Asymptotic speeds of spreading for the Lotka-Volterra system with strong competition in $\mathbb{R}^N$

Hongjun Guo; Hui Bao

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 25 references

Asymptotic speeds of spreading for the Lotka-Volterra system with strong competition in $\mathbb{R}^N$

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For two strongly competing species in \mathbb{R}^N, the long-run winner is set by the bistable front speed $c_{uv}$, with the faster scalar species spreading at its own Fisher-KPP speed.

desk verdict The first sharp N-dimensional spreading speeds for strong-competition Lotka-Volterra; new and likely right, but the two lemmas behind Theorem 1.3 are sketches and need full proofs. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13781 v1 pith:RSPL5QUV submitted 2024-11-21 math.AP

Hui Bao , Hongjun Guo This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35K5735B4035C0792D25

keywords Lotka-Volterrastrongcompetitionspreadingspeedtravelingfrontbistablereaction-diffusionasymptoticbehaviorinitialsupport

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper determines the asymptotic spreading speeds of the Lotka-Volterra competition-diffusion system in \mathbb{R}^N with strong competition ($a,b>1$). It claims that the long-time outcome is governed by three speeds: the two scalar Fisher-KPP speeds $c_u$ and $c_v$ of each species without competition, and the speed $c_{uv}$ of the bistable front connecting the stable states $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$. When both species start in bounded domains, the species with the larger scalar speed spreads at its own speed, while the other either dies out or, if the winner is $v$, is compressed into a ball expanding at the slower speed $c_{uv}$. When the two species initially occupy complementary sets, the winner's territory is an explicit envelope built from the unbounded directions of the initial set plus a ball of radius $c_{uv}t$. This matters because it turns the multidimensional competition problem into a sharp geometric statement in which initial geometry, not just speeds, controls the interface.

What carries the argument

The engine of the proof is the bistable traveling front $(\Phi,\Psi)$ with speed $c_{uv}$ satisfying (1.4), whose profiles are strictly monotone and have known convexity and concavity behavior at infinity. Around this front the authors build a family of sub- and supersolutions using a radial cut-off function $h_\varepsilon$ that approximates $|x|$ and keeps the front nearly planar in each moving ball; Lemma 2.1 shows a large initial patch of $u$ spreads at speed $c_{uv}$, and Lemma 2.2 shows a large patch of $v$ confines $u$ to speed $c_{uv}$. The comparison principle then transfers these estimates to arbitrary initial data, while scalar Fisher-KPP estimates control the leading fronts at $c_u$ and $c_v$.

What would settle it

Construct a (C1) initial condition with $c_{uv}>0$ but a tiny support for $u$, smaller than the critical radius in Proposition 1.1. If the resulting solution converges locally to $(0,1)$, then Theorem 1.3's inner-$u$-spreading statement fails; a numerical or rigorous check of this case would settle the scope of the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, under the standing assumptions (A1)-(A3), the solution of (1.1) converges locally to one of the two stable equilibria behind a moving interface: $(1,0)$ inside a spreading set and $(0,1)$ outside. For (C1) with $c_v>c_u$, Theorem 1.3 states that $u$ wins inside the ball $|x|<c_{uv}t$, $v$ wins in the annulus $c_{uv}t<|x|<c_v t$, and both vanish beyond $c_v t$. For (C2), Theorem 1.5 gives the asymptotic set where $u$ wins as $W=\mathbb{R}_+\mathcal{U}(U)+B(0,c_{uv})$, so a point $x/t$ converges to the $u$-state exactly when it lies in the Minkowski sum of the cone generated by the unbounded directions of $U$ and the ball of radius $c_{uv}$. The interface speed in a direction $e$ is the variational quantity $w(e)=\sup_{\xi\in\mathcal{U}(U),\,\xi\cdot e\ge 0} c_{uv}/\sqrt{1-(\xi\cdot e)^2}$.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that species $u$ locally wins (A3) and that the bistable front speed $c_{uv}$ is positive; when the initial patch of $u$ is too small, (A3) fails and the stated inner spreading no longer holds, and the paper only proves (A3) for initial data containing a sufficiently large ball.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In (C1), if $c_u>c_v$ then $v(t,\cdot)\to 0$ uniformly in $\mathbb{R}^N$ and $u(t,\cdot)\to 1$ on every ball $|x|\le ct$ with $c<c_u$.
In (C1), if $c_v>c_u$ then $u\to 1$ inside the $c_{uv}$-ball, $v\to 1$ on the annulus between $c_{uv}$ and $c_v$, and both go to $0$ beyond $c_v$.
In (C2), the set where $u$ wins scales as $t\cdot W$, so unbounded directions of the initial set persist as 'teeth' in the limiting envelope.
The directional interface speed $w(e)$ is finite for directions outside $\mathcal{U}(U)$ and infinite inside $\mathcal{U}(U)$, meaning the initial geometry at infinity controls the local speed of the front.
Theorem 1.5 gives uniform convergence on compact sets in the scaled variable $x/t$, strengthening the directional statements of Theorem 1.4.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the small-support failure of (A3) is sharp, then for initial patches of $u$ below a critical radius the species $v$ wins locally; this suggests a discontinuous transition in the limiting profile that could be mapped numerically by varying the radius of a single ball.
The formula for $W$ resembles a Huygens envelope: each point of the initial set emits a wave with speed $c_{uv}$, so the asymptotic winning set is the $c_{uv}$-neighborhood of the cone over the unbounded directions. One could test this by simulating (C2) with $U$ a thin strip or a cone.
For weak-competition regimes the analogue of $c_{uv}$ is not a bistable front connecting $(1,0)$ to $(0,1)$, so the same three-speed trichotomy should not be expected; the strong-competition bistable structure is the load-bearing ingredient.
The geometric cover condition (1.6) is likely not removable: when it fails, the scalar equation already admits spreading-set anomalies, and the same behaviour should appear for the system.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: this is the first multi-dimensional sharp spreading-speed result for the strongly competitive Lotka-Volterra system. The main theorems are new, probably right, and the right move is to send the paper to review with instructions to make the proofs self-contained. The reader's conditional verdict is about right.

What is actually new: Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 settle the compact-initial-data case in R^N, matching the 1D sharp estimates of Peng-Wu-Zhou; Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 carry Hamel-Rossi's spreading-set theory to the coupled system, with the new variational formula (1.8) and the envelop set W = R+U(U)+B(0,c_uv). The proof strategy is standard — comparison with the bistable front, Fisher-KPP control on the fast species, the ball-widening induction — and coherently executed. The paper is also honest about its assumptions: (A3) is stated as an assumption for (C1) and only proven for large initial support (Proposition 1.1), and the (C2) results carry the usual geometric restriction (1.6). Citation pattern is appropriate; the speeds cu, cv, cuv are external inputs; no fitted parameters.

Soft spots, in proportion. The real one: the annulus statement in Theorem 1.3 rests on Lemmas 3.3 and 3.5, and both proofs are only sketches with pointers to [3]. The stress-test note is right that the e-uniform convergence in Lemma 3.3 is load-bearing. But I checked the displayed subsolution: the drift terms involving ∇ψ_{2R} cancel between the time and Laplacian derivatives, leaving the Dirichlet eigenvalue and a quadratic term, both independent of e. So the lemma is very likely true as stated; it just is not written out. Lemma 3.5 then needs that uniformity to go from rays to annuli, so the gap matters, but it is fillable, not a likely error. A referee should demand both proofs in full. Minor: Lemma 4.3 has a garbled displayed inequality in its last paragraph, and Lemma 2.1 has p1/p2 mix-ups and a missing e^{-μt} in a display. Cosmetic.

Who this is for: specialists in spreading speeds for reaction-diffusion systems, especially competition and prey-predator models; it sits in the conversation of Peng-Wu-Zhou and Ducrot-Giletti-Matano. My recommendation: accept into peer review, and have the referee specifically verify Lemmas 3.3 and 3.5. If the authors write those out, I expect the main theorems to hold up.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the Cauchy problem for a two-species Lotka-Volterra competition-diffusion system in R^N under strong competition (a,b>1). It considers two classes of initial data: (C1) both species initially occupy bounded sets, and (C2) the two species initially occupy complementary sets. The main results are asymptotic spreading theorems. In case (C1) with c_u>c_v, Theorem 1.2 states that u spreads at the scalar Fisher-KPP speed c_u while v is driven to extinction. In case (C1) with c_v>c_u, Theorem 1.3 states that u spreads at the slower bistable speed c_uv inside a ball, v occupies intermediate annuli c_1 t <= |x| <= c_2 t with c_uv<c_1<=c_2<c_v, and both species vanish beyond c_v t. For complementary initial data (C2), Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 give raywise and uniform spreading sets determined by an explicit variational formula w(e) based on c_uv and the set of unbounded directions U(U); the final spreading set is W=R_+U(U)+B(0,c_uv). The proofs combine sub/supersolutions built from scalar Fisher-KPP fronts and the bistable traveling front with comparison arguments adapted from Ducrot-Giletti-Matano and Hamel-Rossi.

Significance. The results, if fully proved, would be a natural multidimensional counterpart of the one-dimensional sharp estimates of Peng, Wu and Zhou for strong competition, and would extend the multidimensional spreading-set methodology of Hamel-Rossi to a two-species competitive system. The explicit formula for W is a strength: it is concrete, falsifiable, and reduces to known scalar and one-dimensional statements in limiting cases. The Section 2 comparison lemmas are largely carried out in detail and do not introduce fitted parameters; the spreading speeds c_u, c_v and c_uv are external inputs from the literature. The main caveat is that the two lemmas underlying the (C1) results are only sketched, and the (C1) theorems are explicitly conditional on assumption (A3), which is proved only for initial data containing a sufficiently large ball. These gaps affect verifiability rather than plausibility, and they are the reason for a major revision.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, Lemma 3.3] The proof of Lemma 3.3 is only a sketch, and the asserted convergence in (3.3) is local uniform in x and uniform in e in S^{N-1}; this uniformity is the load-bearing step that turns raywise estimates into the annulus statement of Lemma 3.5 and hence into the second line of Theorem 1.3. The subsolution v=kappa exp(-(c'/2)(x.e-c't)) psi_{2R}(x-(c't+X_epsilon+2R)e) is not verified: the proof does not state the required condition c'<c_epsilon=2 sqrt(1-b epsilon), does not specify how R and kappa are chosen so that the inequality is satisfied with constants independent of e, and does not justify the passage from (3.4) to (3.5). Since the e-uniformity is exactly what permits the supremum over the annulus in Lemma 3.5, this gap must be filled before Theorem 1.3 is established.
[Section 3, Lemma 3.5] The proof of Lemma 3.5 is also a sketch referencing [3, Theorem 2.1], but the adaptation is not automatic. The functions v_i(t,x;e) are centered at c_i t e, while the profile V-hat solves the ODE with speed c; to verify that v_i is a subsolution of (3.2) one must control the extra radial term -(N-1) V-hat'(r)/r against (c-c_i) V-hat'(r), uniformly in e. The comparison with the original v-equation also requires u<=epsilon on the support of the subsolutions, and this should be stated and quantified. In addition, Lemma 3.4 as stated ('for any beta >= beta(c)' with beta(c)<1-b epsilon) includes values of beta above the equilibrium 1-b epsilon, for which the claimed hitting-zero conclusion cannot hold; the admissible range must be beta below 1-b epsilon, consistent with the later phrase 'beta can be arbitrarily close to 1-b epsilon'.
[Section 4, Lemma 4.3] The proof of Lemma 4.3 needs to be rewritten. The displayed inequality |xt - lambda omega e t| <= c_uv(lambda-1)t is notationally confusing (it should express t|x-lambda w e|), and the subsequent chain of inequalities is not explained. Since the conclusion is a supremum over the unbounded cone C, the proof must show explicitly that the lower bound (k lambda w t - R_epsilon)/(c_uv+epsilon)>t and the subsequent inequalities hold uniformly for all lambda>1 and all relevant e. The geometric fact that the cone C is contained in the complement of W is also not stated. These points directly support the second line of (1.10).

minor comments (6)

[Section 3, proof of Theorem 1.3] In the proof of Theorem 1.3, the condition 0<epsilon<min{c_uv,c_u,c_v,(c_u-c_v)/2} is empty when c_v>c_u; the intended bound is (c_v-c_u)/2.
[Section 4, proof of Theorem 1.5] In the proof of Theorem 1.5, the text states that from xi in U(U_rho) one has (1/t) dist(t tau xi, U_rho) -> +infinity; the correct limit is 0, which is what justifies the inclusion B(t tau xi, c' t) subset U_rho + B_{c t} for large t.
[Section 2] There are several sign and notation typos in the displayed computations of Section 2: in Lemma 2.1 the middle-region inequality u(t,x)-Phi(xi) >= 2a delta e^{-mu t} should be >= -2a delta e^{-mu t}; in Lemma 2.2 the corresponding inequality u(t,x)-Phi(zeta) <= -2a delta e^{-mu t} should be a positive lower bound; and some references to (2.8) in the verification of N_2 should be to (2.9).
[Section 3, Lemma 3.1] In Lemma 3.1, the expression sup_{|x|>=ct} inf_{e in S^{N-1}} X e^{-lambda_u (x.e-c_u t)} is not the correct formulation of the desired upper bound; the argument should fix e and then take the supremum over all x with |x|>=ct.
[Section 3, proofs of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3] In the proofs of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3, phrases such as 'for any e in R^N' should read 'for any unit vector e' or 'for any e in S^{N-1}'.
[Section 2, Lemma 2.2] In Lemma 2.2, the displayed equation for N_2 contains a term delta e^{-mu t} p_2'' delta e^{-mu t} that is likely a typographical error for the missing -|h_epsilon'|^2 p_2'' delta e^{-mu t} term.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spreading speeds are reductions to independently established scalar and bistable-front speeds via comparison arguments.

full rationale

The circularity pass finds no self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation load-bearing steps. The asymptotic speeds are not fitted to the (C1)/(C2) data: cu and cv are the closed-form scalar Fisher-KPP speeds quoted from Aronson-Weinberger [1], and cuv is the bistable traveling-front speed whose existence, uniqueness, and profile properties are quoted from Kan-On [17] and Kan-On-Fang [18], all independent external inputs that do not assume the paper's spreading theorems. The main theorems are conditional on (A2) cuv>0 and (A3) local success, which are stated hypotheses rather than hidden conclusions. The proof constructions use the front profiles to build sub- and supersolutions (Lemmas 2.1, 2.2, 4.1-4.3) and use scalar Fisher-KPP spreading results (Lemma 3.2, [3]) as tools; converting a traveling-front solution into uniform spreading estimates for bounded or measurable initial data requires the comparison arguments carried out in the paper, so the conclusions are not logical restatements of the inputs. Theorems 1.4-1.5 borrow Hamel-Rossi's geometric framework [15] but substitute the independently supplied system speed cuv in the variational formula; this is a transfer of method, not circular renaming. The only references by a co-author ([7] and [8]) appear in the reference list and are not load-bearing in the derivation. The skeptic's concern that Lemmas 3.3 and 3.5 are proof sketches with a uniformity-in-e step that is not fully written out is a correctness and completeness risk, not a circularity: no equation is asserted from its own conclusion. Therefore the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on external results: the existence and properties of the bistable traveling front (1.4) from [17,18], scalar Fisher-KPP spreading from [1], and spreading-set geometry from [15]. No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are introduced. The paper's own assumptions (A2), (A3), and (1.6) restrict the parameter and initial-data regime.

assumptions (6)

standard math Comparison principle for order-preserving parabolic systems.
Used throughout to compare solutions to sub- and supersolutions, e.g., in Lemmas 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1.
domain assumption Existence, uniqueness and qualitative properties of the bistable traveling front (Phi,Psi) with speed cuv in (-2, 2 sqrt(dr)), including Phi'<0, Psi'>0 and Phi''<0, Psi''>0 outside a compact set.
Invoked in (1.4) and used in Step 1 of Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 to construct sub/supersolutions; cited from [17,18].
domain assumption (A2) cuv > 0.
Assumed in all theorems; if cuv <= 0 the species u would not be the winner in the front and the stated formulas would not hold.
domain assumption (A3) local convergence of (u,v) to (1,0) as t->infinity for scenario (C1).
Assumed in Theorems 1.2 and 1.3; the paper notes it may fail for small initial supports of u and proves it only for U containing a large ball (Proposition 1.1).
domain assumption For (C2), U_rho nonempty and B(U) union U(U_rho) = S^{N-1} (condition (1.6)).
Needed for Lemma 4.2 and the proof of Theorems 1.4-1.5; borrowed from [15].
standard math Aronson-Weinberger spreading results and the hair-trigger effect for Fisher-KPP equations.
Used in Lemmas 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 to characterize spreading of the scalar equation (3.2).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asymptotic speeds of spreading for the Lotka-Volterra system with strong competition in $\mathbb{R}^N$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RSPL5QUV

@misc{pith2026241113781,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asymptotic speeds of spreading for the Lotka-Volterra system with strong competition in $\mathbbR^N$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RSPL5QUV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13781}
}

abstract

This paper is concerned with the asymptotic spreading behavior of solutions of the Lotka-Volterra system with strong competition in $\mathbb{R}^{N}$. Two types of initial conditions are proposed: (C1) two species initially occupy bounded domains; (C2) two species initially occupy the whole space separately. The spreading dynamics for (C1) (C2) is strongly depending on the speeds of traveling fronts of the scalar equations with no competition and the system. We give the asymptotic speeds of spreading for both (C1) (C2).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[3]

Ducrot, T

A. Ducrot, T. Giletti, H. Matano, Spreading speeds for multidimen sional reac- tion–diﬀusion systems of the prey–predator type, Calc. Var. Part. Diﬀ. Equations 58 (2019): 137

work page 2019
[1]

D. G. Aronson, H. F. Weinberger, Multidimensional nonlinear diﬀus ions arising in population genetics, Adv. Math. 30 (1978), 33–76

work page 1978
[2]

Carr` ere, Spreading speeds for a two-species competition- diﬀusion system, J

C. Carr` ere, Spreading speeds for a two-species competition- diﬀusion system, J. Diﬀ. Equ. 264 (2018), 2133–2156

work page 2018
[4]

P. C. Fife, J. B. McLeod, The approach of solutions of nonlinear d iﬀusion equations to travelling front solutions, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 65 (1977), 335–361

work page 1977
[5]

R. A. Fisher, The wave of advance of advantageous genes, Annu. Eugen. 7 (1937), 335–369

work page 1937
[6]

R. A. Gardner, Existence and stability of traveling wave solutions of competition models: a degree theoretic, J. Diﬀ. Equ. 44 (1982), 343–364

work page 1982
[7]

Guo, Front propagation and blocking of reaction–diﬀusion sys tems in cylinders, London Mathematical Society

H. Guo, Front propagation and blocking of reaction–diﬀusion sys tems in cylinders, London Mathematical Society. Nonlinearity 34 (2021), 6750–6772. 23

work page 2021
[8]

H. Guo, F. Hamel and W. J. Sheng, On the mean speed of bistable t ransition fronts in unbounded domains, J. Math. Pure Appl. 136 (2020), 92-157

work page 2020

Show all 25 references

[9]

J. S. Guo, Y. C. Lin, The sign of the wave speed for the Lotka-Vo lterra competition- diﬀusion system, Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 12 (2013), 2083–2090

2013
[10]

Girardin, K

L. Girardin, K. Y. Lam, Invasion of an empty habitat by two comp etitors: spread- ing properties of monostable two-species competition diﬀusion syst ems, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 119 (2019), 1279–1335

2019
[11]

Girardin, The eﬀect of random dispersal on competitive exclu sion-a review, Math

L. Girardin, The eﬀect of random dispersal on competitive exclu sion-a review, Math. Biosci. 318 (2019), 108271

2019
[12]

Girardin, G

L. Girardin, G. Nadin, Travelling waves for diﬀusive and strongly c ompetitive sys- tems: relative motility and invasion speed, Eur. J. Appl. Math. 26 (2015), 521–534

2015
[13]

Hamel, Bistable transition fronts in RN , Adv

F. Hamel, Bistable transition fronts in RN , Adv. Math. 289 (2016), 279–344

2016
[14]

Hamel, J

F. Hamel, J. Nolen, J. M. Roquejoﬀre, L. Ryzhik, A short proof of the logarith- mic Bramson correction in Fisher-KPP equations, Netw. Heterog. Media 8 (2013), 275–289

2013
[15]

Hamel, L

F. Hamel, L. Rossi, Spreading speeds and spreading sets of rea ction-diﬀusion equa- tions, 2022, Preprint. (https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-0 3225512v2)

2022
[16]

M. Iida, R. Lui, H. Ninomiya, Stacked fronts for cooperative sy stems with equal diﬀusion coeﬃcients, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 43 (2011), 1369–1389

2011
[17]

Kan-On, Parameter dependence of propagation speed of t ravelling waves for competition-diﬀusion equations, SIAM J

Y. Kan-On, Parameter dependence of propagation speed of t ravelling waves for competition-diﬀusion equations, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 26 (1995), 340–363

1995
[18]

Kan-On, Q

Y. Kan-On, Q. Fang, Stability of monotone travelling waves for c ompetition-diﬀusion equations, Jpn. J. Ind. Appl. Math. 13 (1996), 343–349

1996
[19]

A. N. Kolmogorov, I. G. Petrovsky, N. S. Piskunov, Study of t he diﬀusion equation with growth of the quantity of matter and its application to a biologica l problem, Bull. Univ. Etat. Moscow Ser. Int. Math. Mec. Sect. A 1 (1937), 1–29

1937
[20]

G. Lin, W. T. Li, Asymptotic spreading of competition diﬀusion sys tems: the role of interspeciﬁc competitions, Eur. J. Appl. Math. 23 (2012), 669–689

2012
[21]

Morita, K

Y. Morita, K. Tachibana, An entire solution for wave fronts to t he Lotka-Volterra competition-diﬀusion equations, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 40 (2009), 2217–2240. 24

2009
[22]

M. Ma, Z. Huang, C. Ou, Speed of the traveling wave for the bist able Lotka-Volterra competition model, Nonlinearity 32 (2019), 3143–3162

2019
[23]

R. Peng, C. H. Wu, M. Zhou, Sharp estimates for the spreading speeds of the Lotka- Volterra diﬀusion system with strong competition, Ann. Institut H. Poincar´ e, Anal- yse Non Lin´ eaire 38 (2021), 507–547

2021
[24]

Rodrigo, M

M. Rodrigo, M. Mimura, Exact solutions of a competition-diﬀusion system, Hi- roshima Math. J. 30 (2000), 257–270

2000
[25]

Uchiyama, Asymptotic Behavior of Solutions of Reaction-Diﬀu sion Equations with Varying Drift Coeﬃcients, Arch

K. Uchiyama, Asymptotic Behavior of Solutions of Reaction-Diﬀu sion Equations with Varying Drift Coeﬃcients, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 90 (1985), 291-311. 25

1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

Ducrot, T

A. Ducrot, T. Giletti, H. Matano, Spreading speeds for multidimen sional reac- tion–diﬀusion systems of the prey–predator type, Calc. Var. Part. Diﬀ. Equations 58 (2019): 137

work page 2019

[2] [1]

D. G. Aronson, H. F. Weinberger, Multidimensional nonlinear diﬀus ions arising in population genetics, Adv. Math. 30 (1978), 33–76

work page 1978

[3] [2]

Carr` ere, Spreading speeds for a two-species competition- diﬀusion system, J

C. Carr` ere, Spreading speeds for a two-species competition- diﬀusion system, J. Diﬀ. Equ. 264 (2018), 2133–2156

work page 2018

[4] [4]

P. C. Fife, J. B. McLeod, The approach of solutions of nonlinear d iﬀusion equations to travelling front solutions, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 65 (1977), 335–361

work page 1977

[5] [5]

R. A. Fisher, The wave of advance of advantageous genes, Annu. Eugen. 7 (1937), 335–369

work page 1937

[6] [6]

R. A. Gardner, Existence and stability of traveling wave solutions of competition models: a degree theoretic, J. Diﬀ. Equ. 44 (1982), 343–364

work page 1982

[7] [7]

Guo, Front propagation and blocking of reaction–diﬀusion sys tems in cylinders, London Mathematical Society

H. Guo, Front propagation and blocking of reaction–diﬀusion sys tems in cylinders, London Mathematical Society. Nonlinearity 34 (2021), 6750–6772. 23

work page 2021

[8] [8]

H. Guo, F. Hamel and W. J. Sheng, On the mean speed of bistable t ransition fronts in unbounded domains, J. Math. Pure Appl. 136 (2020), 92-157

work page 2020