Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/BasicLatin.js
Research article

Global dynamics of a mosquito population suppression model with stage and sex structure

  • Received: 02 January 2023 Revised: 01 April 2023 Accepted: 04 April 2023 Published: 14 April 2023
  • MSC : 92B05, 92D25, 37N25

  • In this paper, we study a kind of mosquito population suppression model incorporating the growth stage as well as the sex structure of mosquitoes. For the general non-autonomous case, a threshold m for the number of sexually active sterile mosquitoes in the field is defined, and sufficient conditions for successful suppression and partial suppression of wild mosquito population are obtained. For the first special case when the release period of the sterile mosquito is equal to its sexual lifespan, we determined the initial population size under which the mosquito population can be suppressed finally for different release intensities. For the latter special case when sterile mosquitoes are released with a constant rate, we give a threshold u for the release rate, and investigate the dynamic behavior of the system based on this threshold. Finally, some numerical examples are presented to confirm the theoretical results.

    Citation: Junjie He, Di Li, Shouzong Liu. Global dynamics of a mosquito population suppression model with stage and sex structure[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(6): 14027-14046. doi: 10.3934/math.2023717

    Related Papers:

    [1] Mingzhan Huang, Xiaohuan Yu . Dynamic analysis of a mosquito population model with a stage structure and periodic releases of sterile males. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 18546-18565. doi: 10.3934/math.2023943
    [2] Shouzong Liu, Yang Xu, Mingzhan Huang . Comparative analysis of sterile mosquito release strategies based on a population suppression model. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 23344-23367. doi: 10.3934/math.20241135
    [3] Zhongcai Zhu, Xue He . Rich and complex dynamics of a time-switched differential equation model for wild mosquito population suppression with Ricker-type density-dependent survival probability. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 28670-28689. doi: 10.3934/math.20231467
    [4] Folashade Agusto, Daniel Bond, Adira Cohen, Wandi Ding, Rachel Leander, Allis Royer . Optimal impulse control of West Nile virus. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 19597-19628. doi: 10.3934/math.20221075
    [5] Zongmin Yue, Yitong Li, Fauzi Mohamed Yusof . Dynamic analysis and optimal control of Zika virus transmission with immigration. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 21893-21913. doi: 10.3934/math.20231116
    [6] Liping Wang, Peng Wu, Mingshan Li, Lei Shi . Global dynamics analysis of a Zika transmission model with environment transmission route and spatial heterogeneity. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(3): 4803-4832. doi: 10.3934/math.2022268
    [7] Puntipa Pongsumpun, Jiraporn Lamwong, I-Ming Tang, Puntani Pongsumpun . A modified optimal control for the mathematical model of dengue virus with vaccination. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 27460-27487. doi: 10.3934/math.20231405
    [8] Vikas Kumar, Nitu Kumari . Controlling chaos in three species food chain model with fear effect. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(2): 828-842. doi: 10.3934/math.2020056
    [9] Lin Wu, Jianjun Jiao, Xiangjun Dai, Zeli Zhou . Dynamical analysis of an ecological aquaculture management model with stage-structure and nonlinear impulsive releases for larval predators. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 29053-29075. doi: 10.3934/math.20241410
    [10] Iftikhar Ahmad, Hira Ilyas, Muhammad Asif Zahoor Raja, Tahir Nawaz Cheema, Hasnain Sajid, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Muhammad Shoaib, Mohammed S. Alqahtani, C Ahamed Saleel, Mohamed Abbas . Intelligent computing based supervised learning for solving nonlinear system of malaria endemic model. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(11): 20341-20369. doi: 10.3934/math.20221114
  • In this paper, we study a kind of mosquito population suppression model incorporating the growth stage as well as the sex structure of mosquitoes. For the general non-autonomous case, a threshold m for the number of sexually active sterile mosquitoes in the field is defined, and sufficient conditions for successful suppression and partial suppression of wild mosquito population are obtained. For the first special case when the release period of the sterile mosquito is equal to its sexual lifespan, we determined the initial population size under which the mosquito population can be suppressed finally for different release intensities. For the latter special case when sterile mosquitoes are released with a constant rate, we give a threshold u for the release rate, and investigate the dynamic behavior of the system based on this threshold. Finally, some numerical examples are presented to confirm the theoretical results.



    As the vector of many diseases, mosquitoes are listed as one of the most lethal animals to humans in the world. With the development of people's understanding and research on mosquito-borne diseases, mosquito control is considered to be the key to suppress the spread of such diseases. In addition to the traditional physical and chemical means of mosquito control, in recent years, biological control methods have also received a lot of attention. For example, using the sterile insect technique or the Wolbachia driven mosquito control technique to release sterile mosquitoes or Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes into the field are common means of biological control [4,5,6,7,8,23,30].

    Mathematical models are widely used to study the transmission and control of mosquito-borne diseases. On the one hand, mathematical models are used to study the interaction between people and mosquitoes in the transmission process of different types of mosquito-borne diseases [10,11,21,28], and on the other hand, they are also used to explore the interaction between wild mosquitoes and the released sterile mosquitoes or Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes [1,9,13,14,15,18,19,29]. In recent years, some researchers have focused on the release strategy of sterile mosquitoes and Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes, considering the suppression effect of the release behavior on the wild mosquito population in different situations [12,16,17,20,22,24,25,26,27,31,32,33,34,35]. Some of the mosquito population suppression models currently studied [25,26,31,32] are based on an interaction model of two types of mosquitoes (wild mosquitoes and sterile mosquitoes) constructed by Cai et al. in [9] as follows

    {dw(t)dt=w(t)(aw(t)w(t)+g(t)μ1ξ1(w(t)+g(t))),dgdt=B()(μ2+ξ2(w(t)+g(t))), (1.1)

    where w(t) and g(t) are the number of the wild and sterile mosquitoes in the field at time t, respectively. a is the birth rate per wild mosquito and it follows logistic growth. ξi and μi,i=1,2 are the density dependent and independent death rate, respectively. Further, B() is the release rate of the sterile mosquitoes.

    It is noted that model (1.1) did not distinguish different stages of the mosquito's life cycle, and the growth of wild and sterile mosquitoes are both affected by intraspecific competition. However, we know that the intraspecific competition of mosquitoes mainly exists in the aquatic stage, while adult mosquitoes are little affected. Then, a revised model was developed in [19]

    {dw(t)dt=aw(t)w(t)+g(t)(1ξ1w(t))w(t)μ1w(t),dgdt=B()μ2g(t), (1.2)

    where 1ξ1w(t) describes the density dependent survival probability of wild mosquitoes. Based on model (1.2), a series of mosquito population suppression models were proposed and studied [20,35].

    It is widely known that a mosquito's life cycle consists of several stages which include egg, larva, pupa in an aquatic phase and adult in an aerial phase. In addition, the released mosquitoes are mainly sterile males or Wolbachia-infected males and they compete with wild male mosquitoes and occupying the opportunity to mate with wild female mosquitoes [16]. Therefore, in mathematical modelling, it is better to consider different growth stages of mosquitoes and distinguish male and female groups.

    In this work, we attempt to give and study a kind of mosquito population suppression model with sex and stage structure. The rest of this paper is arranged as follows: in Section 2, based on previous research, we give several mosquito population suppression models with life stage and sex structure. In Section 3, we study the dynamic behavior of the established models, and establish sufficient conditions for successful suppression and partial suppression of wild mosquito population. Then, in Section 4, a series of numerical examples are presented to illustrate the theoretical results we obtained. Finally, a brief conclusion is given in Section 5.

    According to the life cycle of mosquitoes, the following compartmental model was considered in [2].

    {dEdt=βEF(1EK)(νE+δE)E,dMdt=(1ν)νEEδMM,dFdt=ννEEMM+γsMsδFF,dMsdt=u()δsMs, (2.1)

    where E(t),M(t),F(t) and Ms(t) denote the density of mosquito in aquatic phase, the fertile adult males, the fertile adult females and the sterilized adult males at time t, respectively. u() stands for a releasing function. Model parameters are all positive constants, and their biological meaning can be referred to Table 1.

    Table 1.  Biological meaning of model parameter.
    βE the oviposition rate γs the mating competitiveness
    νE the transition rate to the adult phase δE the death rate of eggs
    δF the death rate of adult females δM the death rate of adult males
    δs the death rate of sterile mosquitoes ν the female proportion
    K the environmental capacity for eggs

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    To reduce the dimension of the model, the authors of [2] assumed that the time dynamics of the mosquitoes in aquatic phase and the adult males compartments are fast, so the equations of E() and M() are at equilibrium. That is, E=βEFβEFK+νE+δE,M=(1ν)νEδME. Then, they deduced the following simplified version [2]

    {dF(t)dt=ν(1ν)β2Eν2EF2(βEFK+νE+δE)[(1ν)νEβEF+δMγsMs(βEFK+νE+δE)]δFFf(F(t),Ms(t)),dMsdt=u()δsMs. (2.2)

    The authors in [2] have demonstrated the reliability of the above simplified model through numerical analysis by comparing the dynamics of adult female mosquitoes in the original and simplified systems. The numerical solutions of fertile adult female mosquitoes were found to be very close, indicating that the simplified model is reliable.

    In the work [2], in addition to using the optimization method to study the release strategy, the authors studied the dynamical behavior of system (2.2) for the case u()=0, that is, sterile mosquitoes are released only once and no longer replenished. However, we know that the suppression of mosquito population requires a large number of sterile mosquitoes to be released several times, which is a relatively long-term continuous release behavior. In this paper, we will study a mosquito population suppression model incorporating stage and sex structure based on model (2.2). In addition, by employing the modeling ideas in [24], we consider Ms(t)0 as the density of sterile mosquitoes which are sexually active in the field at time t, then a non-autonomous mosquito population suppression model is obtained as follows

    dF(t)dt=f(F(t),Ms(t)). (2.3)

    A special case of model (2.3) is Ms(t)m. Yu et al. proposed the concept of the sexual lifespan of sterile mosquitoes in [25], [26], [31] and [32]. When the release period of sterile mosquitoes is equal to its sexual lifespan, the number of sexually active sterile mosquitoes in the field Ms(t) is a constant value m if its natural death is ignored. Then, the mosquito population suppression model (2.3) reduces to

    dF(t)dt=f(F(t),m)=ν(1ν)β2Eν2EF2(βEFK+νE+δE)[(1ν)νEβEF+δMγsm(βEFK+νE+δE)]δFF, (2.4)

    which is a autonomous equation.

    In addition, based on the work [2], we further investigate the suppression effect of long-term constant release of sterile mosquitoes on the wild mosquito population. Therefore, we let u()u, here u is a positive constant, then system (2.2) becomes another special case of model (2.3) as follows

    {dF(t)dt=f(F(t),Ms(t)),dMsdt=uδsMs(t)=g(Ms(t)). (2.5)

    In this paper, we will study dynamic behaviors of the non-autonomous mosquito population suppression model (2.3) and its two special cases (2.4) and (2.5), and mainly discuss the threshold conditions for successful suppression of mosquito population and the conditions for sustainable survival of mosquitoes.

    As in [16], to simplify the expression of the model, we let

    A=ν(1ν)β2Eν2E,B=βEK,C=νE+δE,D=(1ν)νEβE,H=δMγs,

    then model (2.3) becomes

    dF(t)dt=AF2(t)(BF(t)+C)[DF(t)+HMs(t)(BF(t)+C)]δFF(t). (3.1)

    If no biological control measure is introduced and there are only wild mosquitoes in the field, that is Ms(t)=0, then system (2.3) can be written as

    dF(t)dt=AFD(BF+C)δFF=BDδFFD(BF+C)[CB(ACDδF1)F]. (3.2)

    Obviously, when ACDδF, system (3.2) has no positive equilibrium and the extinction equilibrium F=0 is globally asymptotically stable.

    In this work we assume that

    A>CDδF,

    then system (3.2) has a unique positive equilibrium F=CB(ACDδF1) which is globally asymptotically stable.

    For the case Ms(t)m>0, (2.4) is a autonomous equation, and we can also discuss its equilibria. To get positive equilibria of (2.4), we need to consider the following algebraic equation

    AF(BF+C)[DF+mH(BF+C)]δF=0,

    which is equivalent to

    δFB(D+mHB)(F+CB)2+(A+δFCD)(F+CB)ACBB(F+CB)[D(F+CB)+mHB(F+CB)CDB]=0.

    Thus, the existence and the number of positive equilibria of model (2.4) are equivalent to that of the following quadratic equation

    G(F,m)A1(m)(F+CB)2A2(F+CB)+A3=0, (3.3)

    where A1(m)=δFB(D+mHB),A2=A+δFCD,A3=ACB.

    Using the discriminant (m)=A224A1(m)A3, we introduce a threshold of the release amount

    m=(ACDδF)24ACDδFDHB,

    which satisfies (m)=0.

    According to [16], we have the following conclusions.

    Lemma 1. When A>CDδF, the nonnegative equilibria of model (2.4) can be classified as follows:

    (i) If 0<m<m, then model (2.4) has three equilibria: F=0,

    F1(m)=A22A1(m)[11A1(m)A1(m)]CB,
    F2(m)=A22A1(m)[1+1A1(m)A1(m)]CB.

    (ii) If m=m, then model (2.4) has two equilibria: F=0 and

    F(m)=A22A1(m)CB=ACDδFA+CDδFK(νE+δE)βE.

    (iii) If m>m, then the extinction equilibrium F=0 is the unique equilibrium of model (2.4).

    Remark 1. Since A1(m) is strictly monotonically increasing with respect to m, while F2(m) is strictly monotonically decreasing with respect to m in (0,m), we have

    F2(m)<F2(0)=F,and0<F1(m)<F2(m)<F,m(0,m).

    We first study the dynamics of (2.3) for the case when the number of sexual active sterile mosquitoes in the field, Ms(t), is a given nonnegative continuous function.

    Let F(t,Ms,t0,F0) be a solution of (2.3) through (t0,F0), then F(t,Ms,t0,F0)C1([t0,),[0,)) satisfies (2.3) on [t0,) and F(t0)=F0.

    According to equation (2.3), it is clear that dF(t)dt|F=0=0, and

    dF(t)dtAFD(BF+C)δFF=BDδFFD(BF+C)(FF),

    then we get the following conclusion.

    Lemma 2. For any t00 and F0>0, the solution F(t,Ms,t0,F0) of (2.3) is positive and lim sup.

    In the following, we investigate the stability of the extinction equilibrium F = 0 . For convenience, let

    m_0 = \inf\limits_{t\in (0, \infty)} M_s(t).

    Theorem 1. If A > CD\delta_F , m_0 > 0 and M_s(t)\leq m^*, t\geq0 , then the extinction equilibrium F = 0 of model (2.3) is locally asymptotically stable, and \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}F(t, M_s, t_0, F_0) = 0 if 0 < F_0 < F_1(m_0) . In addition, F(t) = F(t, M_s, t_0, F_0)\geq F^*(m^*), t\geq t_0 if F_0\geq F^*(m^*) .

    Proof. We first prove that the extinction equilibrium F = 0 of model (2.3) is locally stable. Since m_0 > 0 , according to Lemma 1 and the properties of G(F, m) defined in (3.3), we know that G(F, m_0) > 0 for all F\in(0, F_1(m_0)) . Then, for any \delta\in (0, F_1(m_0)) , the following inequality

    \begin{equation} \frac{AF}{(BF+C)[DF+m_0H(BF+C)]}- \delta_F < 0, \quad 0 < F\leq \delta \end{equation} (3.4)

    holds.

    We claim that

    \begin{equation} 0 < F(t_0) < \delta \Rightarrow F(t) = F(t, M_s, t_0, F_0) < \delta, \quad t\geq t_0. \end{equation} (3.5)

    If it does not hold, then there must exist t_1 > t_0 such that F(t_1) = \delta and 0 < F(t) < \delta, t_0\leq t < t_1 , thus F'(t_1)\geq 0 . However, according to (2.3) and (3.4), we have

    \begin{equation*} \begin{split} 0\leq F'(t_1)&\leq F(t_1)\left[\frac{AF(t_1)}{(BF(t_1)+C)[DF(t_1)+m_0H(BF(t_1)+C)]}-\delta_F \right]\\ & = \delta\left[ \frac{A\delta}{(B\delta+C)[D\delta+m_0H(B\delta+C)]}-\delta_F \right] < 0. \end{split} \end{equation*}

    A contradiction occurs. Therefore, F = 0 is locally stable.

    We further prove the attractivity of F = 0 . From (3.5), we have that for any 0 < F(t_0) < \delta , \overline{F} = \limsup_{t\rightarrow \infty}F(t, M_s, t_0, F_0) \leq \delta . By the fluctuation lemma, there exists a time sequence \{\omega_k\} such that \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}F(\omega_k) = \overline{F}, \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}F'(\omega_k) = 0 . Taking the limit in (2.3) along \{\omega_k\} gives

    \begin{equation} \frac{A\overline{F}^2}{(B\overline{F}+C)[D\overline{F}+H(\limsup\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}M_s(\omega_k))(B\overline{F}+C)]} = \delta_F \overline{F}, \end{equation} (3.6)

    and consequently

    0\leq \overline{F} \left[\frac{A\overline{F}}{(B\overline{F}+C)[D\overline{F}+m_0H(B\overline{F}+C)]}-\delta_F \right],

    which leads to \overline{F} = 0 or \frac{A\overline{F}}{(B\overline{F}+C)[D\overline{F}+m_0H(B\overline{F}+C)]}\geq\delta_F . According to (3.4), the second case cannot occur, then \overline{F} = 0 and \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}F(t, M_s, t_0, F_0) = 0 . Thus, F = 0 is locally asymptotically stable. Noting the arbitrariness of \delta , which can be sufficiently close to F_1(m_0) , we can get \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}F(t, M_s, t_0, F_0) = 0 if 0 < F_0 < F_1(m_0) .

    Next, we prove that: F_0\geq F^*(m^*)\Rightarrow F(t) = F(t, M_s, t_0, F_0)\geq F^*(m^*), t\geq t_0 . If it does not hold, then there must exist \tilde{t} > t_0 and \bar{t}\in (t_0, \tilde{t}) such that F(\tilde{t}, M_s, t_0, F_0) < F^*(m^*) and F(\bar{t}, M_s, t_0, F_0) = F^*(m^*) . We consider the following comparison equation of (2.3)

    \begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \begin{split} \frac{dF(t)}{dt} & = \frac{AF^2(t)}{(BF(t)+C)[DF(t)+m^*H(BF(t)+C)]}- \delta_FF(t)\\ & = f(F(t), m^*)- \delta_FF, \end{split}\\ F(\bar{t}) = F^*(m^*). \end{array} \right. \end{equation} (3.7)

    Since 0 < m_0\leq M_s(t)\leq m^*, t\geq0 , we have f(F(t), M_s(t))- \delta_FF\geq f(F(t), m^*)- \delta_FF . We also know that F^*(m^*) is an equilibrium of (3.7), so the solution of (3.7) passing through (\bar{t}, F^*(m^*)) is \tilde{F}(t, m^*, \bar{t}, F^*(m^*)) = F^*(m^*) . According to the comparison principle, we obtain that the solution of (2.3) passing through (\bar{t}, F^*(m^*)) satisfies

    F(t, M_s, t_0, F_0) = F(t, M_s, \bar{t}, F^*(m^*))\geq\tilde{F}(t, m^*, \bar{t}, F^*(m^*)) = F^*(m^*), \, t\geq \bar{t},

    which contradicts to F(\tilde{t}, M_s, t_0, F_0) < F^*(m^*) and \bar{t}\in (t_0, \tilde{t}) . The proof is completed.

    Remark 2. Theorem 1 shows that when the initial population size of wild mosquitoes is not large ( F_0 < F_1(m_0) ), even if the release intensity of sterile mosquitoes is not strong ( M_s(t)\leq m^* ), the mosquito population can be successfully suppressed. However, if the initial size of mosquito population is large ( F_0\geq F^*(m^*) ), the same release intensity will lead to the failure of mosquito population suppression.

    In the following, we try to determine a release intensity to ensure successful suppression of mosquito population for large initial population size. Let

    \overline{M_s} = \limsup\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}M_s(t), \quad \underline{M_s} = \liminf\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}M_s(t).

    Theorem 2. If A > CD\delta_F , m_0 > 0 and \underline{M_s} > m^* , then the extinction equilibrium F = 0 of model (2.3) is globally asymptotically stable.

    Proof. Since m_0 > 0 , the extinction equilibrium F = 0 of model (2.3) is locally asymptotically stable from the proof of Theorem 1. We only need to show that F = 0 is globally attractive. According to Lemma 1, for any t_0\geq 0 and F_0 > 0 , \overline{F} = \limsup_{t\rightarrow \infty}F(t, M_s, t_0, F_0) exists.

    We now show that \overline{F} = 0 . If it does not hold, then \overline{F} > 0 . By the fluctuation lemma, there exists a time sequence \{\tau_k\} such that \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}F(\tau_k) = \overline{F}, \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}F'(\tau_k) = 0 . In addition, since m_0 > 0 and \underline{M_S} > m^* , there must be a subsequence \{\bar{\tau}_k\}\subseteq\{\tau_k\} such that \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}M_s(\bar{\tau}_k) > m^* . Taking the limit in (2.3) along \{\bar{\tau}_k\} gives

    \overline{F} \left[\frac{A\overline{F}}{(B\overline{F}+C)[D\overline{F}+m^*H(B\overline{F}+C)]}-\delta_F \right] > 0,

    which leads to G(\overline{F}, m^*) < 0 . However, from Lemma 1 and the properties of G(F, m) defined in (3.3), we know that G(F, m^*)\geq0 for F\in(0, \infty) , then a contradiction occurs. Therefore, \overline{F} = 0 , and for any t_0\geq 0 and F_0 > 0 , \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}F(t, M_s, t_0, F_0) = 0 holds. The proof is completed.

    Remark 3. Theorem 2 shows that when we increase the release intensity of sterile mosquitoes so that m_0 > 0 and \underline{M_s} > m^* , the mosquito population can always be successfully suppressed. This result can be conveniently applied in practice.

    In this subsection, we investigate two special cases of the autonomous models (2.4) and (2.5), and mainly study the dynamic behavior.

    For model (2.4), the release period of the sterile mosquito is equal to its sexual lifespan, and the number of sexually active sterile mosquitoes in the field remains unchanged, that is, M_s(t)\equiv m . We have the following results for (2.4).

    Theorem 3. If A > CD\delta_F and 0 < m < m^* , then the dynamics of model (2.4) has the following conclusions:

    (i) F = 0 is uniformly stable and \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}F(t, m, t_0, F_0) = 0 if 0 < F_0 < F_1(m) .

    (ii) F = F_1(m) is unstable.

    (iii) F = F_2(m) is uniformly stable, and \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}F(t, m, t_0, F_0) = F_2(m) if F_0 > F_1(m) .

    Proof. From Lemma 1, when 0 < m < m^* , model (2.4) has three equilibria: F = 0 , F = F_1(m) and F = F_2(m) .

    (ⅰ) This conclusion can be verified by slightly modifying the proof of the same result in Theorem 1. In fact, if we replace m_0 and M_S by m , then we can deduce the conclusion (ⅰ).

    (ⅱ) The instability of F_1(m) follows directly from the attractivity of F_0 = 0 .

    (ⅲ) We first show that for any t_0\geq0 and \delta\in(0, F_2(m)-F_1(m)) , if |F_2(m)-F_0| < \delta , then

    \begin{equation} |F(t, m, t_0, F_0)-F_2(m)| < \delta, \quad t\geq t_0. \end{equation} (3.8)

    If it does not hold, then there must exist t_1 > t_0 such that |F(t_1, m, t_0, F_0)-F_2(m)| = \delta and |F(t, m, t_0, F_0)-F_2(m)| < \delta for t_0\leq t < t_1 . There are two possible cases: F(t_1) = F_2(m)+\delta and F(t_1) = F_2(m)-\delta . If F(t_1) = F_2(m)+\delta , then we have F'(t_1)\geq 0 and F(t) < F_2(m)+\delta for t_0\leq t < t_1 . Substitute t_1 into (2.4), and we can obtain

    \begin{equation} \frac{AF^2(t_1)}{(BF(t_1)+C)[DF(t_1)+mH(BF(t_1)+C)]}\geq\delta_F (F_2(m)+\delta), \end{equation} (3.9)

    and consequently

    \frac{A(F_2(m)+\delta)^2}{(B(F_2(m)+\delta)+C)[D(F_2(m)+\delta)+mH(B(F_2(m)+\delta)+C)]}\geq \delta_F (F_2(m)+\delta),

    which can be further reduced to G(F_2(m)+\delta, m)\leq0 . However, G(F, m) > 0 for all F > F_2(m) , which is a contradiction. For the second case, if F(t_1) = F_2(m)-\delta and F(t) > F_2(m)-\delta for t_0\leq t < t_1 , through similar discussions, we can get G(F_2(m)-\delta, m)\geq0 . However, G(F, m) < 0 for all F_1(m) < F < F_2(m) , which is also a contradiction. Thus, F_2(m) is uniformly stable.

    Now we further prove its attractivity. To this end, we only need to show

    \begin{equation} \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}F(t, m, t_0, F_0) = F_2(m) \; \mbox{for any} \; t_0\geq0, F_0\in(F_1(m), \infty). \end{equation} (3.10)

    In fact, by (3.8), for any \delta\in(0, F_2(m)-F_1(m)) and F_0 > F_1(m)+\delta , we can get F(t, m, t_0, F_0) > F_1(m)+\delta, t\geq t_0 . Then, \underline{F} = \liminf_{t\rightarrow \infty}F(t, 0, t_0, F_0)\geq F_1(m)+\delta , and there must be a monotonic time sequence \{t_k\} satisfying \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}t_k = \infty , such that \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}F(t_k) = \underline{F} and \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}F'(t_k) = 0 . Taking limit on both sides of (2.4) along \{t_k\} , and we can get

    \frac{A\underline{F}^2}{(B\underline{F}+C)[D\underline{F}+mH(B\underline{F}+C)]} = \delta_F \underline{F},

    which can be further reduced to G(\underline{F}, m) = 0 . Since \underline{F}\geq F_1(m)+\delta > F_1(m) , and G(F, m) = 0 if and only if F = F_2(m) for F > F_1(m) , we can deduce \underline{F} = F_2(m) . In addition, according to Lemma 2, we know \overline{F} = \limsup_{t\rightarrow \infty}F(t, m, t_0, F_0) exists and is finite. By similar discussion, we can derive \overline{F} = F_2(m) . Then, we have \underline{F} = \overline{F} = F_2(m) which verifies (3.10). The proof is completed.

    As m increases to m^* , these two positive equilibria F = F_1(m) and F = F_2(m) coincide as the unique positive equilibrium F^*(m^*) . When m > m^* , the extinction equilibrium F = 0 is the only equilibrium of (2.4). By discussions similar to the above, we can obtain the following conclusions.

    Theorem 4. (1) If A > CD\delta_F and m = m^* , then the extinction equilibrium F = 0 of (2.4) is uniformly stable, and \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}F(t, m^*, t_0, F_0) = 0 if 0 < F_0 < F^*(m^*), t_0\geq 0 . In addition, the unique positive equilibrium F = F^*(m^*) is globally asymptotically stable from the right-side, and \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}F(t, m^*, t_0, F_0) = F^*(m^*) if F_0 > F^*(m^*), t_0\geq 0 .

    (2) If m > m^* , then the unique equilibrium F = 0 of (2.4) is globally asymptotically stable.

    Remark 4. According to Theorem 3 and 4, as the value of m changes, the attraction domain of the stable extinction equilibrium F = 0 is different. This indicates that under a specific release intensity, the initial size of mosquito population determines whether the mosquito population can be finally suppressed. The larger the m , the larger the corresponding attraction area of F = 0 , and the more likely the mosquito population will be suppressed.

    Next, we investigate the effect of long-term constant releases of sterile mosquitoes on the suppression of wild mosquito population based on system (2.5).

    Clearly, for any t_0\geq 0 , if F(t_0) > 0, M_s(t_0) > 0 , then F(t) > 0, M_s(t) > 0 for all t\geq t_0 . In addition, F(t)\leq\max\{F(t_0), F^*\}, M_S(t)\leq\max\{M_s(t_0), \frac{u}{\delta_s}\} hold for t\geq t_0 .

    By choosing the Dulac function B(F, M_s) = \frac{1}{F^2} , we can deduce

    \begin{equation} \frac{\partial (fB)}{\partial F}+\frac{\partial (gB)}{\partial M_s} = \frac{-A[2BDF+CD+2BHM_s(BF+C)]}{\left[DF(BF+C)+HM_s(BF+C)^2 \right]^2}+\frac{\delta_F-\delta_s}{F}, \end{equation} (3.11)

    where f and g are the functions at the right end of equations in system (2.5).

    Noting that if \delta_F < \delta_s (this assumption is consistent with the actual situation), then \frac{\partial (fB)}{\partial F}+\frac{\partial (gB)}{\partial M_s} < 0 for (F, M_s)\in R_2^+ , thus system (2.5) has no closed orbits in R_2^+ .

    It is easy to know that system (2.5) has a boundary equilibrium E_0(0, M_s^*) , where M_s^* = \frac{u}{\delta_s} . To study positive equilibria of (2.4), we consider the algebraic equation

    \frac{AF}{(BF+C)[DF+\frac{u}{\delta_s}H(BF+C)]}- \delta_F = 0,

    which is equivalent to

    \frac{-\delta_FB(D+\frac{u}{\delta_s}HB)(F+\frac{C}{B})^2+(A+\delta_FCD)(F+\frac{C}{B})-\frac{AC}{B}}{B(F+\frac{C}{B})[D(F+\frac{C}{B})+\frac{u}{\delta_s}HB(F+\frac{C}{B})-\frac{CD}{B}]} = 0.

    Therefore, the existence and number of positive equilibria of model (2.5) are equivalent to the existence and number of positive roots of the following quadratic equation

    \begin{equation} G_1(F, u) \triangleq \tilde{A_1}(u)(F+\frac{C}{B})^2-A_2(F+\frac{C}{B})+A_3 = 0, \end{equation} (3.12)

    where \tilde{A_1}(u) = \delta_FB(D+\frac{u}{\delta_s}HB) , and A_2, A_3 are the same as in Lemma 1.

    By introducing a threshold for the release rate

    u^* = \frac{(A-CD\delta_F)^2}{4A{CD\delta_F}}\frac{D\delta_s}{HB} = \delta_s m^*,

    we can get the following conclusion by similar discussion in Lemma 1.

    Lemma 3. When A > CD\delta_F , the nonnegative equilibria of system (2.5) can be classified as follows:

    (i) If 0 < u < u^* , then system (2.5) has three equilibria: E_0(0, M_s^*) , E_1(F_1(u), M_s^*) and E_2(F_2(u), M_s^*) , where

    F_{1}(u) = \frac{A_2}{2\tilde{A_1}(u)}\Big{[}1-\sqrt{1-\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}}\Big{]}-\frac{C}{B}, F_{2}(u) = \frac{A_2}{2\tilde{A_1}(u)}\Big{[}1+\sqrt{1-\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}}\Big{]}-\frac{C}{B}.

    (ii) If u = u^* , then system (2.5) has two equilibria: E_0(0, M_s^*) and E^*(F^*(u^*), M_s^*) , where

    F^*(u^*) = \frac{A_2}{2\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}-\frac{C}{B} = \frac{A-CD\delta_F}{A+CD\delta_F}\frac{K(\nu_E+\delta_E)}{\beta_E}.

    (iii) If u > u^* , then the boundary equilibrium E_0(0, M_s^*) is the unique equilibrium of system (2.5).

    We now investigate the stability of these equilibria. The Jacobian matrix of system (2.5) has the form

    J_E = \begin{pmatrix} J_{11} &J_{12} \\ 0 & -\delta_s \end{pmatrix},

    where

    J_{11} = \frac{ACF}{\left[DF(BF+C)+HM_s(BF+C)^2 \right]^2}\left(DF+2HM_s(BF+C) \right)-\delta_F,
    J_{12} = - \frac{AHF^2(BF+C)^2}{\left[DF(BF+C)+HM_s(BF+C)^2 \right]^2}.

    Obviously, J_{11}(E_0) = -\delta_F , thus the boundary equilibrium E_0(0, M_s^*) of system (2.5) is a node which is locally asymptotically stable. In particular, If u > u^* , then the unique equilibrium E_0(0, M_s^*) is globally asymptotically stable.

    When 0 < u < u^* , we have \frac{AF_i}{\left[DF_i(BF_i+C)+HM_s^*(BF_i+C)^2 \right]} = \delta_F, i = 1, 2 , where F_i = F_i(u) . It is clear that J_{12}(E_i) < 0 . Let

    \Theta_i = DF_i(BF_i+C)+HM_s^*(BF_i+C)^2,

    then

    \begin{equation} \begin{split} & J_{11}(E_i) = \frac{ACF_i}{\Theta_i^2}\left[DF_i+2HM_s^*(BF_i+C)\right]-\frac{AF_i}{\Theta_i}\\ & = \frac{AF_i}{\Theta_i^2}\left\{ C[DF_i+2HM_s^*(BF_i+C)]-(BF_i+C)[DF_i+HM_s^*(BF_i+C)] \right\} \\ & = \frac{AF_i}{\Theta_i^2}\Large\{[CD(F_i+\frac{C}{B})+2CHBM_s^*(F_i+\frac{C}{B})-\frac{C^2D}{B}]\\ &\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad - B(F_i+\frac{C}{B})[D(F_i+\frac{C}{B})+BHM_s^*(F_i+\frac{C}{B})- \frac{CD}{B}] \Large\}\\ & = \frac{AF_i}{\delta_F\Theta_i^2} \{ -\tilde{A_1}(u)(F_i+\frac{C}{B})^2+\frac{2C}{B}\tilde{A_1}(u)(F_i+\frac{C}{B})-\frac{C^2D\delta_F}{B} \}\\ & = \frac{AF_i}{\delta_F\Theta_i^2} \{A_3-A_2(F_i+\frac{C}{B})+\frac{2C}{B}\tilde{A_1}(u)(F_i+\frac{C}{B})-\frac{C^2D\delta_F}{B} \}\\ & = \frac{AF_i}{\delta_F\Theta_i^2} \{A_3-\frac{C^2D\delta_F}{B}-(A_2-\frac{2C}{B}\tilde{A_1}(u))(F_i+\frac{C}{B}) \}. \end{split} \end{equation} (3.13)

    Since F_i+\frac{C}{B} = \frac{A_2}{2\tilde{A_1}(u)}\Big{[}1\mp\sqrt{1-\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}}\Big{]} , A_2 = A+\delta_FCD < 2A, \; A_3 = \frac{AC}{B} , \tilde{A_1}(u^*) = \frac{A_2^2}{4A_3} = \frac{A_2^2B}{4AC} and \tilde{A_1}(u) < \tilde{A_1}(u^*) , we can further get

    \begin{equation} \begin{split} & J_{11}(E_i) = \frac{AF_i}{\delta_F\Theta_i^2} \left\{\frac{2AC}{B}-\frac{A_2^2}{2\tilde{A_1}(u)}\pm(\frac{A_2^2}{2\tilde{A_1}(u)}-\frac{A_2C}{B})\sqrt{1-\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}} \right\}\\ & = \frac{AF_i}{\delta_F\Theta_i^2}\times \frac{A_2^2B-2A_2C\tilde{A_1}(u)}{2\tilde{A_1}(u)B} \left\{\frac{4AC\tilde{A_1}(u)-A_2^2B}{A_2^2B-2A_2C\tilde{A_1}(u)}\pm\sqrt{1-\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}} \right\}\\ & = \frac{AF_i[A_2^2B-2A_2C\tilde{A_1}(u)]}{2\tilde{A_1}(u)B\delta_F\Theta_i^2}\left\{\frac{-4AC\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}{A_2^2B-2A_2C\tilde{A_1}(u)}(1-\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)})\pm\sqrt{1-\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}} \right\}. \end{split} \end{equation} (3.14)

    Noting that

    A_2^2B-2A_2C\tilde{A_1}(u) > B\{A_2^2-\frac{2A_2C}{B}\tilde{A_1}(u^*) \} > B\{A_2^2-4A_3\tilde{A_1}(u^*) \} = 0,

    then we can easily get J_{11}(E_2) < 0 , and the positive equilibrium E_2(F_2(u), M_s^*) is a locally asymptotically stable node.

    Let

    T_{E_1}(u) = \frac{-4AC\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}{A_2^2B-2A_2C\tilde{A_1}(u)}\left(1-\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}\right)+\sqrt{1-\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}},

    thus

    \begin{equation} J_{11}(E_1) = \frac{AF_1[A_2^2B-2A_2C\tilde{A_1}(u)]}{2\tilde{A_1}(u)B\delta_F\Theta_1^2}T_{E_1}(u). \end{equation} (3.15)

    In addition, by \tilde{A_1}(u^*) = \frac{A_2^2}{4A_3} = \frac{A_2^2B}{4AC} , we get

    \begin{equation} \begin{split} T_{E_1}(u)& = \sqrt{1-\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}}-\frac{4AC}{4AC-2A_2C\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}}\left(1-\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}\right)\\ & = \sqrt{1-\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}}-\frac{2A}{2A-A_2\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}}\left(1-\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}\right). \end{split} \end{equation} (3.16)

    Because \tilde{A_1}(u) = \delta_FB(D+\frac{u}{\delta_s}HB) < \tilde{A_1}(u^*) for 0 < u < u^* , we have \frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}\in(0, 1) . Let y = \sqrt{1-\frac{\tilde{A_1}(u)}{\tilde{A_1}(u^*)}} and N = \frac{A}{\delta_FCD} , then N > 1 ,

    0 < y < \sqrt{1-\frac{\delta_FBD}{\frac{A_2^2B}{4AC}}} = \sqrt{1-\frac{4N}{(N+1)^2}} = \frac{N-1}{N+1} < \sqrt{\frac{N-1}{N+1}}

    and

    T_{E_1}(u) = y-\frac{2A}{2A+A_2(y^2-1)}y^2 = y\left[1-\frac{2Ny}{N-1+(N+1)y^2}\right].

    Consider w(y) = \frac{2Ny}{N-1+(N+1)y^2} , and by direct calculation, we can get that w'(y) = \frac{2N(N-1)-2N(N+1)y^2}{[N-1+(N+1)y^2]^2} = 0 has only one positive root y = \sqrt{\frac{N-1}{N+1}} , and w(y) is strictly monotonically increasing on (0, \frac{N-1}{N+1}] with w(\frac{N-1}{N+1}) = 1 . Then, w(y) < 1 for any 0 < y < \frac{N-1}{N+1} and T_{E_1}(u) > 0 . The positive equilibrium E_1(F_1(u), M_s^*) is an unstable saddle.

    When u increases to u = u^* , these two positive equilibria E_1(F_1(u), M_s^*) and E_2(F_2(u), M_s^*) coincide as the unique positive equilibrium E^*(F^*(u^*), M_s^*) , which is a saddle node.

    In summary, we have the following results.

    Theorem 5. If A > CD\delta_F and \delta_F < \delta_s , then we have the following conclusions for model (2.5).

    (i) If 0 < u < u^* , then the boundary equilibrium E_0(0, M_s^*) is a locally asymptotically stable node, E_1(F_1(u), M_s^*) is an unstable saddle, while E_2(F_2(u), M_s^*) is a locally asymptotically stable node.

    (ii) If u = u^* , then the unique positive equilibrium E^*(F^*(u^*), M_s^*) is an unstable saddle node.

    (iii) If u > u^* , then the unique equilibrium E_0(0, M_s^*) is globally asymptotically stable.

    In this section, some numerical examples are presented to confirm the theoretical results we obtained in last section. Most parameter values are taken from [2], [3] and [23] (see Table 2).

    Table 2.  Model parameter values from [2], [3] and [23].
    Parameters Value Unit Parameters Value Unit
    \beta_E 10 day ^{-1} \gamma_s 1 -
    \nu_E 0.05 - \delta_E 0.03 day ^{-1}
    \delta_F 0.04 day ^{-1} \delta_M 0.1 day ^{-1}
    \delta_s 0.12 day ^{-1} \nu 0.49 -

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    We apply the calculation method in [2] and [3] for the environmental capacity of eggs K , where an island of 74 ha (hectares) was considered. The male population was estimated to be 69 ha ^{-1} , then they assumed that the number of adult wild males was M^* = F^* = 69\times 74 = 5106 when the population reaches a stable state. By direct calculation, they got the eggs number at the stable state was E^* = \frac{\delta_M M^*}{(1-\nu)\nu_E}\approx 2.0023\times10^4 . Because F^* = \frac{\nu \nu_EE^*}{\delta_F} = \frac{(\nu_E+\delta_E)E^*}{\beta_E(1-E^*/K)} holds, the approximate value of environmental capacity can be deduced as

    K = \frac{E^*}{1-\frac{(\nu_E+\delta_E)\delta_F}{\beta_E\nu \nu_E}}\approx 2.0289\times10^4.

    It is easy to verify that A = 0.0625 > \delta_FCD\approx0.0008 and m^* = \frac{(A-CD\delta_F)^2}{4A{CD\delta_F}}\frac{D}{HB}\approx9.5123\times10^4 . Without releasing sterile mosquitoes, the number of wild adult female ones will stabilize at F^* = \frac{C}{B}(\frac{A}{CD\delta_F}-1)\approx1.2094\times10^4 .

    For the general non-autonomous case, we first take M_s(t) = 4\times 10^4\times(1.3+\sin(\pi t/8)) for model (2.3). By direct calculation, we get m_0 = \inf_{t\in (0, \infty)} M_s(t) = 1.2\times 10^4 and M_s(t)\leq 9.2\times 10^4 < m^*, t\geq0 . From Figure 1(a), we can see that the extinction equilibrium F = 0 is locally asymptotically stable (which is consistent with the conclusion of Theorem 1), and there is also a positive periodic solution that is locally stable. That is, the model presents bistability phenomenon. When increasing the release intensity of sterile mosquitoes to M_s(t) = 3.2\times 10^5\times(1.3+\sin(\pi t/8)) , we have \underline{M_S} = \liminf_{t\rightarrow \infty}M_S(t) = 9.6\times 10^4 > m^*, t\geq0 . According to Theorem 2, the extinction equilibrium F = 0 is globally asymptotically stable (see Figure 1(b)).

    Figure 1.  Profiles produced by model (2.3) with M_s(t)\leq m^* or \underline{M_S} > m^* . (a) Bistability phenomenon with M_s(t) = 4\times 10^4\times(1.3+\sin(\pi t/8)) ; (b) Global stability of the extinction equilibrium F = 0 .

    Comparing the constraints for the function M_s(t) in Theorem 1 ( M_s(t)\leq m^* ) and Theorem 2 ( \underline{M_S} > m^* ), we note that there are other cases of M_s(t) . To this end, we consider special forms for M_s(t) such that its function values distributed on both sides of the threshold m^* . We choose two forms: M_s(t) = 1.2\times 10^5\times(1.3+\sin(\pi t/8)) and M_s(t) = 6\times 10^4\times(1.3+\sin(\pi t/8)) , which both satisfy \underline{M_S} < m^* < \overline{M_S} . From Figure 2, we can see that for the former one, F = 0 is globally asymptotically stable (see Figure 2(a)), while bistability phenomenon is present for the latter form (see Figure 2(b)). This also shows that the conditions in Theorem 1 and 2 are sufficient but not necessary.

    Figure 2.  Profiles produced by model (2.3) with \underline{M_S} < m^* < \overline{M_S} . (a) Global stability of the extinction equilibrium F = 0 ; (b) Bistability phenomenon.

    For the autonomous cases, we first verify the results we get for model (2.4). Select 0 < m = 6\times 10^4 < m^*\approx9.5123\times10^4 , from Figure 3(a), we find that the extinction equilibrium F = 0 is locally asymptotically stable. In addition, there are also two positive equilibria and the larger one is locally stable. As the release intensity increases to m = 10\times 10^4 > m^* , the extinction equilibrium F = 0 becomes globally asymptotically stable (see Figure 3(b)). These are consistent with the conclusions in Theorem 3 and 4.

    Figure 3.  Profiles produced by model (2.4). (a) Bistability phenomenon with m = 6\times 10^4 ; (b) Global stability of the extinction equilibrium F = 0 .

    Then for system (2.5), we get the threshold for the release rate u^* = \frac{m^*}{\delta_s}\approx 1.1415\times 10^4 . By taking u = 1\times 10^4 < u^* , Figure 4(a) also shows bistability phenomenon, and both the wild mosquito-extinction equilibrium E_0(0, M_s^*) and the larger positive equilibrium E_2(F_2, M_s^*) are locally stable. The wild mosquito-extinction equilibrium E_0(0, M_s^*) becomes globally asymptotically stable when the release rate increases to u = 1.2\times 10^4 > u^* (see Figure 4(b)).

    Figure 4.  Profiles produced by system (2.5). (a) Bistability phenomenon with u = 10\times 10^4 ; (b) Global stability of the wild mosquito-extinction equilibrium E_0(0, M_s^*) .

    In addition to the two modes described by models (2.4) and (2.5), there is another common release mode of sterile mosquitoes in practice, namely, impulsive release, which means that the release function u(\cdot) in (2.2) is a sum of Dirac deltas. Now let's study this situation numerically. We assume that sterile mosquitoes are released with amount of \sigma at discrete times t = kT, k = 0, 1, 2, \cdots , where T is the release period, then the number of sterile mosquitoes in the environment satisfies

    \begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \frac{ dM_s(t)}{dt} = -\delta_s M_s(t), \quad \mbox{for} \quad t\neq kT, \\ M_s(kT^+) = M_s(kT) +\sigma, k = 0, 1, 2, \cdots. \end{array} \right. \end{equation} (4.1)

    Obviously, system (4.1) has a unique positive periodic solution \widetilde{M_s}(t) which is globally asymptotically stable, where

    \begin{equation*} \begin{array}{l} \widetilde{M_s}(t) = \frac{\sigma \exp(-\delta_s(t-kT)) }{1-\exp(-\delta_sT)}, \quad t\in (kT, (k+1)T], k = 0, 1, 2, \cdots, \\ \widetilde{M_s}(kT^+) = \frac{\sigma }{1-\exp(-\delta_sT)}. \end{array} \end{equation*}

    In addition, the expression for the solution of system (4.1) is M_s(t) = (M_s(0^+)-\widetilde{M_s}(0^+))\exp(-\delta_s t)+\widetilde{M_s}(t) , then we can deduce \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty} {M_s}(t) = \widetilde{M_s}(t) . Since what we want to study is the asymptotic behavior of the population development system of wild mosquitoes, we let {M_s}(t) = \widetilde{M_s}(t) .

    Fix a release period T = 5 . When we select \sigma = 8\times 10^4 , by simple calculating, we can get \widetilde{M_s}(t) > m^*, t\geq 0 . Then we can see that the extinction equilibrium is globally asymptotically stable (see Figure 5(a)). When choose \sigma = 4.2\times 10^4 , then we can get \liminf_{t\rightarrow \infty}\widetilde{M_s}(t) < m^* , and we find that in addition to the extinction equilibrium, there is also a locally stable positive periodic solution(see Figure 5(b)).

    Figure 5.  Profiles produced by systems (2.3) and (4.1). (a) Global stability of the extinction equilibrium with \sigma = 8\times 10^4 ; (b) Bistability phenomenon with \sigma = 4.2\times 10^4 .

    In this paper, we studied a kind of mosquito population suppression model, taking into account the stage structure of mosquito growth as well as the sex structure. First, we constructed a non-autonomous mosquito population suppression model (2.3) by taking the number of sexually active sterile mosquitoes released into the field as a given function M_s(t) . Then we considered a special case, that is, the release period of the sterile mosquito is equal to its sexual lifespan. The non-autonomous model (2.3) is transformed into a one-dimensional ordinary differential equation model (2.4). Finally, continuing the work in [2], we considered another special case and investigated a two-dimensional mosquito population suppression system (2.5).

    For the non-autonomous mosquito population suppression model (2.3), we determined a critical value m^* for M_s(t) . If m_0 > 0 and M_s(t)\leq m^*, t\geq0 , then the extinction equilibrium F = 0 is locally but not globally asymptotically stable (Theorem 1). While when m_0 > 0 and \underline{M_S} > m^* , then the extinction equilibrium F = 0 becomes globally asymptotically stable (Theorem 2). For the one-dimensional ordinary differential equation model (2.4), if 0 < m < m^* , both the extinction equilibrium F = 0 and the larger positive equilibrium F_2(m) are locally stable (Theorem 3). If m = m^* , the unique positive equilibrium F = F^*(m^*) is semi-stable. While if m > m^* , then the unique equilibrium F = 0 becomes globally asymptotically stable (Theorem 4). For the two-dimensional mosquito population suppression system (2.5), we also found a critical value u^* of the release rate u . Through dynamic analysis, we finally obtained conclusions similar to model (2.4) (Theorem 5). Finally, we provided a series of numerical examples to verify our theoretical results.

    In this work, we just gave sufficient conditions for successful suppression and persistence of mosquito population for the non-autonomous model (2.3). In the numerical example, we also found that mosquito populations can be eliminated with a relatively weak release function M_s(t) . In the future research, we will try new research methods to obtain sufficient and necessary conditions for mosquito population suppression.

    In addition, to reduce the difficulty of mathematical analysis, when constructing model (5), we omitted the equations for the aquatic stage population and the adult male mosquito population under specific assumptions, and only used the model parameters to characterize the stage and sex structure of the wild mosquito population. This may make the characterization of these structures less precise. Therefore, in future research, we will use high-dimensional models to accurately depict the stage and gender structures of mosquitoes and study various release strategies.

    This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11901502), Program for Innovative Research Team (in Science and Technology) in University of Henan Province (21IRTSTHN014), Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province(222300420016) and Nanhu Scholars Program for Young Scholars of XYNU.

    The authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.



    [1] S. Ai, J. Li, J. Yu, B. Zheng, Stage-structured models for interactive wild and periodically and impulsively released sterile mosquitoes, Discrete Cont. Dyn-B, 27 (2022), 3039–3052. https://doi.org/10.3934/dcdsb.2021172 doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2021172
    [2] L. Almeida, M. Duprez, Y. Privat, N. Vauchelet, Optimal control strategies for the sterile mosquitoes technique, J. Differ. Equations, 311 (2022) 229–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2021.12.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2021.12.002
    [3] L. Almeida, M. Duprez, Y. Privat, N. Vauchelet, Mosquito population control strategies for fighting against arboviruses, Math. Biosci. Eng., 16 (2019) 6274–6297. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2019313 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019313
    [4] R. Anguelov, Y. Dumont, I. Djeumen, Sustainable vector/pest control using the permanent Sterile Insect Technique, Math. Method. Appl. Sci., 43 (2020), 10391–10412. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.6385 doi: 10.1002/mma.6385
    [5] H. J. Barclay, Pest population stability under sterile releases, Res. Popul. Ecol., 24 (1982), 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02515585 doi: 10.1007/BF02515585
    [6] H. J. Barclay, M. Mackuer, The sterile insect release method for pest control: a density dependent model, Environ. Entomol., 9 (1980), 810–817. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/9.6.810 doi: 10.1093/ee/9.6.810
    [7] P. A. Bliman, D. Cardona-Salgado, Y. Dumont, O. Vasilieva, Implementation of control strategies for sterile insect techniques, Math. Biosci., 314 (2019), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2019.06.002 doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2019.06.002
    [8] G. Briggs, The endosymbiotic bacterium Wolbachia induces resistance to dengue virus in Aedes aegypti, PLoS Pathog., 6 (2010), e1000833. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1000833 doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000833
    [9] L. Cai, S. Ai, J. Li, Dynamics of mosquitoes populations with different strategies for releasing sterile mosquitoes, SIAM, J. Appl. Math., 74 (2014), 1786–1809. https://doi.org/10.1137/13094102X doi: 10.1137/13094102X
    [10] F. Gazori, M. Hesaaraki, Three-dimensional spread analysis of a Dengue disease model with numerical season control, Int. J. Biomath., 14 (2021), 2150066. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793524521500662 doi: 10.1142/S1793524521500662
    [11] M. Guo, L. Hu, L. Nie, Stochastic dynamics of the transmission of Dengue fever virus between mosquitoes and humans, Int. J. Biomath., 14 (2021), 2150062. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793524521500625 doi: 10.1142/S1793524521500625
    [12] M. Huang, J. Luo, L. Hu, B. Zheng, J. Yu, Assessing the efficiency of Wolbachia driven Aedes mosquito suppression by delay differential equations, J. Theor. Biol., 440 (2018), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.12.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.12.012
    [13] M. Huang, S. Liu, X. Song, Study of the sterile insect release technique for a two-sex mosquito population model, Math. Biosci. Eng., 18 (2021), 1314–1339. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2021069 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021069
    [14] M. Huang, L. You, S. Liu, X. Song, Impulsive release strategies of sterile mosquitos for optimal control of wild population, J. Biol. Dynam., 15 (2021), 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2021.1887380 doi: 10.1080/17513758.2021.1887380
    [15] M. Huang, X. Song, J. Li, Modelling and analysis of impulsive release of sterile mosquitoes, J. Biol. Dynam., 11 (2017), 147–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2016.1254286 doi: 10.1080/17513758.2016.1254286
    [16] M. Huang, S. Liu, X. Song, Study of a delayed mosquito population suppression model with stage and sex structure, J. Appl. Math. Comput., 69 (2023), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12190-022-01735-w doi: 10.1007/s12190-022-01735-w
    [17] Y. Hui, Z. Zhao, Q. Li, L. Pang, Asymptotic stability in a mosquito population suppression model with time delay, Int. J. Biomath., 16 (2023), 2250092. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793524522500929 doi: 10.1142/S1793524522500929
    [18] J. Li, S. Ai, Impulsive releases of sterile mosquitoes and interactive dynamics with time delay, J. Biol. Dynam., 14 (2020), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2020.1748239 doi: 10.1080/17513758.2020.1748239
    [19] J. Li, New revised simple models for interactive wild and sterile mosquito populations and their dynamics, J. Biol. Dynam., 11 (2017), 316–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2016.1216613 doi: 10.1080/17513758.2016.1216613
    [20] G. Lin, Y. Hui, Stability analysis in a mosquito population suppression model, J. Biol. Dyn., 14 (2020), 578–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2020.1792565 doi: 10.1080/17513758.2020.1792565
    [21] A. Lupica, A. Palumbo, The coexistence of fast and slow diffusion processes in the life cycle of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, Int. J. Biomath., 14 (2021), 2050087. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793524520500874 doi: 10.1142/S1793524520500874
    [22] Y. Pang, S. Wang, S. Liu, Dynamics analysis of stage-structured wild and sterile mosquito interaction impulsive model, J. Biol. Dyn., 16 (2022), 464–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2022.2079739 doi: 10.1080/17513758.2022.2079739
    [23] M. Strugarek, H. Bossin, Y. Dumont, On the use of the sterile insect release technique to reduce or eliminate mosquito populations, Appl. Math. Model., 68 (2019), 443–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2018.11.026 doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2018.11.026
    [24] J. Yu, Modeling Mosquito Population Suppression Based on Delay Differential Equations, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 78 (2018), 3168–3187. https://doi.org/10.1137/18M1204917 doi: 10.1137/18M1204917
    [25] J. Yu, J. Li, Global asymptotic stability in an interactive wild and sterile mosquito model, J. Differ. Equations, 269 (2020), 6193–6215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2020.04.036 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2020.04.036
    [26] J. Yu, Existence and stability of a unique and exact two periodic orbits for an interactive wild and sterile mosquito model, J. Differ. Equations, 269 (2020), 10395–10415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2020.07.019 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2020.07.019
    [27] J. Yu, J. Li, Dynamics of interactive wild and sterile mosquitoes with time delay, J. Biol. Dynam., 13 (2019), 606–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2019.1682201 doi: 10.1080/17513758.2019.1682201
    [28] M. Zhang, Z. Lin, H. Zhu, The transmission of dengue virus with Aedes aegypti mosquito in a heterogeneous environment, Int. J. Biomath., 14 (2021), 2150026. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793524521500261 doi: 10.1142/S1793524521500261
    [29] Z. Zhao, L. Pang, X. Song, D. Wang, Q. Li, Impact of the impulsive releases and Allee effect on the dispersal behavior of the wild mosquitoes, J. Appl. Math. Comput., 68 (2022), 1527–1544.
    [30] X. Zheng, D. Zhang, Y. Li, C. Yang, Y. Wu, X. Liang, et al., Incompatible and sterile insect techniques combined eliminate mosquitoes, Nature, 572 (2019), 56–61. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1407-9 doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1407-9
    [31] B. Zheng, J. Yu, J. Li, Existence and stability of periodic solutions in a mosquito population suppression model with time delay, J. Differ. Equations, 315 (2022), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2022.01.036 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2022.01.036
    [32] B. Zheng, J. Yu, J. Li, Modeling and analysis of the implementation of the Wolbachia incompatible and sterile insect technique for mosquito population suppression, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 81 (2021), 718–740. https://doi.org/10.1137/20M1368367 doi: 10.1137/20M1368367
    [33] B. Zheng, J. Yu, Existence and uniqueness of periodic orbits in a discrete model on Wolbachia infection frequency, Adv. Nonlinear Anal., 11 (2022), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1515/anona-2020-0194 doi: 10.1515/anona-2020-0194
    [34] B. Zheng, J. Li, J. Yu, One discrete dynamical model on Wolbachia infection frequency in mosquito populations, Sci. China Math., 65 (2022), 1749–1764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11425-021-1891-7 doi: 10.1007/s11425-021-1891-7
    [35] Z. Zhu, B. Zheng, Y. Shi, R. Yan, J. Yu, Stability and periodicity in a mosquito population suppression model composed of two sub-models, Nonlinear Dynam., 107 (2022), 1383–1395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-021-07063-1 doi: 10.1007/s11071-021-07063-1
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Yanyuan Xing, Qian Li, Yunfeng Liu, Stability and backward bifurcation in a malaria-transmission model with sterile mosquitoes, 2025, 2025, 2731-4235, 10.1186/s13662-025-03880-5
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(2063) PDF downloads(97) Cited by(1)

Figures and Tables

Figures(5)  /  Tables(2)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog