χ=11.98\chi=11.98, there exist two nonconstant stationary solutions (u1(x),v1(x))(u_{1}(x),v_{1}(x)) and (u2(x),v2(x))(u_{2}(x),v_{2}(x)), where u2(x)=u1(1x)u_{2}(x)=u_{1}(1-x), v2(x)=v1(1x)v_{2}(x)=v_{1}(1-x), a fact that can be seen from the formulas (3.5) and (3.6).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 4: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=11.98\chi=11.98, a=b=μ=ν=L=1a=b=\mu=\nu=L=1 and initial function u0=1+0.5cos(πx)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\pi x)

Next, we increase the value of χ\chi. Let χ=20\chi=20, which is not close to the bifurcation value χ11.9709\chi^{*}\approx 11.9709. Let u0=1+0.5cos(πx)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\pi x). All the other parameters remain the same. We observe that as time evolves, the numerical solution of (u(t,x;u0),v(t,x;u0))(u(t,x;u_{0}),v(t,x;u_{0})) converges to a nonconstant stationary solution, the uu-component of which has a spike near the boundary x=0x=0 (see Figure 5), but the vv-component does not develop spikes (see Figure 6).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 5: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=20\chi=20, a=b=μ=ν=L=1a=b=\mu=\nu=L=1 and initial function u0=1+0.5cos(πx)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\pi x)
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 6: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of v(t,x;u0)v(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=20\chi=20, a=b=μ=ν=L=1a=b=\mu=\nu=L=1 and initial function u0=1+0.5cos(πx)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\pi x)

We further increase the value of χ\chi. Let χ=40\chi=40 and take u0=1+0.5cos(πx)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\pi x). The same phenomenon is observed (see Figure 7). In particular, we observe that when χ\chi becomes larger, the uu-component of the numerical nonconstant stationary solution concentrates more towards the boundary x=0x=0 (see Figure 7), which is consistent with Theorem 5.1 (3). By symmetry, the solution of (1.1) with initial function u0=10.5cos(πx)u_{0}=1-0.5\cos(\pi x) converges to a nonconstant stationary solution, which has a spike near the boundary x=1x=1 (see Figure 8).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 7: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=40\chi=40, a=b=μ=ν=L=1a=b=\mu=\nu=L=1 and initial function u0=1+0.5cos(πx)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\pi x)
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 8: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=40\chi=40, a=b=μ=ν=L=1a=b=\mu=\nu=L=1 and initial function u0=10.5cos(πx)u_{0}=1-0.5\cos(\pi x)

Observations from Experiment 2. For each χ\chi in the experiment 2, the same phenomenon is observed for the numerical solution with the initial function u0=1+0.5cos(πx)±0.1cos(2πx)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\pi x)\pm 0.1\cos(2\pi x), that is, the numerical solutions with initial functions u0(x)=1+0.5cos(πx)u_{0}(x)=1+0.5\cos(\pi x) and u0(x)=1+0.5cos(πx)±0.1cos(2πx)u_{0}(x)=1+0.5\cos(\pi x)\pm 0.1\cos(2\pi x) converge to the same nonconstant stationary solution. This indicates the nonconstant stationary solution is stable. According to the theoretical results, super-critical pitchfork bifurcation occurs when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*} and the bifurcation solution is then locally stable for χ\chi near χ\chi^{*}. Our numerical simulation confirms this result. The numerical simulation also indicates that this local bifurcation branch extends to χ=\chi=\infty and the bifurcation solutions are locally stable. Moreover, as χ\chi increases, the uu-component of the bifurcation solution develops a spike near the boundary x=0x=0 or x=1x=1, but the vv-component does not develop any spikes. In fact, it is proved in Theorem 4.2 that for any stationary solutions of (1.1), vv and vxv_{x} stay bounded as χ\chi increases, which implies that the vv-component of the bifurcation solution does not develop spikes.

6.3 Numerical simulations for the case a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1 and L=6L=6

In this subsection, we discuss the numerical simulations for the case a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1 and L=6L=6. In this case, it is known that χ=χ24.0085\chi^{*}=\chi_{2}^{*}\approx 4.0085; (ab,νμab)=(1,1)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b})=(1,1) is locally asymptotically stable when 0<χ<χ0<\chi<\chi^{*}; and when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*}, sub-critical pitchfork bifurcation occurs. Throughout this subsection, a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1 and L=6L=6.

Numerical Experiment 3. In this numerical experiment, we investigate the global stability of the constant solution (1,1)(1,1). First of all, let χ=2\chi=2 and initial function u0=1±0.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1\pm 0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3}). We observe that as time goes by, the numerical solution of (u(t,x;u0),v(t,x;u0))(u(t,x;u_{0}),v(t,x;u_{0})) converges to (1,1)(1,1) (see Figures 9 and 10).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 9: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=2\chi=2, a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1, L=6L=6 and initial function u0=1+0.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3})
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 10: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=2\chi=2, a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1, L=6L=6 and initial function u0=10.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1-0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3})

Next, let χ=3.95\chi=3.95, which is slightly smaller than χ4.0085\chi^{*}\approx 4.0085. Let u0=1±0.1cos(πx3)u_{0}=1\pm 0.1\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3}). We observe that the numerical solution of (u(t,x;u0),v(t,x;u0))(u(t,x;u_{0}),v(t,x;u_{0})) changes very little when time is large enough and converges to the constant stationary solution (1,1)(1,1) (see Figures 11 and 12).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 11: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=3.95\chi=3.95, a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1, L=6L=6 and initial function u0=1+0.1cos(πx3)u_{0}=1+0.1\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3})
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 12: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=3.95\chi=3.95, a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1, L=6L=6 and initial function u0=10.1cos(πx3)u_{0}=1-0.1\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3})

For χ=3.95\chi=3.95, let u0=1±0.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1\pm 0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3}). We observe that the numerical solution of (u(t,x;u0)(u(t,x;u_{0}), v(t,x;u0))v(t,x;u_{0})) changes very little when time is large enough and converges to nonconstant stationary solutions, which are not so close to the constant stationary solution (1,1)(1,1) (see Figures 13 and 14).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 13: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=3.95\chi=3.95, a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1, L=6L=6 and initial function u0=1+0.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3})
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 14: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=3.95\chi=3.95, a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1, L=6L=6 and initial function u0=10.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1-0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3})

Observations from Experiment 3. It is known that when 0<χ<χ0<\chi<\chi^{*}, the constant solution (1,1)(1,1) is locally stable; when χ>χ\chi>\chi^{*}, (1,1)(1,1) is unstable, and sub-critical pitchfork bifurcation occurs when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*}, that is, there are two unstable nonconstant stationary solutions bifurcating from (1,1)(1,1) for χ<χ\chi<\chi^{*} and χ\chi is near χ\chi^{*}. It is observed from the experiment 3 that when χ<χ\chi<\chi^{*} and χ\chi is near χ\chi^{*}, the constant stationary solution (1,1)(1,1) is not globally stable and there are other locally stable nonconstant stationary solutions, which are on the extension of the local pitchfork bifurcation branch (see more in the observation of experiment 4 in the following).

Numerical Experiment 4. In this experiment, we investigate the global bifurcation of the constant solution (1,1)(1,1). First, let χ=4.01\chi=4.01 which is slightly larger than the first bifurcation value. Let u0=1±0.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1\pm 0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3}). As in the case that χ=3.95\chi={3.95}, we observe that the numerical solution of (u(t,x;u0)(u(t,x;u_{0}), v(t,x;u0))v(t,x;u_{0})) changes very little when time is large enough and converge to nonconstant stationary solutions, which are not so close to the constant stationary solution (1,1)(1,1) (see Figures 15 and 16).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 15: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=4.01\chi=4.01, a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1, L=6L=6 and initial function u0=1+0.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3})
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 16: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=4.01\chi=4.01, a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1, L=6L=6 and initial function u0=10.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1-0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3})

Next, we increase the value of χ\chi. Let χ=10\chi=10, which is not close to the bifurcation value χ\chi^{*}. Let u0=1+0.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3}). All the other parameters remain the same. We observe that as time evolves, the numerical solution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) converges to a double boundary spike solution (see Figure 17). The profile of the numerical solution at time t=10t=10 can be viewed as the profile of the numerical double boundary spike solution. Let u0=10.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1-0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3}). We observe that the numerical solution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) converges to a single interior spike solution (see Figure 18).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 17: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=10\chi=10, a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1, L=6L=6 and initial function u0=1+0.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3})
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 18: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=10\chi=10, a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1, L=6L=6 and initial function u0=10.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1-0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3})

We further increase the value of χ\chi. Let χ=20\chi=20 and take u0=1±0.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1\pm 0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3}). The same phenomenon as in the case χ=10\chi=10 is observed (see Figures 19 and 20). In particular, we observe that when χ\chi becomes larger, the numerical nonconstant stationary solution concentrates more towards both boundaries when u0=1+0.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3}) and towards the middle of the location when u0=10.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1-0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3}).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 19: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=20\chi=20, a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1, L=6L=6 and initial function u0=1+0.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1+0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3})
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 20: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=20\chi=20, a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1, L=6L=6 and initial function u0=10.5cos(πx3)u_{0}=1-0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{3})

Observation from experiment 4. As it is mentioned in the observation of experiment 3, sub-critical pitchfork bifurcation occurs when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*}, that is, there are two unstable nonconstant stationary solutions bifurcating from (1,1)(1,1) for χ<χ\chi<\chi^{*} and χ\chi is near χ\chi^{*}. It is observed from the experiment 4 that the local pitchfork bifurcation branch extends to χ=\chi=\infty and the bifurcation solutions on the extended branch are locally stable when χ>χ\chi>\chi^{*}. Moreover, when χ\chi increases, the uu-component of the bifurcation solutions either develops spikes near both boundary points x=0x=0 and x=1x=1, or develops an interior spike.

6.4 Numerical simulations for the case a=2a=2, b=ν=1b=\nu=1, μ=3\mu=3, L=6L=6

In this subsection, we discuss the numerical simulations we carried out for the case that a=2a=2, b=ν=1b=\nu=1, μ=3\mu=3, and L=6L=6. In this case, it is known that χ=χ33.2997\chi^{*}=\chi_{3}^{*}\approx 3.2997; (ab,νμab)=(2,23)(\frac{a}{b},\frac{\nu}{\mu}\frac{a}{b})=(2,\frac{2}{3}) is locally asymptotically stable when 0<χ<χ0<\chi<\chi^{*}; and when χ\chi passes through χ\chi^{*}, subcritical pitchfork bifurcation occurs. When χχ\chi\approx\chi^{*}, similar dynamical scenarios as in the case a=b=μ=ν=1a=b=\mu=\nu=1 and L=6L=6 are observed numerically. To be more precise, it is observed numerically that when χ<χ\chi<\chi^{*} and χ\chi is near χ\chi^{*}, the constant stationary solution (2,23)(2,\frac{2}{3}) is not globally stable and there are other locally stable nonconstant stationary solutions, which are on the extension of the local pitchfork bifurcation branch. Moreover, in this case, it is observed numerically that, when χ\chi increases, the uu-component of the bifurcation solution develops both boundary and interior spikes.

For example, let χ=3.3\chi=3.3 which is slightly larger than the bifurcation value χ\chi^{*}. Let u0=2±0.5cos(πx2)u_{0}=2\pm 0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{2}). We observe that for each initial function, the numerical solution of (u(t,x;u0)(u(t,x;u_{0}), v(t,x;u0))v(t,x;u_{0})) changes very little when time is large enough and converges to nonconstant stationary solution, which is not so close to the constant stationary solution (2,23)(2,\frac{2}{3}) (see Figure 21).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 21: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=3.3\chi=3.3, a=2a=2, b=ν=1b=\nu=1, μ=3\mu=3, L=6L=6 and initial function u0=2+0.5cos(πx2)u_{0}=2+0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{2})

Let χ=10\chi=10, which is not close to the bifurcation value χ\chi^{*}. Let u0=2+0.5cos(πx2)u_{0}=2+0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{2}). All the other parameters remain the same. We observe that as time evolves, the numerical solution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) converges to a spike solution which has boundary spike at x=0x=0 and interior spike at x=4x=4 (see Figure 22).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 22: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=10\chi=10, a=2a=2, b=ν=1b=\nu=1, μ=3\mu=3, L=6L=6 and initial function u0=2+0.5cos(πx2)u_{0}=2+0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{2}).

Let χ=20\chi=20 and take u0=2+0.5cos(πx2)u_{0}=2+0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{2}). The same phenomenon as in the case χ=10\chi=10 is observed (see Figure 23). In particular, we observe that when χ\chi becomes larger, the numerical nonconstant stationary solution concentrates more towards the boundary at x=0x=0 and the interior at x=4x=4.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 23: (a) limit profile, (b) evolution of u(t,x;u0)u(t,x;u_{0}) with χ=20\chi=20, a=2a=2, b=ν=1b=\nu=1, μ=3\mu=3, L=6L=6 and initial function u0=2+0.5cos(πx2)u_{0}=2+0.5\cos(\frac{\pi x}{2}).

References

  • [1] H. Amann, Existence and regularity for semilinear parabolic evolution equations, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. 11 (1984), no. 4, 593-676.
  • [2] X. Bai and M. Winkler, Equilibration in a fully parabolic two-species chemotaxis system with competitive kinetics, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 65 (2016), no. 2, 553–583.
  • [3] P. Biler, Global solutions to some parabolic-elliptic systems of chemotaxis, Adv. Math. Sci. Appl., 9 (1999), 347-359.
  • [4] C. Cai, Q. Xu, and X. Liu, The local bifurcation and stability of nontrivial steady states of a logistic type of chemotaxis, Acta Math. Appl. Sin. Engl. Ser. 33 (2017), no. 3, 799-808.
  • [5] J. Cao, W. Wang, and H. Yu, Asymptotic behavior of solutions to two-dimensional chemotaxis system with logistic source and singular sensitivity, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 436 (2016), no. 1, 382-392.
  • [6] J. A. Carrillo, J. Li, and Z. Wang, Boundary spike-layer solutions of the singular Keller-Segel system: existence and stability, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 122 (2021), no. 1, 42-68.
  • [7] M. G. Crandall, and P. H. Rabinowitz, Bifurcation from simple eigenvalues, J. Funct. Anal. 8, (1971), 321–340.
  • [8] W. Du, Asymptotic Behavior of Solutions to a Logistic Chemotaxis System with Singular Sensitivity, Journal of Mathematical Research with Applications , (2021), Vol. 41, No. 5, 473-480.
  • [9] K. Fujie and T. Senba, Global existence and boundedness in a parabolic-elliptic Keller-Segel system with general sensitivity, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B, 21(1) (2016), 81-102.
  • [10] K. Fujie, M. Winkler, and T. Yokota, Blow-up prevention by logistic sources in a parabolic-elliptic Keller-Segel system with singular sensitivity, Nonlinear Anal. 109 (2014), 56-71.
  • [11] K. Fujie, M. Winkler, and T. Yokota. Boundedness of solutions to parabolic-elliptic Keller-Segel systems with signal dependent sensitivity, Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 38(6) (2015), 1212-1224.
  • [12] D. Henry, Geometric Theory of Semilinear Parabolic Equations, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1977.
  • [13] Q. Wang, L. Zhang, J. Yang, and J. Hu, Global existence and steady states of a two competing species Keller-Segel chemotaxis model, Kinet. Relat. Mod. 8 (2015), 777-807.
  • [14] L. Jin, Q. Wang, and Z. Zhang. Pattern formation in Keller–Segel chemotaxis models with logistic growth, Int. J. Bifurcat. Chaos, 26 (2016): 1650033.
  • [15] K. Kang, T. Kolokolnikov, and M.J. Ward, The stability and dynamics of a spike in the 1D Keller-Segel model, IMA J. Appl. Math. 72 (2007), no. 2, 140-162.
  • [16] E.F. Keller and L.A. Segel, Initiation of slime mold aggregation viewed as an instability, J. Theoret. Biol. 26 (1970) 399-415.
  • [17] E.F. Keller and L.A. Segel, Model for chemotaxis, J. Theoret. Biol., 30 (1971), 225-234.
  • [18] T. Kolokolnikov, J. Wei, and A. Alcolado, Basic mechanisms driving complex spike dynamics in a chemotaxis model with logistic growth, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 74 (2014), no. 5, 1375-1396.
  • [19] F. Kong and Q. Wang, Stability, free energy and dynamics of multi-spikes in the minimal Keller-Segel model, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 42 (2022), no. 5, 2499-2523.
  • [20] F. Kong, J. Wei, and L. Xu, The existence and stability of spikes in the one-dimensional Keller–Segel model with logistic growth, J. Math. Biol. 86 (2023), no. 1, Paper No. 6, 54 pp.
  • [21] F. Kong, J. Wei, and L. Xu, Existence of multi-spikes in the Keller–Segel model with logistic growth, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 33 (2023), 2227-2270.
  • [22] H. I. Kurt and W. Shen, Finite-time blow-up prevention by logistic source in parabolic-elliptic chemotaxis models with singular sensitivity in any dimensional setting, https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.01887 ([v4]).
  • [23] H. I. Kurt and W. Shen, Chemotaxis models with singular sensitivity and logistic source: Boundedness, persistence, absorbing set, and entire solutions, Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 69, (2023), 1468-1218.
  • [24] H. Li, Spiky steady states of a chemotaxis system with singular sensitivity, J. Dynam. Differential Equations, 30 (2018), no. 4, 1775-1795.
  • [25] K. Painter and T. Hillen, Spatio-temporal chaos in a chemotaxis model. Physica D., 240 (2011), 363–375.
  • [26] R. Salako, W. Shen, and S. Xue, Can chemotaxis speed up or slow down the spatial spreading in parabolic-elliptic Keller-Segel systems with logistic source? J. Math. Biol. 79 (2019), no. 4, 1455-1490.
  • [27] J. Shi and X. Wang, On global bifurcation for quasilinear elliptic systems on bounded domains, J. Differential Equations, 246 (2009), no. 7, 2788-2812.
  • [28] Y. Tao and M. Winkler, Large time behavior in a multidimensional chemotaxis-haptotaxis model with slow signal diffusion, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 47 (2015), 4229–4250.
  • [29] J.I. Tello and M. Winkler, A chemotaxis system with logistic source, Common Partial Diff. Eq., 32 (2007), 849-877.
  • [30] Q. Wang, Y. Song, and L. Shao, Nonconstant positive steady states and pattern formation of 1D prey-taxis systems, J. Nonlinear Sci. 27 (2017), 71-97.
  • [31] Q. Wang, J. Yan, and C. Gai, Qualitative analysis of stationary Keller–Segel chemotaxis models with logistic growth, Z. Angew Math. Phys. 67 (2016), no. 3, Art. 51, 25 pp.
  • [32] X. Wang and Q. Xu, Spiky and transition layer steady states of chemotaxis systems via global bifurcation and Helly’s compactness theorem, J. Math. Biol., 66 (2013), 1241-1266.
  • [33] M. Winkler, Aggregation vs. global diffusive behavior in the higher-dimensional Keller-Segel model, J.Differential Equations., 248 (2010), 2889-2905.
  • [34] X. Xu, Existence of spiky steady state of chemotaxis models with logarithm sensitivity, Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 44 (2021), no. 2, 1484-1499.
  • [35] X. Zhao. Boundedness to a logistic chemotaxis system with singular sensitivity. arXiv: 2003.03016 v1.