
Citation: Yuhang Zheng, Ziqing Du. A systematic review in crude oil markets: Embarking on the oil price[J]. Green Finance, 2019, 1(3): 328-345. doi: 10.3934/GF.2019.3.328
[1] | Azzh Saad Alshehry, Humaira Yasmin, Rasool Shah, Roman Ullah, Asfandyar Khan . Numerical simulation and analysis of fractional-order Phi-Four equation. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 27175-27199. doi: 10.3934/math.20231390 |
[2] | Mamta Kapoor, Nehad Ali Shah, Wajaree Weera . Analytical solution of time-fractional Schrödinger equations via Shehu Adomian Decomposition Method. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 19562-19596. doi: 10.3934/math.20221074 |
[3] | Rasool Shah, Abd-Allah Hyder, Naveed Iqbal, Thongchai Botmart . Fractional view evaluation system of Schrödinger-KdV equation by a comparative analysis. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(11): 19846-19864. doi: 10.3934/math.20221087 |
[4] | Qasem M. Tawhari . Advanced analytical techniques for fractional Schrödinger and Korteweg-de Vries equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(5): 11708-11731. doi: 10.3934/math.2025530 |
[5] | Maysaa Al-Qurashi, Saima Rashid, Fahd Jarad, Madeeha Tahir, Abdullah M. Alsharif . New computations for the two-mode version of the fractional Zakharov-Kuznetsov model in plasma fluid by means of the Shehu decomposition method. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 2044-2060. doi: 10.3934/math.2022117 |
[6] | Rehana Ashraf, Saima Rashid, Fahd Jarad, Ali Althobaiti . Numerical solutions of fuzzy equal width models via generalized fuzzy fractional derivative operators. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 2695-2728. doi: 10.3934/math.2022152 |
[7] | Aslı Alkan, Halil Anaç . A new study on the Newell-Whitehead-Segel equation with Caputo-Fabrizio fractional derivative. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 27979-27997. doi: 10.3934/math.20241358 |
[8] | Mubashir Qayyum, Efaza Ahmad, Hijaz Ahmad, Bandar Almohsen . New solutions of time-space fractional coupled Schrödinger systems. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 27033-27051. doi: 10.3934/math.20231383 |
[9] | Fouad Mohammad Salama, Nur Nadiah Abd Hamid, Norhashidah Hj. Mohd Ali, Umair Ali . An efficient modified hybrid explicit group iterative method for the time-fractional diffusion equation in two space dimensions. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 2370-2392. doi: 10.3934/math.2022134 |
[10] | Aslı Alkan, Halil Anaç . The novel numerical solutions for time-fractional Fornberg-Whitham equation by using fractional natural transform decomposition method. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 25333-25359. doi: 10.3934/math.20241237 |
For decades, many researchers have studied and established mathematical models describing interactions among species. Initially, most studies primarily focused on various types of interaction mechanisms and models using random dispersal of species. The importance of species dispersal, which is one of the main factors involved in species behavior, led to the establishment of more realistic models for species dispersal, for example, self-cross diffusion [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], advection-diffusion [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20], and other types of non-uniform dispersal [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28] models. For the predator–prey interaction, a popular way of describing the dispersal mechanism of predators is using prey-taxis [29,30,31,32,33,34]. There are some predator dispersal types such as the cross diffusion [2,3,4,5,6] and starvation-driven diffusion [22,25]. However, most models describing the dispersal mechanism of predators were dependent on prey's population density.
In this paper, we examine the predator–prey model describing a situation wherein the predator dispersal depends on other environmental factors rather than prey density. Here, we consider the following model with a directional dispersal of a predator in a spatially heterogeneous environment:
{ut=μΔu+u(m(x)−u)−α(x)uvu+d(x)vvt=∇⋅(η∇v−χv∇β)+v(−c+β(x)uu+d(x)v)inΩ×(0,∞),∂u∂→n=η∂v∂→n−χv∂β∂→n=0on∂Ω×(0,∞),u(x,0)=u0(x)≥0,v(x,0)=v0(x)≥0inΩ, | (P) |
where Ω is a bounded convex domain in Rn. The zero-flux condition is provided on the smooth boundary ∂Ω, where →n is the outward unit normal vector on the boundary. The functions u(x,t) and v(x,t) represent the population densities of the prey and predator, respectively. m(x) is the growth rate of the prey depending on the location x∈Ω, and μ and η are the diffusion rates of the prey and predator, respectively. α(x) is a positive function representing the capturing rate. β(x) is proportional to α(x), β=kα, where k>0 is a conversion efficiency of food into offspring. A positive function d(x) is a measure of the interference for the predators during hunting the prey. c and χ are positive constants representing the death rate of the predator and taxis sensitivity coefficient, respectively. The reaction term of the predator represents a case wherein the predator is fed only using the prey. To describe the predator–prey interaction, a ratio-dependent functional response is adopted. By considering the spatially heterogeneous environment, we use the predator-dependent form, such as the ratio-dependent form, for the system [35,36,37].
The model (P) represents a situation wherein the predator dispersal is unaffected by the prey density. The evolution of prey's behavior and traits has helped them against the threats of the predators. Consequently, these evolved traits and behaviors, for example, nocturnality [38,39], camouflage and masquerade [40,41], or living underground [42], make it difficult for the predators to chase the prey directly. This implies that the prey density does not affect the predator dispersal anymore. In response to defensive mechanisms of the prey, predators not only memorize the location where the prey was detected before but also learn the locations to hunt the prey in their habitat efficiently. Some studies have investigated the searching mechanism depending on such spatial memory [43,44,45,46]. In [43], the artificial experiments using birds was introduced, which provided some evidence of such animal learning to find better locations (see [43] and references therein). Thus, we assume that the prey has evolved to avoid detection from the predator, and the predator disperses using a spatial memory from experiences about the good locations to forage efficiently.
Such predator dispersal is mathematically described using the taxis term −∇⋅(χv∇β). An attractant function β(x) includes factors such as an encounter with prey and attack success rates. That is, β(x) indicates which area has high or low hunting efficiency for predators. Thus, the taxis term represents that the predator moves toward locations with high foraging efficiency using the spatial memory about β, which is a kind of mnemotaxis [44,45]. The reaction–diffusion system with the taxis term has a property that v is concentrated around the local maximums of β [15,16]. This implies that the predator gathers near the locations that have a high hunting efficiency. Thus, the predators' directional dispersal toward the location with better hunting efficiency can be described using such type of taxis term.
For the described dispersal mechanism of the predators, two situations can occur. The first situation wherein β is proportional to the resources of prey m (β=κm for some constant κ). This means that the predators move toward locations where the prey is abundant because the prey is distributed along with the distribution of resources. Mathematical and experimental works have been performed on a similar situation that the predators track the prey's resources instead of the prey density [47,48,49]. The second situation in which the distributions of β and m are different, i.e., β is not proportional to m. This situation can happen because some places are rich with prey but are easy to hide, making it difficult to hunt for predators, or because the predators memorized correctly, but the environment of prey's habitat has changed due to external factors. This situation seems to be disadvantageous to the predators. Thus, this paper aimed to show the effect of the directional movement of predators in both situations.
In our model, we let w=e−χβ(x)/ηv. Then, an alternative form of (P) is obtained as follows:
{ut=μΔu+u(m(x)−u)−α(x)uwu+d(x)weχβ(x)eχβ(x)/ηwt=ηΔw+χ∇β⋅∇w+w(−c+β(x)uu+d(x)weχβ(x)/η)inΩ×(0,∞),∂u∂→n=∂w∂→n=0on∂Ω×(0,∞),u(x,0)=u0(x)≥0,w(x,0)=w0(x)≥0inΩ, | (P') |
where w(x0)=e−χβ(x)/ηv0. Throughout this paper, we give assumptions on m, α and β:
m(x),α(x),β(x)andd(x)areinC2(ˉΩ),∫Ωm(x)dx>0 | (A) |
Under the assumption (A), the global existence and uniqueness of the classical solution to (P') follows from the Amann's results [50] for quasilinear parabolic equations. And (P') has one semi-trivial solution (θ,0), where θ is a unique positive steady state solution of
{μΔu+u(m(x)−u)=0inΩ,∂u∂→n=0on∂Ω. | (1.1) |
In this paper, we first investigate the local stability of the semi-trivial solution (θ,0), which is closely related to the survival of the predator. We also consider the elliptic system of (P'). We show that the elliptic system has a positive solution, called the coexistence steady-state, under the conditions for the instability of (θ,0). We also investigate the nonexistence of the positive solution.
The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we state the main theorems and give a biological explanation. The theorems address the stability of (θ,0) and the existence of a coexistence steady-state. Moreover, the effects of taxis sensitivity χ are observed. We provide the proofs of stability theorem using the principal eigenvalue analysis in Section 3. The existence of a coexistence steady-state is shown by the fixed-point index theory in Section 4. In Section 5, we present the numerical simulations for some cases. Section 6 summarizes the results obtained and concludes the paper.
First, we introduce the results for the stability of (θ,0). The instability of (θ,0) and the positivity of the prey density imply that the predator can invade the region. This implies that the predator can survive in the environment, even though this is rare. This allows us to examine whether the taxis is beneficial to the survival of the predator. As in [29], we can show the positivity of the prey density and lim inft→∞u(x,t)>0 if ∫Ωm(x)dx>∫Ωα(x)dx. Therefore, if we assume ∫Ωm(x)dx>∫Ωα(x)dx, the invasibility of the predator can be determined by the instability of (θ,0).
To study the stability of (θ,0), we consider the following linearized eigenvalue problem of (P') at (θ,0):
{μΔϕ+(m(x)−2θ)ϕ−α(x)eχβ(x)/ηψ=λϕinΩ,ηΔψ+χ∇β⋅∇ψ+(−c+β(x))ψ=λψinΩ,∂ϕ∂→n=∂ψ∂→n=0on∂Ω. | (2.1) |
We multiply eχβ/η by the second equation of Eq (2.1) and obtain
η∇⋅(eχβ/η∇ψ)+(−c+β(x))eχβ/ηψ=λeχβ/ηψ. | (2.2) |
Equation (2.2) is the weighted eigenvalue problem λeχβ/ηψ=Lψ, where Lψ=η∇⋅(eχβ/η∇ψ)+(−c+β(x))eχβ/ηψ. Since L is a self-adjoint, we have the following variational form of the principal eigenvalue:
λ1=supψ∈H1(Ω)∖{0},∫Ωeχβ/ηψ2=1∫Ω−ηeχβ/η|∇ψ|2+(−c+β(x))eχβ/ηψ2. |
We denote the principal eigenvalue of the operator L by λ1(L,χ). It is well-known that λ1(L,χ) and the local stability of (θ,0) have the following relation: If λ1(L,χ)>0, then (θ,0) is locally unstable; if λ1(L,χ)<0, then (θ,0) is locally stable (see [51]).
We define the ecological reproduction number R0 as
R0=supψ∈H1(Ω)∖{0}∫Ωβ(x)eχβ/ηψ2∫Ωηeχβ/η|∇ψ|2+ceχβ/ηψ2>0. | (2.3) |
Thus, we have the following lemma whose proof is analogous to the proof of Lemma 2, 3 in [52].
Lemma 2.1. R0>1 if and only if λ1(L,χ)>0.
Lemma 2.1 implies that (θ,0) is unstable if R0>1, and (θ,0) is locally asymptotically stable if R0<1. Then, R0 has a similar role as the basic reproduction number in epidemiology. This means that the survival of the predator is determined by the sign of R0−1.
Now, we introduce the results for the local stability of (θ,0) with an assumption on β, ∂β∂→n=0. For a function f, we denote the average of f in Ω by ¯f. We first present the stability result about the predator's death rate c when ∂β∂→n=0.
Theorem 2.2. Let η>0,χ≥0 be given. If ∂β∂→n=0, there exists ˜c∈(¯β−χ24η¯|∇β|2,maxˉΩβ) such that (θ,0) is unstable when c<˜c, and (θ,0) is locally asymptotically stable when c>˜c.
In Theorem 2.2, the sharp criteria for the local stability of (θ,0) about c is obtained, which represents invasibility of the predator. Given η>0 and χ≥0, there exists a threshold value ˜c such that λ1(L,χ)=0 for c=˜c and the sign of c−˜c determines the stability of (θ,0). From Theorem 2.2, (θ,0) is unstable for all η>0 when c<¯β and χ=0, but χ>0 gives a possibility (θ,0) to be stable if c∈(¯β−χ24η¯|∇β|,¯β). This means that the directional dispersal could be disadvantageous.
Next, we give the result for the local stability of (θ,0) about the death rate c and diffusion rate η of a predator.
Theorem 2.3. Suppose that ∂β∂→n=0. Let χ>0 and ξ>0 be given constants.
(i) If c>maxˉΩβ, then (θ,0) is locally asymptotically stable for all η>0.
(ii) If c<minˉΩβ, then (θ,0) is unstable for all η>0.
(iii) If c<¯β−14ξ¯|∇β|2, then (θ,0) is unstable when η>ξχ2.
(iv) Suppose that c∈(¯β−14ξ¯|∇β|2,maxˉΩβ). Then ˜η>0 exists such that if ˜η<ξχ2 then (θ,0) is locally asymptotically stable for η∈(˜η,ξχ2); and if ˜η>ξχ2 then (θ,0) is unstable for η∈(ξχ2,˜η).
Theorem 2.3 gives sufficient conditions of the stability of (θ,0) for the predators' diffusion rate η when c is in a proper region. A positively given ξ plays a role for obtaining the sufficient conditions for the stability. For example, we suppose that c and χ such that c<¯β−14ξ1¯|∇β|2 and c∈(¯β−14ξ2¯|∇β|2,maxˉΩβ) for some ξ1>ξ2. Then, we obtain from Theorem 2.3 that (θ,0) is unstable for η>ξ1χ2. Moreover, (θ,0) is unstable for η∈(ξ2χ2,˜η(ξ2)) if ~η(ξ2)>ξ2χ2, and (θ,0) is locally asymptotically stable for η∈(˜η,ξ2χ2) if ˜η<ξ2χ2.
Now, we investigate the effect of taxis χ for fixed c and η.
Theorem 2.4. Suppose that β has at least one isolated global maximum point and maxˉΩβ>c. For given η>0, there exists ˜χ>0 such that if χ≥˜χ then (θ,0) is unstable.
From Theorem 2.4, we can compare the stability of (θ,0) with or without the predator's directional movement. Without the taxis (χ=0), the predator cannot survive when they are rare for (c,η)∈(¯β,maxˉΩβ)×(η∗,∞) for some η∗, which will be immediately shown by lemma in Section 3. However, Theorem 2.4 shows that a large taxis χ>0 makes the predators invade a region. This implies that the strong taxis for predators gives a survival advantage to them compared with a random dispersal.
Next, we give the final result for the stability of (θ,0) when β(x)=κm(x) for x∈Ω. Consider the following equation Aχ2+Bχ+C=0, where
A=−κ24η∫Ω|∇m|2θ2dx,B=κ∫Ωθ∇θ⋅∇mdx,C=∫Ω−η|∇θ|2+(κm−c)θ2dx. | (2.4) |
If B is positive and B2−4AC>0, the equation has two real roots χ1<χ2 such that χ2 is positive.
Theorem 2.5. Suppose that m is positive, β=κm for some constant κ>0 and maxˉΩβ>c. If B2−4AC>0, (θ,0) is unstable when χ∈(max{χ1,0},χ2).
Remark that β(x)=κm(x) implies that the predator moves toward the favorable habitat of the prey. Because the prey has a property to be distributed according to m(x), such movement of the predator allows them to go to an environment where the prey population is sufficient. Moreover, as the assumption β(x)=κm(x) gives two effects, which are taxis toward the location with an abundance of prey and high hunting efficiency, the fitness of the predator increases. Therefore, a proper taxis sensitivity provides a survival advantage to the predator without the assumption on β in Theorem 2.4 for which predators cannot survive without taxis (Theorem 2.5).
Consider the steady-state of the system (P'):
{μΔu+u(m(x)−u)−α(x)uwu+d(x)weχβ(x)/ηeχβ(x)/η=0ηΔw+χ∇β⋅∇w+w(−c+β(x)uu+d(x)weχβ(x)/η)=0inΩ,∂u∂→n=∂w∂→n=0on∂Ω. | (2.5) |
In Eq (2.5), the ratio-dependent functional response is not defined at (u,w)=(0,0). Since
lim(u,w)→(0,0)uweχβ(x)/ηu+d(x)weχβ(x)/η=0, |
we can extend the domain of ud(x)weχβ(x)/ηu+d(x)weχβ(x)/η to {(u,w):u≥0,w≥0}, so that (0,0) becomes a trivial solution of Eq (2.5).
Let a positive solution of Eq (2.5) be a coexistence steady-state. Then, we have the following results for the existence of the coexistence steady-state of Eq (2.5), which is proven using the fixed-point index theory.
Theorem 2.6. Let η>0 and χ≥0 be given. If ∂β∂→n=0, there exists ˜c∈(¯β−χ24η¯|∇β|2,maxˉΩβ) such that Eq (2.5) has at least one coexistence steady state if and only if c<˜c.
Theorem 2.7. Suppose that ∂β∂→n=0. Let χ>0 and ξ>0 be given constants.
(i) If c<¯β−14ξ¯|∇β|2, then Eq (2.5) has at least one coexistence steady state when η>ξχ2.
(ii) If c<minˉΩβ, then Eq (2.5) has at least one coexistence steady state for all η>0.
(iii) Suppose that c∈(¯β−14ξ¯|∇β|2,maxˉΩβ). Then ˜η>0 exists such that if ˜η<ξχ2 then Eq (2.5) has at least one coexistence steady state for η∈(ξχ2,˜η).
Theorem 2.8. Suppose that β has at least one isolated global maximum point and maxˉΩβ>c. For given η>0, there exists ˜χ>0 such that if χ≥˜χ then Eq (2.5) has at least one coexistence steady state.
Theorem 2.9. Suppose that m is positive, β=κm for some constant κ>0 and maxˉΩβ>c. If B2−4AC>0 for given A,B and C as Eq (2.4), then Eq (2.5) has at least one coexistence steady state when χ∈(max{χ1,0},χ2).
It is noteworthy that the conditions for the existence of coexistence steady-state are closely related to the sign of λ1(L,χ), which will result in the proof of the above theorems. From the results in subsection 2.1, Eq (2.5) has more chance to have the coexistence steady-state when taxis sensitivity χ is properly chosen.
In this section, we prove Theorem 2.2–2.5. Recall that the principal eigenvalue of (2.2) is defined by
λ1(L,χ)=supψ∈H1(Ω)∖{0},∫Ωeχβ/ηψ2=1∫Ω−ηeχβ/η|∇ψ|2+(−c+β(x))eχβ/ηψ2. | (3.1) |
We assume that ∂β∂→n=0 and consider φ=eχβ/2ηψ. Since ψ∈H1(Ω) and β∈C2(ˉΩ), φ is also in H1(Ω). In addition, a mapping ψ↦eχβ/2ηψ is bijective. Thus, if we take ψ=e−χβ/2ηφ and take supremum over φ∈H1(Ω), we can rewrite the (3.1) as
λ1(L,χ)=supφ∈H1(Ω)∖{0},||φ||2=1∫Ω−η|∇φ|2+χφ∇φ⋅∇β+(−χ24η|∇β|2+β(x)−c)φ2. | (EV1) |
Then, by Green's identity and the assumption of β, we have
λ1(L,χ)=supφ∈H1(Ω)∖{0},||φ||2=1∫Ω−η|∇φ|2+(−χ2Δβ−χ24η|∇β|2+β(x)−c)φ2. | (EV2) |
It can be easily shown from (EV2) that λ1(L,χ) is the principal eigenvalue of
{ηΔφ+(−χ2Δβ−χ24η|∇β|2+β(x)−c)=λφinΩ,∂φ∂→n=0on∂Ω. |
Let ψ1 be the principal eigenfunction with respect to λ1(L,χ). From (EV2), we obtain
λ1(L,χ)=∫Ω−η|∇φ1|2+(−χ2Δβ−χ24η|∇β|2+(β(x)−c))φ21, |
where φ1=eχβ/2ηψ1. Since the principal eigenfunction is unique, φ1 is the principal eigenfunction with respect to λ1(ηΔ−χ2Δβ−χ24η|∇β|2+(β(x)−c)). Therefore, λ1(L,χ)=λ1(ηΔ−χ2Δβ−χ24η|∇β|2+(β(x)−c)). We will utilize the forms (EV1) and (EV2) in proving our results.
Before proving the theorems, we introduce some properties of the principal eigenvalue. The first property is well-known; the proof is omitted here (See [53]).
Lemma 3.1. Let λ1(ηΔ+g(x)) be the principal eigenvalue of
{ηΔψ+g(x)ψ=λψinΩ,∂ψ∂→n=0on∂Ω. | (3.2) |
Then,
(i) λ1(ηΔ+g(x)) is monotone decreasing function to η;
(ii) λ1(ηΔ+˜g(x))≥λ1(ηΔ+g(x)) for a function ˜g(x)≥g(x);
(iii) limη→0λ1(ηΔ+g(x))=maxx∈ˉΩg(x);
(iv) limη→∞λ1(ηΔ+g(x))=¯g.
Lemma 3.2. Let λ1(ηΔ+g(x)) be the principal eigenvalue of (3.2).
(i) If g(x)<0, then λ1(ηΔ+g(x))<0.
(ii) If ¯g>0, then λ1(ηΔ+g(x))>0.
(iii) If ∫Ωg(x)dx<0 and g(x) is positive somewhere, then there exists ˜η>0 such that λ1(ηΔ+g(x))≥0 if and only if η≤˜η. The equality holds when η=˜η.
Proof. (i) is obvious by the definition of the principal eigenvalue.
(ii) Suppose ∫Ωg(x)dx>0. From the definition of λ1(ηΔ+g(x)),
λ1(ηΔ+g(x))=supψ∈H1(Ω)∖{0},||ψ||2=1∫Ω−η|∇ψ|2+g(x)ψ2dx≥¯g>0. |
(iii) Let S:={x:g(x)>0}≠∅. Then, we can choose a test function ˜ψ with ||˜ψ||2=1 whose support is in S. Then, we obtain
λ1≥∫Ω−η|∇˜ψ|2+g(x)˜ψ2dx=∫S−η|∇˜ψ|2+g(x)˜ψ2dx>0 |
for sufficiently small η. Since λ1(ηΔ+g(x)) is monotone decreasing function to η and limη→∞λ1(ηΔ+g(x))=¯g<0, there exists ˜η such that if η>˜η, then λ1(ηΔ+g(x))<0, and if η<˜η, then λ1(ηΔ+g(x))>0, which is a desired result.
Now, we first give the proof Theorems 2.2 and 2.3.
Proof of Theorem 2.2. From the definition of the principal eigenvalue (3.1), we have
λ1(L,χ)=supψ∈H1(Ω)∖{0},∫Ωeχβ/ηψ2=1∫Ω−ηeχβ/η|∇ψ|2+(−c+β(x))eχβ/ηψ2<0 |
for c>maxˉΩβ.
Next, from (EV2) and ∂β∂→n=0, we obtain
λ1(L,χ)=λ1(ηΔ−χ2Δβ−χ24η|∇β|2+(β(x)−c))=∫Ω−η|∇φ1|2+(−χ2Δβ−χ24η|∇β|2+(β(x)−c))φ21, |
where φ1 is the principal eigenfunction with respect to λ1(ηΔ−χ2Δβ−χ24η|∇β|2+(β(x)−c)). Also, by the Green's first identity, we have
∫ΩΔβ(x)dx=∫∂Ω∂β∂→ndS=0. | (3.3) |
It follows from Eq (3.3) and Lemma 3.2 that
λ1(ηΔ−χ2Δβ−χ24η|∇β|2+(β(x)−c))>0forc<¯β−χ24η¯|∇β|2. |
Also, since Eq (3.1) and (EV2) are equivalent form of the principal eigenvalue,
λ1(ηΔ−χ2Δβ−χ24η|∇β|2+(β(x)−c))<0forc>maxˉΩβ. |
By Lemma 3.1 (ii), λ1(ηΔ−χ2Δβ−χ24η|∇β|2+(β(x)−c)) is monotone decreasing function to c. Then, we can find ˜c∈(¯β−χ24η¯|∇β|2,maxˉΩβ) such that λ1(ηΔ−χ2Δβ−χ24η|∇β|2+(β(x)−c))=0. By the monotonicity of λ1(L,χ) to c, (θ,0) is unstable when c<˜c, and (θ,0) is locally asymptotically stable when c>˜c.
Proof of Theorem 2.3. As in the proof of Theorem 2.2, it suffices to check the sign of λ1(L,χ). From the form Eq (3.1), (i) and (ii) are immediately obtained.
For (iii), we denote λ1(ηΔ−χ2Δβ−χ24η|∇β|2+(β(x)−c)) by ˜λ. Consider an eigenvalue problem as follows:
{ηΔφ+(−χ2Δβ−14ξ|∇β|2+(β(x)−c))φ=λφinΩ,∂φ∂→n=0on∂Ω. | (3.4) |
Then, the principal eigenvalue of Eq (3.4) can be written by
λ1(ηΔ−χ2Δβ−14ξ|∇β|2+(β(x)−c))=supφ∈H1(Ω)∖{0},||φ||2=1∫Ω−η|∇φ|2+(−χ2Δβ−14ξ|∇β|2+(β(x)−c))φ2, |
From Lemma 3.1 (ii),
˜λ>λ1(ηΔ−χ2Δβ−14ξ|∇β|2+(β(x)−c))if and only if η>ξχ2. | (3.5) |
Then, the results (iii) follows from Lemma 3.2.
(iv) Assume that c∈(¯β−14ξ¯|∇β|2,maxˉΩβ). By Lemma 3.2 (iii), there exists ˜η>0 depending on ξ and χ such that λ1(ηΔ−χ2Δβ−14ξ|∇β|2+(β(x)−c))<0 if and only if η>˜η. For ˜η<ξχ2, (˜η,ξχ2) is a non-empty interval. Then, it follows form (3.5) that ˜λ<0 when η∈(˜η,ξχ2), and thus (θ,0) is locally asymptotically stable. Similarly, for ˜η>ξχ2, (θ,0) is unstable when η∈(ξχ2,˜η).
Next, we prove Theorem 2.4.
Proof of Theorem 2.4. It can be proved similarly to Theorem 4.4 in [15]. For reader's convenience, we give the proof here. Since the principal eigenvalue of (2.2) is
λ1(L,χ)=supψ∈H1(Ω)∖{0},∫Ωeχβ/ηψ2=1∫Ω−ηeχβ/η|∇ψ|2+(−c+β(x))eχβ/ηψ2, |
we only need to find a function Ψ with ∫Ωeχβ/ηΨ2=1 such that
∫Ωηeχβ/η|∇Ψ|2<∫Ω(−c+β(x))eχβ/ηΨ2. | (3.6) |
From the assumption, a point x0∈ˉΩ exists satisfying β(x0)=maxˉΩβ and β(x0)−c≥δ for some δ>0. Let R1>0 be small such that β(x)−c≥12δ in BR1(x0)∩Ω, where BR1(x0) is a ball of radius R1 and centered at x0. We define β1=max(BR1(x0)∖BR1/2(x0))∩Ωβ and β2=minBR2(x0)∩Ωβ for R1,R2>0. Since the global maximum point is isolated,
β2≥12[β1+β(x0)]>β1 |
for sufficiently small R2 satisfying R2≤R1/2.
Define a function Φ∈C1(ˉΩ) as
Φ={1in BR1/2(x0)∩Ω,∈[0,1]in (BR1(x0)∖BR2(x0))∩Ω,0otherwise. |
If we put Ψ:=Φ/(∫Ωeχβ/ηΦ2)1/2 in Eq (3.6), the left-hand side becomes
∫Ωηeχβ/η|∇Ψ|2=η∫(BR1(x0)∖BR2(x0))∩Ωeχβ/η|∇Ψ|2≤C1∫(BR1(x0)∖BR2(x0))∩Ωeχβ/η≤C1|Ω|e(χ/η)β1, |
where C1 satisfies ||∇Ψ||∞≤C1. The right-hand side of Eq (3.6) is
∫Ω(−c+β(x))eχβ/ηΨ2=∫BR1(x0)∩Ω(−c+β(x))eχβ/ηΨ2≥e(χ/η)β2∫BR2(x0)∩Ω(−c+β(x))≥C2e(χ/η)β2 |
for some positive constant C2. Since C1 and C2 is independent of χ, Eq (3.6) holds if we choose χ large enough. Hence, we have a desired result.
Finally, we assume that β(x)=κm(x) for x∈Ω, which is the assumption in Theorem 2.5. Before proving the theorem, we give a known result in [14].
Lemma 3.3 (Cantrell et al. [14]). The integral ∫Ωθ∇θ⋅∇mdx is positive if Ω⊆R is an interval or if Ω⊆Rn is convex.
Then, we give the proof of Theorem 2.5.
Proof of Theorem 2.5. Let λ1(L,χ) be the principal eigenvalue with the form (EV1). Since β(x)=κm(x) for x∈Ω,
λ1(L,χ)=supφ∈H1(Ω)∖{0},||φ||2=1∫Ω−η|∇φ|2+κχφ∇φ⋅∇m+(−κ2χ24η|∇m|2+κm−c)φ2≥∫Ω−η|∇θ|2+κχθ∇θ⋅∇m+(−κ2χ24η|∇m|2+κm−c)θ2/∫Ωθ2dx=(Aχ2+Bχ+C)/∫Ωθ2dx, |
where A,B and C are given as Equation (2.4). Since B2−4AC>0, A<0 and B>0 by Lemma 3.3, the equation has two real roots χ1 and χ2 with at least one positive solution, say χ2. Then, Aχ2+Bχ+C>0 for χ1<χ<χ2. which implies (θ,0) is unstable for χ∈(max{χ1,0},χ2). We note that B2−4AC cannot be positive for c>maxˉΩβ, because (θ,0) is locally asymptotically stable (λ1<0) when c>maxˉΩβ. Hence, Theorem 2.5 is valid for c<maxˉΩβ.
In this section, we present the proofs of Theorems 2.6–2.8 which are about the existence and non-existence of the coexistence steady-states of Eq (2.5). Before proving the theorems, we introduce the fixed-point index theory.
Fixed-point index theory
Let E be a real Banach space and W⊂E a closed convex set. W is called a total wedge if αW⊂W for all α≥0 and ¯W∪(−W)=E. A wedge is said to be a cone if W∩(−W)={0}. For y∈W, we define Wy={x∈E:y+γx∈Wfor someγ>0} and Sy={x∈¯Wy:−x∈¯Wy}. Then, ¯Wy is a wedge containing W, y and −y, while Sy is a closed subspace of E containing y.
Let T be a compact linear operator on E satisfying T(¯Wy)⊂¯Wy. We say that T has property α on ¯Wy if there are t∈(0,1) and w∈¯Wy∖Sy such that w−tTw∈Sy. Let F:W→W is a compact operator with a fixed-point y∈W and F is Fréchet differentiable at y. Let L=F′(y) be the Fréchet derivative of F at y. Then, L maps ¯Wy into itself. For an open subset U⊂W, define indexW(F,U)=index(F,U,W)=degW(I−F,U,0), where I is the identity map. If y is an isolated fixed-point of F, then the fixed-point index of F at y in W is defined by indexW(F,y)=index(F,y,W)=index(F,U(y),W), where U(y) is a small open neighborhood of y in W.
The following theorem can be obtained from the results of [54,55,56].
Theorem 4.1. Assume that I−L is invertible on ¯Wy.
(i) If L has property α on ¯Wy, then indexW(F,y)=0.
(ii) If L does not have property α on ¯Wy, then indexW(F,y)=(−1)σ, where σ is the sum of multiplicities of all the eigenvalues of L which are greater than 1.
Lemma 4.2. Any coexistence state (u,w) of system (2.5) has an a priori estimate
u(x)≤Q1,w(x)≤Q2. |
where Q1=maxˉΩm,Q2=Q1maxˉΩβcminˉΩd.
Proof. Let (u,w) be a positive solution of (2.5). Since −μΔu≤u(m(x)−u), we obtain u≤maxˉΩm by maximum principle for elliptic.
Let w(x0)=maxˉΩw and h=χ/η. Then, by maximum principle for elliptic equation,
0≤β(x0)u(x0)u(x0)+d(x0)ehβ(x0)w(x0)−c≤maxˉΩβQ1Q1+minˉΩdw(x0)−c. |
Since
cminˉΩdw(x0)≤cQ1+cminˉΩdw(x0)≤maxˉΩβQ1, |
it implies that
maxˉΩw≤maxˉΩβcminˉΩdQ1. |
Notation 4.3.
(i) X:=C1N(ˉΩ)⨁C1N(ˉΩ) where C1N(ˉΩ):={ϕ∈C1(ˉΩ):∂ϕ∂→n=0on∂Ω}.
(ii) Q:=max{Q1,Q2}+1.
(iii) D:=DQ⨁DQ where DQ={ϕ∈C1N(ˉΩ):ϕ<QonˉΩ}.
(iv) W:=D0⨁D0 where D0={ϕ∈C1N(ˉΩ):0≤ϕonˉΩ}.
(v) D′:=D∩W.
For τ∈[0,1], define a positive compact operator Fτ:X→X by Fτ(u,w)=(−DΔ+P)−1[PI+τG](u,w)T where
G(u,w)T=(mu−u2−αueχβ/ηwu+d(x)eχβ/ηwχ∇β⋅∇w+βueχβ/ηwu+d(x)eχβ/ηw−cw),D=(μ00η). |
and P is a positive constant such that (2Q+maxΩαminΩd+maxΩβminΩd+c)Q+χ‖∇β‖∞‖∇w‖∞<P. Fτ is positive and compact operator. We denote F=F1. Then, (P') has a positive solution if and only if F has a positive fixed-point.
For the operator F, we first find the result for the index values, indexW(F,D′) and indexW(F,(0,0)). The following lemmas can be proved by similar argument to [57]; the proofs are omitted here.
Lemma 4.4. indexW(F,D′)=1.
Lemma 4.5. indexW(F,(0,0))=0.
Next, we calculate the indexW(F,(θ,0)). Remark that the principal eigenvalue λ1(L,χ) of Eq (2.2) is real, and the corresponding principal eigenfunction Ψ is positive. Since the principal eigenpair (λ1(L,χ),Ψ) satisfies Eq (2.2), (λ1(L,χ),Ψ) also satisfies the second equation of Eq (2.1):
λ1(L,χ)Ψ=ηΔΨ+χ∇β⋅∇Ψ+(−c+β(x))ΨinΩ. | (4.1) |
Lemma 4.6. If λ1(L,χ)>0, then indexW(F,(θ,0))=0.
Proof. By calculation, we have
¯W(θ,0)=C1N(¯Ω)⨁D0,S(θ,0)=C1N(¯Ω)⨁{0}. |
Define
L:=F′(θ,0)=(−DΔ+P)−1(m−2θ+P−α0χ∇β⋅∇+β−c+P). |
We first claim that I−L is invertible. Let L(ϕ,ψ)T=(ϕ,ψ)T∈¯W(θ,0).
{−μΔϕ=(m−2θ)ϕ−αψ−ηΔψ=χ∇β⋅∇ψ+(β−c)ψinΩ,∂ϕ∂→n=∂ψ∂→n=0on∂Ω. | (4.2) |
For ψ≥0, multiply the second equation of Eq (4.2) by eχβ/ηΨ and integrate over Ω, where Ψ is a principal eigenfunction of λ1(L,χ). Then, we obtain
0=∫Ωeχβ/ηΨ[ηΔψ+χ∇β⋅∇ψ]+eχβ/η(β−c)Ψψ=∫ΩΨ∇⋅[ηeχβ/η∇ψ]+eχβ/η(β−c)Ψψ=∫Ωψ∇⋅[ηeχβ/η∇Ψ]+eχβ/η(β−c)Ψψ=∫Ωeχβ/ηψ[ηΔΨ+χ∇β⋅∇Ψ+(β−c)Ψ]=λ1(L,χ)∫Ωeχβ/ηΨψ≥0, |
which implies ψ≡0. The last equality holds from Eq (4.1).
Since λ1(μΔ+(m−θ))=0 with the corresponding principal eigenfunction θ, λ1(μΔ+(m−2θ))<0 by Lemma 3.1 (ii). We multiply the first equation of Eq (4.2) by ϕ and integrate over Ω. Then, we have
0=∫Ωαϕψ=∫Ω−μ|∇ϕ|2+(m−2θ)ϕ2≤λ1(μΔ+(m−2θ))∫Ωϕ2≤0. |
Hence, ϕ≡0 and I−L is invertible.
Next, we show that L has a property α. Let r be the spectral radius of(−ηΔ+P)−1(χ∇β⋅∇+β−c+P). Then, the assumption λ1(L,χ)>0 implies that r>1. Then, there exist corresponding eigenfunction ξ exists in D0∖{0}. Take t=1/r∈(0,1), then
(ϕψ)−tL(ϕψ)=(00)∈S(θ,0)holdsfor(ϕψ)=(0ξ)∈¯W(θ,0)∖S(θ,0). |
Hence, L has property α. By Theorem 4.1 (i), we have indexW(F,(θ,0))=0.
Now, we give the proofs of Theorems 2.6–2.9. Theorems 2.7–2.9 can be proved in a similarly manner; we only give the proof of Theorem 2.6.
Proof of Theorem 2.6. Suppose that ∂β∂→n=0. From Theorem 2.2, there exists ˜c∈(¯β−χ24η¯|∇β|2,maxˉΩβ). Then, it follows from Lemma 4.4–4.6 that
1=indexW(F,D′)≠indexW(F,(0,0))+indexW(F,(θ,0))=0. |
Hence, Eq (2.5) has at least one coexistence state for c<˜c.
Next, we assume that c≥˜c. Suppose that (u,w) be the positive solution of Eq (2.5). Then, (u,w) satisfies
ηΔw+χ∇β⋅∇w+w(−c+β(x)uu+d(x)weχβ(x)/η)=0. | (4.3) |
Let ˜w:=w/(∫Ωeχβ/ηw2)1/2. If we multiply Eq (4.3) by eχβ/η˜w/(∫Ωeχβ/ηw2)1/2 and integrate over Ω, we have
0=∫Ω−ηeχβ/η|∇˜w|2+(β(x)uu+d(x)weχβ/η−c)eχβ/η˜w2=∫Ω−ηeχβ/η|∇˜w|2+(β(x)−c)eχβ/η˜w2+(β(x)uu+d(x)weχβ/η−β(x))eχβ/η˜w2≤λ1(L,χ)+∫Ω(β(x)uu+d(x)weχβ/η−β(x))eχβ/η˜w2. | (4.4) |
The last inequality holds by the definition of the principal eigenvalue λ1(L,χ). From Eq (4.4), we obtain
λ1(L,χ)≥∫Ω(β(x)−β(x)uu+d(x)weχβ/η)eχβ/η˜w2>0, |
which is a contradiction because λ1(L,χ)≤0 under the assumption c≥˜c. Hence, there is no positive solution of Eq (2.5) if c≥˜c.
In this section, we present some numerical simulations to verify the mathematical results of this paper. Throughout the simulations, the following parameters and functions are used:
β(x)=0.8α(x),d(x)=0.5+0.1sin(2πx),μ=0.01,u0(x)=0.5+0.2sin(2πx),v0(x)=0.2+0.1sin(2πx),Ω=[0,1]. |
We used the upwind scheme with the finite difference method, and the toleration of iteration is selected as 10−6. The simulation results presented show the important role of directional dispersal with taxis compared to the random dispersal when c,β and η are given.
Figure 1 shows that a large χ gives the predator with directional dispersal a survival advantage when c∈(¯β,maxˉΩβ). Theorem 2.4 implies that the (θ,0) is locally asymptotically stable when χ=0 for any given c and η, but a large χ allows (θ,0) to be unstable. This means that the strong taxis of predator can make them survive under the condition in which the predator with random dispersal cannot survive. Figure 1 shows that such dispersal makes the predator and prey coexist in the environment. It is noteworthy that, as can be seen in Figure 1, the density of the predator is concentrated on the local maximum of β, which is a feature of the species with directional dispersal.
In Figure 2, the case that β(x)=κm(x) is considered. If β(x) has at least one isolated global maximum point, we have a same result in Theorem 2.4 and Figure 1. Thus, we give β(x) as a combination of smoothstep function for Figure 2, which is the case when β has no isolated global maximum point on ¯Ω. Figure 2 shows that the properly chosen taxis sensitivity χ>0 can make the predator survive under the condition when the predator without taxis cannot survive. This represents the result of Theorem 2.5 that the directional dispersal is beneficial for the predator's survival when χ is in a proper region regardless of the assumption on β. This is a natural ecological result because the taxis of the predators not only makes them move towards the region with high hunting efficiency, but also the prey's favorable habitats where the density of the prey is large.
In this paper, we suggested the predator–prey model describing the phenomena that the predator moves with taxis toward the region with a high hunting efficiency. For the predator–prey model, most of the studies dealing with taxis have considered the prey-taxis [29,30,31,32,33,34]. Authors in [29] adopted the ratio-dependent functional responses with a spatially heterogeneous environment, which are the same as our model, and they showed that the prey taxis is always beneficial for the predator's survival. However, the predators cannot chase the prey directly because the model we established describes the situation that prey has evolved to avoid detection from the predator. Thus, we considered other type of predators' dispersal mechanism with taxis toward the location where the hunting efficiency is high using the spatial memory [43,44,45,46]. There are two cases of the rate at which predators capture the prey: proportional (β=κm) or not proportional (β≠κm) to the resources of prey. For the first case, a similar idea is introduced in [47,48,49] that the predators move in the direction of high prey's resources instead of tracking the prey directly, and [47] established the mathematical model of such dispersal and obtained some mathematical results. The other case can be followed from the prey's defensive mechanisms or environmental change from other external factors. This could make the predators go to a region with low prey density, which seems not helpful for the predators. In this paper, we investigated whether the defensive mechanism of the predators is advantageous to them for both cases.
Through this article, we determined the criteria and sufficient conditions for the local stability of the semi-trivial solution, which is closely related to the survival of the predators. Furthermore, the conditions for the existence of coexistence steady-state were obtained. We studied the stability and coexistence conditions for the three parameters: the death rate, diffusion, and taxis sensitivity. Finally, the obtained results were verified by using numerical simulations. From a biological perspective, the results for stability indicate that, when the predators have the spatial memory where the location is good to forage efficiently, the taxis toward the location could give a greater chance of invasion than when they disperse randomly (Theorems 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5). This implies that the directional movement toward the region with high foraging efficiency increases the fitness of predators. Consequently, such dispersal helps the predators to invade a region. If β has at least one isolated global maximum point, the dispersal is advantageous to the predator's survival when taxis is strong even though β is not proportional to m (Theorem 2.4). This represents that the dispersal mechanism also affects to the predators fitness regardless the distributions of β and m. When β has no isolated global maximum, the proper taxis sensitivity gives survival advantage to the predators (Theorem 2.5). This means that the properly chosen taxis sensitivity helps predators survive regardless of assumption on β when the predators have directional movement toward the location with abundant prey and high hunting efficiency (β is proportional to m). Moreover, as a dictum in ecology that "invasibility implies coexistence, " the taxis influences on the coexistence of predator and prey. This dispersal of predators could give them a greater possibility to coexist in the ecosystem than random dispersal (Theorems 2.6, 2.8 and 2.9). Thus, we conclude that the dispersal considered in this work plays a vital role in the survival of the predator and the coexistence in the predator–prey system.
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (NRF-2015R1A2A2A01007013; NRF-2018R1C1B5039938).
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] |
Aastveit KA (2014) Oil price shocks in a data-rich environment. Energy Econ 45: 268-279. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.07.006
![]() |
[2] | Aastveit KA, Bjørnland HC, Thorsrud LA (2015). What drives oil prices? emerging versus developed economies. J Appl Econometrics 30. |
[3] |
Agnolucci P (2009) Volatility of crude oil futures: a comparison of forecasts from garch and implied volatility models. Energy Econ 31: 316-321. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2008.11.001
![]() |
[4] |
Ahmad AH, Hernandez RM (2013) Asymmetric adjustment between oil prices and exchange rates: empirical evidence from major oil producers and consumers. J Int Financ Mark Inst Money 27: 306-317. doi: 10.1016/j.intfin.2013.10.002
![]() |
[5] |
Alizadeh AH, Nomikos NK, Pouliasis PK (2008) A markov regime switching approach for hedging energy commodities. J Bank Financ 32: 1970-1983. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2007.12.020
![]() |
[6] |
Aloui C, Jammazi R (2015) Dependence and risk assessment for oil prices and exchange rate portfolios: a wavelet based approach. Phys A 436: 62-86. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2015.05.036
![]() |
[7] |
Aloui R, Aïssa MSB, Nguyen DK, et al. (2013) Conditional dependence structure between oil prices and exchange rates: a copula-garch approach. J Int Money Financ 32: 719-738. doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2012.06.006
![]() |
[8] | Alquist R, Kilian L, Vigfusson R (2011) Forecasting the price of oil. Ssrn Electron J 2: 427-507. |
[9] |
Antonakakis N, Chatziantoniou I, Filis G (2014) Dynamic spillovers of oil price shocks and economic policy uncertainty. Energy Econ 44: 433-447. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.05.007
![]() |
[10] |
Asafu-Adjaye J (2000) The relationship between energy consumption, energy prices and economic growth: time series evidence from Asian developing countries. Energy Econ 22: 615-625. doi: 10.1016/S0140-9883(00)00050-5
![]() |
[11] |
Atems B, Kapper D, Lam E (2015) Do exchange rates respond asymmetrically to shocks in the crude oil market? Energy Econ 49: 227-238. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2015.01.027
![]() |
[12] | Baker S, Bloom N, Davis S (2013) Measuring economic policy uncertainty. Chicago Booth Research Paper, 13-02. |
[13] |
Balcilar M, Bekiros S, Gupta R (2017) The role of news-based uncertainty indices in predicting oil markets: a hybrid nonparametric quantile causality method. Empir Econ 53: 879-889. doi: 10.1007/s00181-016-1150-0
![]() |
[14] |
Balcilar M, Gungor H, Hammoudeh S (2015) The time-varying causality between spot and futures crude oil prices: a regime switching approach. Int Rev Econ Financ 40: 51-71. doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2015.02.008
![]() |
[15] | Bampinas G, Panagiotidis T (2015) On the relationship between oil and gold before and after financial crisis: linear, nonlinear and time-varying causality testing. Stud Nonlinear Dyn Econometrics 19: 657-668. |
[16] |
Bank M, Larch M, Peter G (2011) Google search volume and its influence on liquidity and returns of German stocks. Financ Mark Portf Manage 25: 239-264. doi: 10.1007/s11408-011-0165-y
![]() |
[17] |
Barsky RB, Kilian L (2004) Oil and the macroeconomy since the 1970s. J Econ Perspect 18: 115-134. doi: 10.1257/0895330042632708
![]() |
[18] |
Basher SA, Sadorsky P (2006) Oil price risk and emerging stock markets. Global Financ J 17: 224-251. doi: 10.1016/j.gfj.2006.04.001
![]() |
[19] |
Basher SA, Haug AA, Sadorsky P (2010) Oil prices, exchange rates and emerging stock markets. Energy Econ 34: 227-240. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.10.005
![]() |
[20] |
Baumeister C, Kilian L (2014) Real-time analysis of oil price risks using forecast scenarios. Imf Econ Rev 62: 119-145. doi: 10.1057/imfer.2014.1
![]() |
[21] | Baumeister C, Kilian L (2017) Lower oil prices and the u.s. economy: is this time different? Social Sci Electron Publishing 2016: 287-357. |
[22] |
Baumeister C, Peersman G (2013) Time-varying effects of oil supply shocks on the us economy. Am Econ J Macroecon 5: 1-28. doi: 10.1257/mac.5.4.1
![]() |
[23] |
Baumeister C, Kilian L, Lee TK (2014). Are there gains from pooling real-time oil price forecasts? Energy Econ 46: S33-S43. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.08.008
![]() |
[24] | Baumeister C, Kilian L, Lee TK (2017) Inside the crystal ball: new approaches to predicting the gasoline price at the pump. Social Sci Electron Publishing. |
[25] |
Bekiros SD, Diks CGH (2008) The relationship between crude oil spot and futures prices: cointegration, linear and nonlinear causality. Energy Econ 30: 2673-2685. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2008.03.006
![]() |
[26] |
Bekiros S, Gupta R, Paccagnini A (2015) Oil price forecastability and economic uncertainty. Econ Lett 132: 125-128. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2015.04.023
![]() |
[27] | Bentzen J (2007) Does opec influence crude oil prices? testing for co-movements and causality between regional crude oil prices. Appl Econ 39: 1375-1385. |
[28] |
Blair BF, Rezek JP (2008) The effects of hurricane katrina on price pass-through for gulf coast gasoline. Econ Lett 98: 229-234. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2007.02.028
![]() |
[29] |
Bloch H, Rafiq S, Salim R (2015) Economic growth with coal, oil and renewable energy consumption in china: prospects for fuel substitution. Econ Model 44: 104-115. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2014.09.017
![]() |
[30] |
Bodenstein M, Guerrieri L, Kilian L (2012) Monetary policy responses to oil price fluctuations. Imf Econ Rev 60: 470-504. doi: 10.1057/imfer.2012.19
![]() |
[31] |
Brahmasrene T, Huang JC, Sissoko Y (2014) Crude oil prices and exchange rates: causality, variance decomposition and impulse response. Energy Econ 44: 407-412. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.05.011
![]() |
[32] |
Breitenfellner A, Cuaresma JC, Mayer P (2014) Energy inflation and house price corrections. Energy Econ 48: 109-116. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.08.023
![]() |
[33] | Brémond V, Hache E, Mignon V (2011) Does opec still exist as a cartel? an empirical investigation. Energy Econ 34: 125-131. |
[34] |
Cabedo JD, Moya I (2003) Estimating oil price 'value at risk' using the historical simulation approach. Energy Econ 25: 239-253. doi: 10.1016/S0140-9883(02)00111-1
![]() |
[35] |
Caner M, Hansen BE (2001) Threshold autoregression with a unit root. Econometrica 69: 1555-1596. doi: 10.1111/1468-0262.00257
![]() |
[36] |
Cheong CW (2009) Modeling and forecasting crude oil markets using arch-type models. Energy Policy 37: 2346-2355. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.026
![]() |
[37] |
Colgan JD (2014) Oil, domestic politics, and international conflict. Energy Res Social Sci 1: 198-205. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.005
![]() |
[38] |
Costello A, Asem E, Gardner E (2008) Comparison of historically simulated var: evidence from oil prices. Energy Econ 30: 2154-2166. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2008.01.011
![]() |
[39] |
Da Z, Engelberg J, Gao P (2011) In search of attention.J Financ 66: 1461-1499. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01679.x
![]() |
[40] |
Dahl C, Yücel M (1991) Testing alternative hypotheses of oil producer behavior. Energy J 12: 117-138. doi: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol12-No4-8
![]() |
[41] |
Dai YH, Xie WJ, Jiang ZQ, et al. (2016) Correlation structure and principal components in the global crude oil market. Empir Econ 51: 1501-1519. doi: 10.1007/s00181-015-1057-1
![]() |
[42] |
Demirer R, Kutan AM (2010) The behavior of crude oil spot and futures prices around opec and spr announcements: an event study perspective. Energy Econ 32: 1467-1476. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2010.06.006
![]() |
[43] |
Ding L, Vo M (2012) Exchange rates and oil prices: A multivariate stochastic volatility analysis. Q Rev Econ Financ 52: 15-37. doi: 10.1016/j.qref.2012.01.003
![]() |
[44] |
Dong H, Liu Y, Chang J (2019) The heterogeneous linkage of economic policy uncertainty and oil return risks. Green Financ 1: 46-66. doi: 10.3934/GF.2019.1.46
![]() |
[45] |
Draper DW (1984) The behavior of event-related returns on oil futures contracts. J Futures Mark 4: 125-132. doi: 10.1002/fut.3990040203
![]() |
[46] | Driesprong G, Jacobsen B, Maat B (2003) Striking oil: another puzzle? Erim Rep 89: 307-327. |
[47] |
Dvir E, Rogoff K (2014) Demand effects and speculation in oil markets: theory and evidence. J Int Money Finan 42: 113-128. doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2013.08.007
![]() |
[48] | Edelstein P, Kilian L (2008) The response of business fixed investment to changes in energy prices: a test of some hypotheses about the transmission of energy price shocks. J Macroecon 7. |
[49] | Fan Y, Xu JH (2011) What has driven oil prices since 2000? a structural change perspective. Energy Econ 33: 1082-1094. |
[50] |
Fan Y, Zhang YJ, Tsai HT, et al. (2008) Estimating 'value at risk' of crude oil price and its spillover effect using the ged-garch approach. Energy Econ 30: 3156-3171. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2008.04.002
![]() |
[51] | Fattouh B (2007) OPEC pricing power: the need for a new perspective, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies,WPM 31. |
[52] |
Fattouh B (2010) The dynamics of crude oil price differentials. Energy Econ 2: 334-342. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2009.06.007
![]() |
[53] |
Fattouh B, Mahadeva L (2013) OPEC: what difference has it made? Annu Rev Resour Econ 5: 427-443. doi: 10.1146/annurev-resource-091912-151901
![]() |
[54] |
Fesharaki F, Hoffman SL (1985) OPEC and the structural changes in the oil market: the outlook after the counter-revolution. Energy 10: 505-516. doi: 10.1016/0360-5442(85)90065-9
![]() |
[55] |
Filis G (2010) Macro economy, stock market and oil prices: do meaningful relationships exist among their cyclical fluctuations? Energy Econ 32: 877-886. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2010.03.010
![]() |
[56] |
Gisser M, Goodwin TH (1986) Crude oil and the macroeconomy: tests of some popular notions: a note. J Money Credit Bank 18: 95. doi: 10.2307/1992323
![]() |
[57] |
Gjerde O, Sættem F (1999) Causal relations among stock returns and macroeconomic variables in a small, open economy. J Int Financ Mark Inst Money 9: 61-74. doi: 10.1016/S1042-4431(98)00036-5
![]() |
[58] |
Golub SS (1983) Oil prices and exchange rates. Econ J 93: 576-593. doi: 10.2307/2232396
![]() |
[59] | Gülen SG (1996) Is opec a cartel? evidence from cointegration and causality tests. Energy J 17: 43-57. |
[60] | Gülen SG (1997) Regionalization in the world crude oil market. Energy J 18: 109-126. |
[61] | Gülen SG (1998) Efficiency in the crude oil futures market. J Energy Financ Dev 3: 0-21. |
[62] |
Guo JF, Ji Q (2013) How does market concern derived from the internet affect oil prices? Appl Energy 112: 1536-1543. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.03.027
![]() |
[63] |
Hamilton JD (1983) Oil and the macroeconomy since world war ii. J Political Econ 91: 228-248. doi: 10.1086/261140
![]() |
[64] | Hamilton JD (2008) Oil and the macroeconomy. New Palgrave Dictionary Econ Edition Palgrave Macmillan 18: 115-134. |
[65] |
Hamilton JD (2012) Oil prices, exhaustible resources, and economic growth. Nber Working Papers. doi: 10.1596/1813-9450-6117
![]() |
[66] |
Hamilton JD (2009) Causes and consequences of the oil shock of 2007-08. Brookings Pap Econ Activity, 215-259. doi: 10.1353/eca.0.0047
![]() |
[67] |
Hamilton JD (2011) Nonlinearities and the macroeconomic effects of oil prices. Macroecon Dyn 15: 364-378. doi: 10.1017/S1365100511000307
![]() |
[68] |
Hammoudeh SM, Ewing BT, Thompson MA (2008) Threshold cointegration analysis of crude oil benchmarks. Energy J 29: 79-95. doi: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol29-No4-4
![]() |
[69] |
Hayat A, Narayan PK (2010) The oil stock fluctuations in the united states. Appl Energy 87: 178-184. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.07.010
![]() |
[70] |
Henriques I, Sadorsky P (2008) Oil prices and the stock prices of alternative energy companies. Energy Econ 30: 998-1010. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2007.11.001
![]() |
[71] |
Hicks B, Kilian L (2013) Did unexpectedly strong economic growth cause the oil price shock of 2003-2008?. J Forecasting 32: 385-394. doi: 10.1002/for.2243
![]() |
[72] |
Hooker MA (1996) What happened to the oil price-macroeconomy relationship? J Monetary Econ 38: 215-220. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3932(96)01282-2
![]() |
[73] |
Horan SM, Mahar PJ (2004) Implied volatility of oil futures options surrounding opec meetings. Energy J 25: 103-125. doi: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol25-No3-6
![]() |
[74] |
Hosseini SH, Hamed SG (2016) A study on the future of unconventional oil development under different oil price scenarios: a system dynamics approach. Energy Policy 91: 64-74. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.12.027
![]() |
[75] | Huang CJ, Wang HC, Chen MG, et al. (2009) The impact of international oil prices on consumer prices: evidence from a var model. Comput Sci Inf Eng Wri World Congr 04: 531-534. |
[76] |
Huang D, Yu B, Fabozzi FJ, et al. (2009) Caviar-based forecast for oil price risk. Energy Econ 31: 511-518. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2008.12.006
![]() |
[77] |
Jammazi R, Lahiani A, Nguyen DK (2015) A wavelet-based nonlinear ardl model for assessing the exchange rate pass-through to crude oil prices. J Int Financ Mark Inst Money 34: 173-187. doi: 10.1016/j.intfin.2014.11.011
![]() |
[78] |
Ji Q, Guo JF (2015) Oil price volatility and oil-related events: an internet concern study perspective. Appl Energy 137: 256-264. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.10.002
![]() |
[79] | Jia X, An H, Wei F, et al. (2015) How do correlations of crude oil prices co-move? a grey correlation-based wavelet perspective. Energy Econ 49, 588-598. |
[80] | Jiménez-Rodríguez R (2009) Oil price shocks and real GDP growth: testing for non-linearity. Energy J 30: 1-23. |
[81] |
Jiménez-Rodríguez R, Sánchez M (2005) Oil price shocks and real GDP growth: empirical evidence for some OECD countries. Appl Econ 37: 201-228. doi: 10.1080/0003684042000281561
![]() |
[82] |
Jones CM, Kaul G (1996) Oil and the stock markets. J Financ 51: 463-491. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1996.tb02691.x
![]() |
[83] |
Kang SH, Kang SM, Yoon SM (2009) Forecasting volatility of crude oil markets. Energy Econ 31: 119-125. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2008.09.006
![]() |
[84] |
Kang W, Ratti RA (2013) Oil shocks, policy uncertainty and stock market return. J Int Financ Mark Inst Money 26: 305-318. doi: 10.1016/j.intfin.2013.07.001
![]() |
[85] |
Kang W, Ratti RA (2013) Structural oil price shocks and policy uncertainty. Econ Model 35: 314-319. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2013.07.025
![]() |
[86] |
Kanjilal K, Ghosh S (2017) Dynamics of crude oil and gold price post 2008 global financial crisis - new evidence from threshold vector error-correction model. Resour Policy 52: 358-365. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.04.001
![]() |
[87] | Kaufmann RK, Dees S, Karadeloglou P, et al. (2004) Does opec matter? an econometric analysis of oil prices. Energy J 5: 67-90. |
[88] |
Kilian L, Vigfusson RJ (2011) Nonlinearities in the oil price-output relationship. Macroecon Dyn 5: 337-363. doi: 10.1017/S1365100511000186
![]() |
[89] |
Kilian L (2009) Not all oil price shocks are alike: disentangling demand and supply shocks in the crude oil market. Am Econ Rev 99: 1053-1069. doi: 10.1257/aer.99.3.1053
![]() |
[90] |
Kilian L, Lee TK (2014) Quantifying the speculative component in the real price of oil: the role of global oil inventories. J Int Money Financ 42: 71-87. doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2013.08.005
![]() |
[91] |
Kilian L, Murphy DP (2012) Why agnostic sign restrictions are not enough: understanding the dynamics of oil market var models. J Eur Econ Assoc 10: 1166-1188. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-4774.2012.01080.x
![]() |
[92] |
Kilian L, Murphy DP (2014) The role of inventories and speculative trading in the global market for crude oil. J Appl Econometrics 29: 454-478. doi: 10.1002/jae.2322
![]() |
[93] | Kisswani KM (2016) Does opec act as a cartel? empirical investigation of coordination behavior. Energy Policy 97: 171-180. |
[94] |
Kling JL (1985). Oil price shocks and stock market behavior. J Portf Manage 12: 34-39. doi: 10.3905/jpm.1985.409034
![]() |
[95] |
Krehbiel T, Adkins LC (2005) Price risk in the nymex energy complex: an extreme value approach. J Futures Mark 25: 309-337. doi: 10.1002/fut.20150
![]() |
[96] | Krugman P (1980) Vehicle currencies and the structure of international exchange. Nber Working Papers, 12: 513-526. |
[97] |
Lammerding M, Stephan P, Trede M, et al. (2013) Speculative bubbles in recent oil price dynamics: evidence from a bayesian markov-switching state-space approach. Energy Econ 36: 491-502. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2012.10.006
![]() |
[98] |
Li J, Lu X, ZhouY (2016) Cross-correlations between crude oil and exchange markets for selected oil rich economies. Phys A 453: 131-143. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2016.02.039
![]() |
[99] |
Li L, Ma J, Wang SY, et al. (2015) How does google search affect trader positions and crude oil prices? Econ Model 49: 162-171. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2015.04.005
![]() |
[100] | Li SF, Zhang H, Yuan D (2019) Investor attention and crude oil prices: Evidence from nonlinear Granger causality tests. Energy Econ: [ In Press]. |
[101] |
Liao G, Li Z, Du Z (2019) The Heterogeneous Interconnections between Supply or Demand Side and Oil Risks. Energies 12: 2226. doi: 10.3390/en12112226
![]() |
[102] |
Liu Y, Dong H, Failler P (2019) The oil market reactions to OPEC's announcements. Energies 12: 3238. doi: 10.3390/en12173238
![]() |
[103] |
Lin SX, Tamvakis M (2010) OPEC announcements and their effects on crude oil prices. Energ Policy 38: 1010-1016. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.053
![]() |
[104] |
Lippi F, Nobili A (2012) Oil and the macroeconomy: a quantitative structural analysis. J Eur Econ Assoc 10: 1059-1083. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-4774.2012.01079.x
![]() |
[105] | Lizardo RA, Mollick AV (2010) Oil price fluctuations and U.S. dollar exchange rates. Energy Econ 32: 399-408. |
[106] | Lombardi MJ, Van Robays I (2011) Do financial investors destabilize the oil price? SSRN Electron J. |
[107] |
Loutia A, Mellios C, Andriosopoulos K (2016) Do OPEC announcements influence oil prices?. Energy Policy 90: 262-272. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.11.025
![]() |
[108] |
Lux T, Segnon M, Gupta R (2016) Forecasting crude oil price volatility and value-at-risk: evidence from historical and recent data. Energy Econ 56: 117-133. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2016.03.008
![]() |
[109] |
Marimoutou V, Raggad B, Trabelsi A (2009) Extreme value theory and value at risk: application to oil market. Energy Econ 31: 519-530. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2009.02.005
![]() |
[110] |
Melvin M, Sultan J (2010) South African political unrest, oil prices, and the time varying risk premium in the gold futures market. J Futures Mark 10: 103-111. doi: 10.1002/fut.3990100202
![]() |
[111] |
Mensi W, Hammoudeh S, Yoon SM (2014) Structural breaks and long memory in modeling and forecasting volatility of foreign exchange markets of oil exporters: the importance of scheduled and unscheduled news announcements. Int Rev Econ Financ 30: 101-119. doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2013.10.004
![]() |
[112] |
Mohammadi H, Su L (2010) International evidence on crude oil price dynamics: applications of arima-garch models. Energy Econ 32: 1001-1008. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2010.04.009
![]() |
[113] | Mollick AV, Assefa TA (2013) U.S. stock returns and oil prices: the tale from daily data and the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Energy Econ 36: 1-18. |
[114] |
Moosa IA, Al-Loughani NE (1994) Unbiasedness and time varying risk premia in the crude oil futures market. Energy Econ 16: 99-105. doi: 10.1016/0140-9883(94)90003-5
![]() |
[115] |
Morana C (2001) A semiparametric approach to short-term oil price forecasting. Energy Econ 23: 325-338. doi: 10.1016/S0140-9883(00)00075-X
![]() |
[116] |
Narayan PK, Narayan S, Prasad A (2008) Understanding the oil price-exchange rate nexus for the Fiji islands. Energy Econ 30: 2686-2696. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2008.03.003
![]() |
[117] |
Nomikos NK, Pouliasis PK (2011). Forecasting petroleum futures markets volatility: the role of regimes and market conditions. Energy Econ 33: 321-337. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2010.11.013
![]() |
[118] |
Papapetrou E (2001) Bivariate and multivariate tests of the inflation-productivity granger-temporal causal relationship: evidence from Greece. J Econ Stud 28: 213-226. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005470
![]() |
[119] |
Park J, Ratti RA (2008) Oil price shocks and stock markets in the US and 13 European countries. Energy Econ 30: 2587-2608. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2008.04.003
![]() |
[120] |
Peersman G, Robays IV (2012) Cross-country differences in the effects of oil shocks. Energy Econ 34: 1532-1547. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.11.010
![]() |
[121] |
Qadan M, Nama H (2018) Investor sentiment and the price of oil. Energy Econ 69: S0140988317303766. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.10.035
![]() |
[122] |
Rafiq S, Salim R (2011) The linkage between energy consumption and income in six emerging economies of Asia. Int J Emerging Mark 6: 50-73. doi: 10.1108/17468801111104377
![]() |
[123] |
Rahman S, Serletis A (2012) Oil price uncertainty and the Canadian economy: evidence from a varma, garch-in-mean, asymmetric BEKK model. Energy Econ 34: 603-610. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.08.014
![]() |
[124] | Rao T, Srivastava S (2013) Modeling movements in oil, gold, forex and market indices using search volume index and Twitter sentiments. Acm Web Sci Conf. |
[125] |
Reboredo JC (2011) How do crude oil prices co-move?: a copula approach. Energy Econ 33: 948-955. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.04.006
![]() |
[126] |
Sadorsky P (1999) Oil price shocks and stock market activity. Energy Econ 21: 449-469. doi: 10.1016/S0140-9883(99)00020-1
![]() |
[127] |
Saiz A, Simonsohn U (2013) Proxying for unobservable variables with internet document-frequency. J Eur Econ Assoc 11: 137-165. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-4774.2012.01110.x
![]() |
[128] |
Sauer DG (1994) Measuring economic markets for imported crude oil. Energy J 15: 107-123. doi: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol15-No2-6
![]() |
[129] |
Schmidbauer H, Rösch A (2012) Opec news announcements: effects on oil price expectation and volatility. Energy Econ 34: 1656-1663. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2012.01.006
![]() |
[130] |
Schwarz TV, Szakmary AC (2010) Price discovery in petroleum markets: arbitrage, cointegration, and the time interval of analysis. J Futures Mark 14: 147-167. doi: 10.1002/fut.3990140204
![]() |
[131] |
Seyyedi S (2017) Analysis of the interactive linkages between gold prices, oil prices, and exchange rate in india. Global Econ Rev 46: 65-79. doi: 10.1080/1226508X.2017.1278712
![]() |
[132] |
Shao YH, Yang YH, Shao HL, et al. (2019) Time-varying lead-lag structure between the crude oil spot and futures markets. Phys A 523: 723-733. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2019.03.002
![]() |
[133] |
Shrestha K (2014) Price discovery in energy markets. Energy Econ 45: 229-233. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.06.007
![]() |
[134] |
Silvapulle P, Moosa IA (2015) The relationship between spot and futures prices: evidence from the crude oil market. J Futures Mark 19: 175-193. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9934(199904)19:2<175::AID-FUT3>3.0.CO;2-H
![]() |
[135] |
Silvapulle P, Smyth R, Zhang X, et al. (2017) Nonparametric panel data model for crude oil and stock market prices in net oil importing countries. Energy Econ 67: 255-267. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.08.017
![]() |
[136] |
Singh VK, Nishant S, Kumar P (2018) Dynamic and directional network connectedness of crude oil and currencies: evidence from implied volatility. Energy Econ 76: 48-63. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.09.018
![]() |
[137] |
Singleton KJ (2014) Investor flows and the 2008 boom/bust in oil prices. Manage Sci 60: 300-318. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2013.1756
![]() |
[138] |
Smith DJ (2005) New release: oil, blood and money: culture and power in Nigeria. Anthropological Q 8: 725-740. doi: 10.1353/anq.2005.0042
![]() |
[139] | Tang K, Xiong W (2012) Index investment and the financialization of commodities. Social Sci Electron Publishing 68: 54-74. |
[140] | Tushar R, Saket S (2013) Modeling movements in oil, gold, forex and market indices using search volume index and twitter sentiments. WebSci'13 Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference, New York, USA, 336-345. |
[141] | Vlastakis N, Markellos RN (2012) Information demand and stock market volatility. Social Sci Electron Publishing 36: 1808-1821. |
[142] |
Wang H, Huang JZ, Qu Y, et al. (2004) Web services: problems and future directions. J Web Semantics 1: 309-320. doi: 10.1016/j.websem.2004.02.001
![]() |
[143] |
Wang J, Wang J (2016) Forecasting energy market indices with recurrent neural networks: case study of crude oil price fluctuations. Energy 102: 365-374. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.02.098
![]() |
[144] |
Wang SP, Hu AM, Wu ZX (2012) The impact of oil price volatility on china's economy: an empirical investigation based on var model. Adv Mater Res 524: 3211-3215. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.524-527.3211
![]() |
[145] |
Wang Y, Wu C, Li Y (2016) Forecasting crude oil market volatility: a markov switching multifractal volatility approach. Int J Forecasting 32: 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2015.02.006
![]() |
[146] |
Wei Y, Wang Y, Huang D (2010) Forecasting crude oil market volatility: Further evidence using GARCH-class models. Energy Econ 32: 1477-1484. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2010.07.009
![]() |
[147] |
Weiner RJ (1991) Is the world oil market "one great pool"?. Energy J 12: 95-107. doi: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol12-No3-7
![]() |
[148] |
Wirl F, Kujundzic A (2004) The impact of OPECconference outcomes on world oil prices 1984-2001. Energy J 25: 45-62. doi: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol25-No1-3
![]() |
[149] |
Wu CC, Chung H, Chang YH (2012) The economic value of co-movement between oil price and exchange rate using copula-based Garch models. Energy Econ 34: 270-282. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.07.007
![]() |
[150] | Xie MQ, Jiang H, Huang YL, et al. (2006) New Class Recognition Based on Support Vector Data Description. Int Conf Machine Learning Cybernetics. |
[151] |
Yin L (2016) Does oil price respond to macroeconomic uncertainty? new evidence. Empir Econ 51: 921-938. doi: 10.1007/s00181-015-1027-7
![]() |
[152] |
Youssef M, Belkacem L, Mokni K (2015) Value-at-risk estimation of energy commodities: a long-memory garch-evt approach. Energy Econ 51: 99-110. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2015.06.010
![]() |
[153] |
Zhang X, Yu L, Wang S, et al. (2009) Estimating the impact of extreme events on crude oil price: an emd-based event analysis method. Energy Econ 31: 768-778. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2009.04.003
![]() |
[154] |
Zhang YJ, Wang J (2015) Exploring the WTI crude oil price bubble process using the markov regime switching model. Phys A 421: 377-387. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2014.11.051
![]() |
[155] |
Zhang YJ, Wei YM (2010) The crude oil market and the gold market: evidence for cointegration, causality and price discovery. Resour Policy 35: 168-177. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2010.05.003
![]() |
[156] |
Zhang YJ, Yao T (2016) Interpreting the movement of oil prices: driven by fundamentals or bubbles? Econ Model 55: 226-240. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2016.02.016
![]() |
[157] |
Zhang YJ, Fan Y, Tsai HT, et al. (2008) Spillover effect of us dollar exchange rate on oil prices. J Policy Model 30: 973-991. doi: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2008.02.002
![]() |
[158] | Zhao X, Xi Z (2009) Estimation of Value-at-Risk for Energy Commodities via CAViaR Model. Commun Comput Inf Sci 35: 429-437. |
1. | Qasim Khan, Anthony Suen, Hassan Khan, Poom Kumam, Comparative analysis of fractional dynamical systems with various operators, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 13943, 10.3934/math.2023714 | |
2. | Muhammad Saqib, Daud Ahmad, Ahmad N. Al-Kenani, Tofigh Allahviranloo, Fourth- and fifth-order iterative schemes for nonlinear equations in coupled systems: A novel Adomian decomposition approach, 2023, 74, 11100168, 751, 10.1016/j.aej.2023.05.047 |