Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 35 references

Dynamics of Reaction-Diffusion-Advection System and its Impact on River Ecology in the Presence of Spatial Heterogeneity I

T0 review · 5 major / 7 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 This paper claims that in a two-species reaction-diffusion-advection river model with small harvesting, the species with the lower advection-to-diffusion ratio wins the habitat, and that a narrow intermediate range of the second species'…

desk verdict The equal-harvesting rescaling is a neat observation but it makes the paper largely derivative, and the key non-existence proof has a sign error that sinks Theorem 2. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00038 v1 pith:HC4NIFAW submitted 2024-11-22 math.GM

Md. Kamrujjaman , Mayesha Sharmim Tisha This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GM MSC 92-1092C4292C6092D3092D45
keywords reaction-diffusion-advectionLotka-Volterracompetitionspatialheterogeneityharvestingglobalasymptoticstabilitycoexistencesteadystateriverecologyadvection-to-diffusionratio
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

This paper tries to establish what decides which of two competing species survives in a one-dimensional river when both drift downstream, diffuse at different rates, and are harvested at the same low rate. Its central claim is that the advection-to-diffusion ratio selects the winner: when the ratio of the faster-moving species is not smaller than its competitor's, that species is driven to extinction and the other is globally asymptotically stable. When the opposite order holds, the outcome depends on the second species' advection rate, with global stability of one semi-trivial state near each end of a window and a coexistence steady state in between. The authors also prove existence, uniqueness, and positivity of solutions and establish local stability of the semi-trivial steady states. If the theorem is right, river ecologists get a simple movement-based criterion for predicting dominance, plus a warning that small flow changes can flip which species wins.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ratio comparison α1/d1 versus α2/d2, equivalently α1/α2 versus d1/d2. The proofs use the transformations T = u_x/u and S = v_x/v, boundary-value identities (6.2)-(6.3) relating the flux-like quantities, maximum-principle lemmas on the sign of the principal eigenvalue, and the order-preserving (monotone) structure of competitive two-species systems. Harvesting enters through the rescaling r1=1−µ and K1=Kr1, which rewrites the harvested system as a harvesting-free system with reduced growth and carrying capacity.

What would settle it

With K(x)=2+cos(πx), small equal µ, d1=0.08, d2=0.07, α1=0.05, and α2=0.04375, the ratio condition α1/d1 ≥ α2/d2 holds; Theorem 2 predicts convergence to (0,v̂) from every positive initial state. A simulation that instead shows sustained coexistence, or convergence to (û,0), would falsify the claimed global stability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proves Theorem 2: for nonconstant environmental carrying capacity K1, harvesting rate µ in [0,1), d1>d2>0, and α1>α2>0, if α1/d1 ≥ α2/d2 then the semi-trivial steady state (0,v̂) is globally asymptotically stable; if α1/d1 < α2/d2, there are small ε1, ε2>0 such that (0,v̂) is globally asymptotically stable for α2 near (d2/d1)α1, (û,0) is globally asymptotically stable for α2 near α1, and a coexistence steady state exists for intermediate α2. This is obtained by combining local stability of the two semi-trivial states with a proof that no coexistence steady state exists under the first ratio condition, then applying the theory of monotone competitive systems.

Load-bearing premise

The theorems require equal harvesting rates µ1=µ2=µ, because the rescaling that removes harvesting from the model is only valid in that case; unequal harvesting rates are treated only numerically in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under condition (2.4), the species with the smaller advection and diffusion rates excludes the other from the whole habitat for every positive initial state, and no coexistence steady state exists.
  • Under condition (2.5), varying α2 across the interval ((d2/d1)α1, α1) switches the globally stable winner and creates a window of coexistence, so advection acts as a bifurcation parameter.
  • Because global stability of the semi-trivial states follows from local stability plus nonexistence of coexistence, no limit cycles or other persistent non-coexistence attractors can intervene in the parameter regimes covered.
  • The rescaling shows that equal harvesting below rate 1 only reduces effective growth and carrying capacity; it does not change the qualitative role of the advection-to-diffusion ratio.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The theorem suggests a practical flow-management rule: in a river where one species has the smaller advection-to-diffusion ratio, altering current speed to move α2 into the intermediate window could promote coexistence rather than exclusion; this application is not in the paper.
  • Unequal harvesting is only simulated, so the analytical stability thresholds for µ1≠µ2 are unknown; a testable extension is that the coexistence interval shifts monotonically with the harvesting difference, and beyond some difference the favored species wins outright.
  • The coexistence state's stability is not proven in Theorem 2, only its existence; the numerical examples suggest it can be stable, and a linear-stability analysis of that branch would close the gap.
  • The same ratio-comparison reasoning might extend to more than two species, predicting a dominance hierarchy ordered by α/d; the paper does not address this.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies a one-dimensional two-species Lotka-Volterra reaction-diffusion-advection system with logistic growth, spatial heterogeneity in the carrying capacity K(x), and harvesting. For equal harvesting rates μ1=μ2=μ, the authors rescale the model into a harvesting-free system with r1=1−μ and K1=(1−μ)K, then claim existence, uniqueness, and positivity of solutions; local stability of the two semi-trivial steady states; non-existence of a coexistence steady state under a ratio condition on advection and diffusion; and global asymptotic stability results assembled from these ingredients via monotone dynamical systems. The equal-harvesting case is the only one treated analytically; the unequal-harvesting case μ1≠μ2 appears only in a numerical example. The numerical section illustrates coexistence, competitive exclusion, and extinction under various parameter choices.

Significance. If the analytical claims were correct and genuinely new, the paper would provide a useful extension of river-ecology competition models to include harvesting. The rescaling in Section 2, however, makes the equal-harvesting model algebraically identical to the harvesting-free model of the authors' own earlier paper [2] with a rescaled carrying capacity, so the analytical results are largely corollaries of previous work. The central non-existence proof (Lemma 15) contains sign errors and an internal contradiction, and Theorem 2 relies on that lemma. The manuscript does provide a range of numerical experiments, including the unequal-harvesting case, but the theoretical contribution, as written, is not established. There are no machine-checked proofs or reproducible code provided, so the assessment rests on the mathematical arguments in the text.

major comments (5)
  1. [§6, Lemma 15, Step 3] Step 3 first establishes A<0 and B<0 in (a,δ)∪(b−δ,b) for small δ>0, then defines p as the first zero of A in [δ,b] and asserts A(a)=A(p)=0, A(x)>0 for x∈(a,p), and B(x)>0 for x∈(a,p) when p≤q. These assertions contradict the preceding sign statement: since A(a)=0 and A<0 on (a,δ), continuity forces A(x)<0 on (a,p), not A(x)>0. Moreover A=d1u(T−α1/d1), so A<0 gives T<α1/d1, the opposite of (6.11). The resulting claim that T has a positive local maximum in (a,p), needed to apply Lemma 14(a), is therefore not established. Since Theorem 2 rests on Lemma 15, the global-stability conclusion is unsupported.
  2. [§6, Lemma 15, Step 4] In the second half of Step 4, the proof assumes B=d2vx−α2v≤0 on (q,b) and uses (6.3) with a1=q and b1=b. With (α1−α2)/(d1−d2)≥α1/d1 and with ux/u<α1/d1 from Lemma 7(b), the factor (ux−(α1−α2)/(d1−d2)u) is negative; since d1−d2>0 and B≤0, the integrand in (6.3) is nonnegative, so the left side is ≥0, not “0 >” as printed. The right side evaluates to −B(q)u(q)≥0, so no contradiction follows. The claimed necessity that B change sign in (q,b) is not proved.
  3. [§6, Lemma 15, Steps 2 and 5] Lemma 15 is stated for d1>d2>0, but Step 2 begins by analyzing the case d1=d2=d, which is outside the hypotheses, and that case is not used in the remainder of the proof. In Step 5, the proof invokes “by Step 3, B(x)>0 in (a,a0)”, although Step 3 concluded B<0 in (a,δ) for small δ>0, and a0 is a zero of A beyond δ. This is again the reversed sign. These internal inconsistencies prevent Lemma 15 from being a valid contradiction argument.
  4. [§2, equations (2.2)-(2.3); Theorem 2] The substitution r1=1−μ, K1=r1K makes system (2.2) algebraically identical to the harvesting-free system (2.3) of the authors' previous paper [2] with carrying capacity K1 and growth coefficient rr1. Consequently the analytical results of Sections 4–6 and Theorem 2 are corollaries of [2] (or of the cited monotone-dynamical-systems results) after a rescaling, and the advertised unequal-harvesting case μ1≠μ2 is treated only numerically (Example 3, Figure 11). The paper should state this reduction explicitly and either reposition its contribution or provide analytical results for unequal harvesting.
  5. [§3, Lemmas 1-2] The existence, uniqueness, and positivity proofs are sketches rather than complete arguments. Lemma 1 defines G1(x,u)=G2(x,u)u but then writes G1(x,u)=(G2(x,u)+G2(x,u)u)u, which does not follow from the definition; the eigenvalue problem (3.3) writes “+G2(x,0)=λΦ”, where the term appears to be missing the factor Φ; and Lemma 2 introduces an unqualified “G(x,u) strictly decreasing in u” and asserts monotonicity of principal eigenvalues without proof. Since Theorem 1 and the paper's first stated contribution depend on these lemmas, they need to be completed or replaced by precise citations.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract and introduction discuss different diffusion, advection, and harvesting rates, but all analytical theorems assume equal harvesting rates μ1=μ2=μ; this limitation should be stated clearly in the abstract.
  2. [Theorem 2, statement 2] The theorem states μ∈[0,1], whereas elsewhere the paper assumes μ∈[0,1); the endpoint μ=1 gives r1=0 and K1=0, so the range should be corrected.
  3. [Equation (6.7)] The second equation reads −d2∆S+[α2−2d1S]Sx+uT+vS=0; the coefficient of Sx should presumably be α2−2d2S.
  4. [Lemma 14] The statements are labeled (a) and (a); the second should be (b), with the remaining labels shifted accordingly.
  5. [Example 2, Section 7] The carrying capacity K=2.0+cos(πx)cos(πy) depends on a second spatial variable y, while the model (2.3) is one-dimensional; either justify a two-dimensional interpretation or restrict K to x.
  6. [Throughout] Several initial conditions are printed as “≥, ,̸≡0”, which should read “≥0, ̸≡0”; examples appear after (2.1) and in (3.1).
  7. [Section 6, proof of Theorem 2] In the proof of assertion 2(c), the sets X and Y are defined using Γα2, but the following sentence refers to “Γ” without definition; likely σ is intended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the equal-harvesting model is transparently rescaled to the authors' earlier no-harvesting system, but the conclusion is supported by independent monotone-dynamical-system theory and in-paper proofs; the main caveat is an internal sign error in Lemma 15, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation is a reduction rather than a circle. The substitution in Section 2, 'If we assume r1 = 1 − µ and K1 = Kr1', converts the equal-harvesting system (2.2) into the harvesting-free system (2.3), which is exactly the same model the authors analyzed in their prior paper [2] with r replaced by rr1 and K by K1. This does mean the analytical harvesting results are corollaries of the no-harvesting theory applied to the rescaled carrying capacity, so the novelty of the equal-µ part is limited. However, the paper states the substitution openly, proves the needed auxiliary Lemmas 1–12 and 15 in the text (Lemma 13, though labeled '[2]', is also proved there), and completes Theorem 2 by 'applying the theory of competitive systems. 2, 21, 22', where [21,22] are independent, standard results and [2] is a published source rather than an unverified premise. No parameter is fitted to data and no predicted quantity is statistically forced, so none of the enumerated circularity patterns (self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, ansatz-smuggling, etc.) is realized in a load-bearing way. Two non-circular problems should be flagged: the theorems only cover equal harvesting µ1=µ2=µ, while unequal harvesting appears only numerically (Example 3, Fig. 11); and Lemma 15 Step 3 reverses the sign of A and B near their first zeros ('A(a)=A(p)=0, A(x)>0, x∈(a,p)' after establishing A<0 on (a,δ)), so the claimed contradiction with Lemma 14(a) does not follow as written. That is an internal correctness gap, not a circularity, and it does not by itself raise the circularity score; the derivation chain is still an honest, if incremental, reduction to prior theory.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities and fits no parameters to data. Its analytical load rests on standard PDE theory and on integral identities and theorems quoted from the authors' own prior work [2] and from [6], [17], [19], [22].

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The comparison principle and strong maximum principle for parabolic and elliptic operators, as used in Lemmas 1, 2, 7, 8.
    Invoked without proof in Sections 3 and 4 to show positivity, uniqueness, and bounds on u_x/u.
  • standard math The principal eigenvalue of the linearized eigenvalue problem (5.1) is simple with a strictly positive eigenfunction.
    Used in Section 5 to define λ1 and Φ1 for local stability analysis.
  • domain assumption Lemma 13 identity (6.2)-(6.3) is taken from the authors' prior paper [2] and not proved here.
    The non-existence proof (Lemma 15) and stability proofs rely on this integral identity.
  • standard math The system (2.3) generates a continuous semi-flow that is competitive, so the monotone dynamical systems framework of Hsu-Smith-Waltman [22] applies.
    Used in Theorem 2 to lift local stability and non-existence of coexistence to global stability.
  • domain assumption The spatially heterogeneous carrying capacity K(x) is non-constant, so K1(x) = (1−µ)K(x) is also non-constant.
    Assumed in Theorem 2 and Lemmas 11-15.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics of Reaction-Diffusion-Advection System and its Impact on River Ecology in the Presence of Spatial Heterogeneity I." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HC4NIFAW

@misc{pith2026241200038,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics of Reaction-Diffusion-Advection System and its Impact on River Ecology in the Presence of Spatial Heterogeneity I},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HC4NIFAW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00038}
}
read the original abstract

In this study, a spatially distributed reaction-diffusion-advection (RDA) model with harvesting is investigated to signify the outcome of a competition between two competing species in a heterogeneous environment. The study builds upon the concept presented in literature \cite{tisha2}, applying it to river ecology in the context of harvesting activities. We assume that despite of having distinct advection and diffusion rates, two species are competing for the same food supply. This paper's main objective is to study, using theoretical and numerical analysis, the global asymptotic stability and coexistence steady state based on different and unequal rates of diffusion and advection. We establish the result for existence, uniqueness and positivity of the solution. The local stability of two semi trivial steady states is demonstrated. Also, we examine the non-existence of coexistence steady state with the help of some non-trivial presumptions. Finally, we combine the local stability with the non-existence of coexistence to demonstrate the global stability using monotone dynamical systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00038 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Solution of (2.3) in (a) spatial distribution of u & v, (b) surface distribution of u and (c) surface distribution of v, for d1 = 0.08, d2 = 0.07, α1 = 0.05, α2 = 0.04 and µ = 0.009 at time t = 2000. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Solution of (2.3) at time t = 2000 and (b) average solution of (2.3) at time t = 80, for d1 = 0.08, d2 = 0.07, α1 = 0.05, α2 = 0.04 and µ = 0.009 at time t = 2000. Theorem 2 predicts that the first species will eventually go extinct due to its higher diffusion and advection rates compared to the second species, as well as a disproportionately larger ratio of these rates. This outcome is visually supported by Fig… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Solution of (2.3) in (a) Spatial distribution of u & v, (b) surface distribution of u and (c) surface distribution of v, for d1 = 0.08, d2 = 0.07, α1 = 0.05, α2 = 0.04 and µ = 0.001 at time t = 2000. 31 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: illustrates the dynamic relationship between two species over time. While coex￾istence is apparent on shorter time scales, the first species ultimately faces extinction as time progresses. This transition highlights the temporal nature of species interactions, where sh…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Surface distribution of u & v of (2.3), (b) contour plot of u and (c) contour plot of v, for d1 = 0.005, d2 = 0.002, α1 = 0.002, α2 = 0.0018 and µ = 0.03 at time t = 80. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Surface distribution of u & v of (2.3), (b) contour plot of u and (c) contour plot of v, for d1 = 0.002, d2 = 0.001, α1 = 0.001, α2 = 0.0006 and µ = 0.3 at time t = 80. 33 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Spatial distribution of u & v, (b) surface solution of u and (c) surface solution of v, of (2.3) for d1 = 0.002, d2 = 0.001, α1 = 0.001, α2 = 0.0006 and µ = 0.3 at time t = 2000. The spatial distribution of species u and v in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Solution of (2.3) at time t = 2000 and (b) average solution of (2.3) at time t = 80, for d1 = 0.002, d2 = 0.001, α1 = 0.001, α2 = 0.0006 and µ = 0.3 at time t = 80. Figures 8(a) and 8(b) demonstrate that when the diffusion and advection rates of the first species a…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Solution of (2.3) at time t = 2000 and (b) average solution of (2.3) at time t = 80, for d1 = 3, d2 = 0.8, α1 = 0.7, α2 = 0.03 and µ = 0.1 at time t = 80. Figures 9(a) and 9(b) depict the dynamics of two species under the influence of harvesting and diffusion, resp…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) Surface distribution of u & v of (2.3), (b) contour plot of u and (c) contour plot of v, for d1 = 3, d2 = 0.8, α1 = 0.7, α2 = 0.03 and µ = 0.1 at time t = 80 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Surface distribution of u & v of (2.2), (b) contour plot of u and (c) contour plot of v, for d1 = 1.0, d2 = 1.0, α1 = 1.0, α2 = 1.0, µ1 = 0.01 and µ2 = 0.0076 at time t = 80. 36 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Dynamics of reaction–diffusion–advection system and its impact on river ecology in the presence of spatial heterogeneity

    Tisha MS, Kamrujjaman M, Zahan I. Dynamics of reaction–diffusion–advection system and its impact on river ecology in the presence of spatial heterogeneity. Partial Differential Equations in Applied Mathematics. 2024 Sep 1;11:100802

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Stable isotopes resolve the drift paradox for Baetis mayflies in an arctic river

    Hershey AE, Pastor J, Peterson BJ, Kling GW. Stable isotopes resolve the drift paradox for Baetis mayflies in an arctic river. Ecology. 1993 Dec;74(8):2315-25

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    Global dynamics of a general competitive reaction–diffusion–advection system in one dimensional environments

    Gan W, Shao Y, Wang J, Xu F. Global dynamics of a general competitive reaction–diffusion–advection system in one dimensional environments. Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications. 2022 Aug 1;66:103523

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Reaction-Diffusion Equations in Spatial Ecology (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University)

    Lee R. Reaction-Diffusion Equations in Spatial Ecology (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). 2024, https://people.math.osu.edu/lam.184/paper/Ray\_Lee\_Thesis.pdf

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    On a competition-diffusion-advection system from river ecology: mathematical analysis and numerical study

    Yan X, Nie H, Zhou P. On a competition-diffusion-advection system from river ecology: mathematical analysis and numerical study. SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems. 2022;21(1):438-69

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Global dynamics of the Lotka‐Volterra competition‐diffusion system: diffusion and spatial heterogeneity I

    He X, Ni WM. Global dynamics of the Lotka‐Volterra competition‐diffusion system: diffusion and spatial heterogeneity I. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics. 2016 May;69(5):981-1014

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Analysis of a reaction-diffusion system modeling predator-prey with prey-taxis

    Bendahmane M. Analysis of a reaction-diffusion system modeling predator-prey with prey-taxis. Networks and Heterogeneous Media. 2008 Sep 30;3(4):863-79

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Mathematical Study of a Resource-Based Diffusion Model with Gilpin–Ayala Growth and Harvesting

    Zahan I, Kamrujjaman M, Tanveer S. Mathematical Study of a Resource-Based Diffusion Model with Gilpin–Ayala Growth and Harvesting. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology. 2022 Oct;84(10):120

    work page 2022

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Reaction-diffusion-advection models for the effects and evolution of dispersal

    Cosner C. Reaction-diffusion-advection models for the effects and evolution of dispersal. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 2014 May 1;34(5):1701-45

    2014

  2. [10]

    Persistence and extinction in spatial models with a carrying capacity driven diffusion and harvesting

    Korobenko L, Kamrujjaman M, Braverman E. Persistence and extinction in spatial models with a carrying capacity driven diffusion and harvesting. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. 2013 Mar 1;399(1):352-68

    2013

  3. [11]

    Spatio-temporal solutions of a diffusive directed dynamics model with harvesting

    Kamrujjaman M, Keya KN, Bulut U, Islam MR, Mohebujjaman M. Spatio-temporal solutions of a diffusive directed dynamics model with harvesting. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing. 2023 Feb;69(1):603-30

    2023

  4. [12]

    Gilpin–Ayala model with spatial diffusion and its optimal harvesting policy

    Bai L, Wang K. Gilpin–Ayala model with spatial diffusion and its optimal harvesting policy. Applied mathematics and computation. 2005 Dec 1;171(1):531-46

    2005

  5. [13]

    Interplay of harvesting and the growth rate for spatially diversified populations and the testing of a decoupled scheme

    Adan MM, Kamrujjaman M, Molla MM, Mohebujjaman M, Buenrostro C. Interplay of harvesting and the growth rate for spatially diversified populations and the testing of a decoupled scheme. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering. 2023 Jan;20(4)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Evolution of dispersal and the analysis of a resource flourished population model with harvesting

    Zahan I, Kamrujjaman M. Evolution of dispersal and the analysis of a resource flourished population model with harvesting. Heliyon. 2024 May 30;10(10)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Kamrujjaman, M. (2019). Kamrujjaman M. Directed vs regular diffusion strategy: evolutionary stability analysis of a competition model and an ideal free pair. Differ. Equ. Appl. 2019;11(2):267-90

    2019

  8. [16]

    Nonlinear parabolic and elliptic equations

    Pao CV. Nonlinear parabolic and elliptic equations. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012 Dec 6

    2012

  9. [17]

    On a Lotka-Volterra competition system: diffusion vs advection

    Zhou P. On a Lotka-Volterra competition system: diffusion vs advection. Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations. 2016 Dec;55(6):137

    2016

  10. [18]

    Qualitative analysis for a Lotka-Volterra competition system in advective homogeneous environment

    Zhou P, Xiao D, Lou Y. Qualitative analysis for a Lotka-Volterra competition system in advective homogeneous environment. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems. 2016 Feb;36(2)

    2016

  11. [19]

    On a Lotka–Volterra competition model: the effects of advection and spatial variation

    Zhao XQ, Zhou P. On a Lotka–Volterra competition model: the effects of advection and spatial variation. Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations. 2016 Aug;55(4):73

    2016

  12. [20]

    Stocking and Harvesting Effects in Advection-Reaction-Diffusion Model: Exploring Decoupled Algorithms and Analysis

    Tisha MS, Kamrujjaman M, Mohebujjaman M, Khan T. Stocking and Harvesting Effects in Advection-Reaction-Diffusion Model: Exploring Decoupled Algorithms and Analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17702. 2024 Apr 26

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    On an abstract competition model and applications

    Hess P, Lazer AC. On an abstract competition model and applications. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications. 1991 Jan 1;16(11):917-40

    1991

  14. [22]

    Competitive exclusion and coexistence for competitive systems on ordered Banach spaces

    Hsu S, Smith H, Waltman P. Competitive exclusion and coexistence for competitive systems on ordered Banach spaces. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society. 1996;348(10):4083-94

    1996

  15. [23]

    Dynamics of Lotka-Volterra diffusion-advection competition system with heterogeneity vs homogeneity

    Xu B, Jiang H. Dynamics of Lotka-Volterra diffusion-advection competition system with heterogeneity vs homogeneity. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 2017;10:6132-40

    2017

  16. [24]

    Dispersal dynamics: competitive Symbiotic and predator-prey interactions

    Kamrujjaman M. Dispersal dynamics: competitive Symbiotic and predator-prey interactions. Journal of Advanced Mathematics and Applications. 2017 Feb 1;6(1):7-17

    2017

  17. [25]

    Lutscher, F., McCauley, E., & Lewis, M. A. (2007). Spatial patterns and coexistence mechanisms in systems with unidirectional flow. Theoretical population biology, 71(3), 267-277

    2007

  18. [26]

    Y., & Lou, Y

    Averill, I., Lam, K. Y., & Lou, Y. (2017). The role of advection in a two-species competition model: a bifurcation approach (Vol. 245, No. 1161). American Mathematical Society

    2017

  19. [27]

    Zhao, X. Q. (2003). Dynamical Systems in Population Biology Springer-Verlag. New York

    2003

  20. [28]

    Braverman, E., & Kamrujjaman, M. (2016). Competitive–cooperative models with various diffusion strategies. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 72(3), 653-662

    2016

  21. [29]

    Lou, Y. (2008). Some challenging mathematical problems in evolution of dispersal and population dynamics. Tutorials in mathematical biosciences IV: evolution and ecology, 171-205

    2008

  22. [30]

    Q., & Zhao, X

    Zhao, X. Q., & Zhao, X. Q. (2003). Dissipative Dynamical Systems. Dynamical Systems in Population Biology, 1-35

    2003

  23. [31]

    Zhou, P., & Zhao, X. Q. (2018). Evolution of passive movement in advective environments: General boundary condition. Journal of Differential Equations, 264(6), 4176-4198

    2018

  24. [32]

    He, X., & Ni, W. M. (2013). The effects of diffusion and spatial variation in Lotka–Volterra competition–diffusion system I: heterogeneity vs. homogeneity. Journal of Differential Equations, 254(2), 528-546

    2013

  25. [33]

    M., Trabelsi, K., & Allaire, G

    Allaire, G., Kaber, S. M., Trabelsi, K., & Allaire, G. (2008). Numerical linear algebra (Vol. 55). New York: Springer

    2008

  26. [34]

    Ramos, J. I. (1997). Linearization methods for reaction-diffusion equations: Multidimensional problems. Applied mathematics and computation, 88(2-3), 225-254

    1997

  27. [35]

    Kamrujjaman, M. (2019). Interplay of resource distributions and diffusion strategies for spatially heterogeneous populations. Journal of Mathematical Modeling, 7(2), 175-198

    2019

Pith tools

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