Skip to content


  • Research Article
  • Open Access

Note on the Persistent Property of a Discrete Lotka-Volterra Competitive System with Delays and Feedback Controls

Advances in Difference Equations20102010:249364

  • Received: 26 June 2010
  • Accepted: 12 September 2010
  • Published:


A nonautonomous -species discrete Lotka-Volterra competitive system with delays and feedback controls is considered in this work. Sufficient conditions on the coefficients are given to guarantee that all the species are permanent. It is shown that these conditions are weaker than those of Liao et al. 2008.


  • Positive Constant
  • Functional Equation
  • Feedback Control
  • Difference Equation
  • Discrete Model

1. Introduction

Traditional Lotka-Volterra competitive systems have been extensively studied by many authors [17].The autonomous model can be expressed as follows:
where , , , denoting the density of the i th species at time . Montes de Oca and Zeeman [6] investigated the general nonautonomous -species Lotka-Volterra competitive system
and obtained that if the coefficients are continuous and bounded above and below by positive constants, and if for each there exists an integer such that

then exponentially for and where is a certain solution of a logistic equation. Teng [8] and Ahmad and Stamova [9] also studied the coexistence on a nonautonomous Lotka-Volterra competitive system. They obtained the necessary or sufficient conditions for the permanence and the extinction. For more works relevant to system (1.1), one could refer to [19] and the references cited therein.

However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, to this day, still less scholars consider the general nonautonomous discrete Lotka-Volterra competitive system with delays and feedback controls. Recently, in [1] Liao et al. considered the following general nonautonomous discrete Lotka-Volterra competitive system with delays and feedback controls:

where is the density of competitive species; is the control variable; ; bounded sequences , , , , and ; and are positive integer; denote the sets of all integers and all positive real numbers, respectively; is the first-order forward difference operator ; .

In [1], Liao et al. obtained sufficient conditions for permanence of the system (1.4).

They obtained what follows.

Lemma 1.1.

Assume that
hold, then system (1.4) is permanent, where
Hence, the above inequality (1.5) implies
That is

It was shown that in [1] Liao et al. considered system (1.4) where all coefficients , , , , , and were assumed to satisfy conditions (1.9).

In this work, we shall study system (1.4) and get the same results as [1] do under the weaker assumption that

Our main results are the following Theorem 1.2.

Theorem 1.2.

Assume that (1.10) holds, then system (1.4) is permanent.

Remark 1.3.

The inequality (1.9) implies (1.10), but not conversely, for

Therefore, we have improved the permanence conditions of [1] for system (1.4).

Theorem 1.2 will be proved in Section 2. In Section 3, an example will be given to illustrate that (1.10) does not imply (1.9); that is, the condition (1.10) is better than (1.9).

2. Proof of Theorem 1.2

The following lemma can be found in [10].

Lemma 2.1.

Assume that and , and further suppose that
  1. (1)
Then for any integer
Especially, if and is bounded above with respect to , then
Then for any integer
Especially, if and is bounded below with respect to , then

Following comparison theorem of difference equation is Theorem of [11, page 241].

Lemma 2.2.

Let , For any fixed is a nondecreasing function with respect to , and for , following inequalities hold: , If , then for all .

Now let us consider the following single species discrete model:

where and are strictly positive sequences of real numbers defined for and , Similarly to the proof of Propositions and in [12], we can obtain the following.

Lemma 2.3.

Any solution of system (2.7) with initial condition satisfies

The following lemma is direct conclusion of [1].

Lemma 2.4.

Let denote any positive solution of system (1.4).Then there exist positive constants such that

Proposition 2.5.

Suppose assumption (1.10) holds, then there exist positive constant and such that


We first prove .

By Lemma 2.4 and by the first equation of system (1.4), we have
for sufficiently large, then
From the second equation of system (1.4), we have
Then, Lemma 2.1 implies that for any ,
For any small positive constant , there exists a such that
From the first equation of system (1.4), (2.18), and (2.20), we have
By Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3, we have
Setting in (2.22) leads to
Second, we prove . For enough small , from the second equation of system (1.4), we have
for sufficient large . Hence
Thus, we obtain

This completes the proof.

3. An Example

In this section, we give an example to illustrate that (1.10) does not imply (1.9). Consider the two-species system with delays and feedback controls for
We have

Therefore (1.10) holds.


Thus (1.9) does not hold.

Authors’ Affiliations

Key Lab of Network Security and Cryptology, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, China
School of Mathematics and Computer Science, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, China


  1. Liao X, Ouyang Z, Zhou S: Permanence of species in nonautonomous discrete Lotka-Volterra competitive system with delays and feedback controls. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 2008,211(1):1-10. 10.1016/ ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmad S: On the nonautonomous Volterra-Lotka competition equations. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 1993,117(1):199-204. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1993-1143013-3MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmad S, Lazer AC: On the nonautonomous -competing species problems. Applicable Analysis 1995,57(3-4):309-323. 10.1080/00036819508840353MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Gopalsamy K: Stability and Oscillations in Delay Differential Equations of Population Dynamics, Mathematics and Its Applications. Volume 74. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands; 1992:xii+501.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Kaykobad M: Positive solutions of positive linear systems. Linear Algebra and Its Applications 1985, 64: 133-140. 10.1016/0024-3795(85)90271-XMATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Montes de Oca F, Zeeman ML: Extinction in nonautonomous competitive Lotka-Volterra systems. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 1996,124(12):3677-3687. 10.1090/S0002-9939-96-03355-2MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Zeeman ML: Extinction in competitive Lotka-Volterra systems. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 1995,123(1):87-96. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1995-1264833-2MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Teng ZD: Permanence and extinction in nonautonomous Lotka-Volterra competitive systems with delays. Acta Mathematica Sinica 2001,44(2):293-306.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Ahmad S, Stamova IM: Almost necessary and sufficient conditions for survival of species. Nonlinear Analysis. Real World Applications 2004,5(1):219-229. 10.1016/S1468-1218(03)00037-3MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Fan Y-H, Wang L-L: Permanence for a discrete model with feedback control and delay. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society 2008, 2008:-8.Google Scholar
  11. Wang L, Wang MQ: Ordinary Difference Equation. Xinjiang University Press; 1991.Google Scholar
  12. Chen F: Permanence and global attractivity of a discrete multispecies Lotka-Volterra competition predator-prey systems. Applied Mathematics and Computation 2006,182(1):3-12. 10.1016/j.amc.2006.03.026MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar


© Xiangzeng Kong et al. 2010

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.