Skip to main content

Theory and Modern Applications

Existence theory and approximate solution to prey–predator coupled system involving nonsingular kernel type derivative


This manuscript considers a nonlinear coupled system under nonsingular kernel type derivative. The considered problem is investigated from two aspects including existence theory and approximate analytical solution. For the concerned qualitative theory, some fixed point results are used. While for approximate solution, the Laplace transform coupled with Adomian method is applied. Finally, by a pertinent example of prey–predator system, we support our results. Some graphical presentations are given using Matlab.

1 Introduction

In the last few decades significant interest has been shown in fractional calculus by researchers of different disciplines of science and engineering. The concerned area has many applications in modeling various real world problems, since fractional derivative is usually a definite integral including classical derivative as a special case. Also it geometrically produces the whole spectrum or accumulation of a function. The aforesaid derivative has been defined by a number of ways. In other words, various mathematicians have given different definitions of fractional order derivative [1]. The most notable definitions were given by Riemann–Liouville and Caputo, those definitions have been increasingly used in applications in the last decades, for details, see [24]. In fact fractional order differential equations (FODEs) have many applications in mathematical modeling of chemical, physical, and biological phenomena. The mentioned differential operator has the ability to describe many features of hereditary and memory materials more explicitly than that of classical order. Therefore significantly FODEs have been used in the last few decades in modeling various processes and phenomena (see for applications [516]).

Mathematical models are strong material to investigate many phenomena. For instance, occasionally in the previous time in many localities, unforeseen large potion in fish and animal takeover had been reported. This phenomenon gave birth to the well-known prey–predator relationship. Therefore, in 1920, Lotka and Volterra introduced their famous equations known as prey–predator model. Here we state that the concerned model given in (1) deals with the relationship of prey and predator in an ecological system as follows:

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} \dot{u}(t)=a_{1}(t) u(t)-b_{1}(t) v(t)u(t)=\varphi _{1}(t, u(t), v(t)), \\ \dot{v}(t)=a_{2}(t)u(t)v(t)-b_{2}(t)v(t)=\varphi _{1}(t, u(t), v(t)), \\ u(0)=\alpha ,\qquad v(0)=\beta , \end{cases} $$

where \(\alpha , \beta \geq 0\). Further the nonlinear functions \(\varphi _{i}\ (i=1,2):\mathcal{J}\times \mathcal{R}^{2}\rightarrow \mathcal{R}\) are continuous. Here we remark that \(u(t)\), \(v(t)\) represent the prey and the predator populations at time t respectively. Further \(a_{1}\) is the growth rate of species u, while \(b_{1}\) denotes the impact of predation on \(\dot{u}/u\). Also \(b_{2}\) is the death rate of v and \(a_{2}\) is the growth rate (or immigration) of the predator population in response to the size of the prey population. The coefficients are linear continuous and bounded functions. So far the concerned model has been studied for various purposes and from various directions; for details, we refer to [1719]. Also, model (1) has been investigated by using the homotopy perturbation method for ordinary Caputo derivative in [20].

Here, we remark that the definitions of fractional derivative were further extended from singular kernel to nonsingular kernel by Caputo and Fabrizio [21] in 2016. This definition has got much attention in the last few years. Some valuable results were investigated in [22, 23]. Further the aforesaid definition was generalized by replacing exponential kernel with Mittag-Leffler kernel. In this regard lots of research articles have been published, we refer to [2426].

Motivated by the aforesaid work, in this work we undertake model (1) under CFFD as follows:

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} {}^{CF}D^{\omega }_{t}u(t)=a_{1}(t) u(t)-b_{1}(t) u(t)v(t), \\ {}^{CF}D^{\omega }_{t} v(t)=a_{2}(t)u(t)v(t)-b_{2}(t)v(t), \\ u(0)=\alpha ,\qquad v(0)=\beta , \end{cases} $$

where \(\alpha , \beta \geq 0\) and \(\omega \in (0, 1]\).

In the last two decades, to handle FODEs for their exact or numerical solutions, various techniques, methods, and theories were established. Because finding exact analytical solutions for every differential equation of fractional order is quite a difficult job, the well-known techniques including homotopy perturbation method, Adomian decomposition method, and many other numerical methods were utilized for the required results (for details, see [27]). As we know, the mentioned techniques were increasingly adopted for ordinary FODEs, but there are very few articles which study decompositions techniques coupled with integral transform for FODEs under CFFD, see [2832].

Therefore, here, we construct existence theory of solution to the following semi-analytical results to the coupled system with \(t\in \mathcal{J}=[0, \tau ]\) for the given prey–predator system in (2).

First we establish some qualitative results as the existence and uniqueness of the solution corresponding to the model we have considered. Fixed point theory is used to get these results about solution due to Krasnoselskii and Banach. Also some approximate analytical results are established via the Laplace transform and Adomian decomposition tools. The concerned approximate results are illustrated by graphs via Matlab.

We arrange our paper as follows: In Sect. 1, we give introduction to the problem. In Sect. 2, we recall some preliminaries. In Sect. 3, we establish the existence results of the main work. In Sect. 4, we present general procedure for approximate solution. Finally, in Sect. 5, we give examples and brief conclusion.

2 Preliminaries

Definition 1

([22, 23])

Let \(\varphi \in \mathcal{H}^{1}(0, \tau )\), \(\tau >0\), \(\omega \in (0, 1)\), then the CFFD is defined as follows:

$$ {}^{CF}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{\omega } \bigl(\varphi (t) \bigr)= \frac{\mathscr{M}(\omega )}{1-\omega } \int _{0}^{t} \varphi '(t)\exp \biggl[-\omega \frac{t-\xi }{1-\omega } \biggr]\,d\xi , $$

\(\mathscr{M}(\omega )=\frac{2\omega }{2-\omega }\) is known as a normalization function and statistics \(\mathscr{M}(1)=\mathscr{M}(0)=1\). Moreover, if φ does not fall in \(\mathcal{H}^{1}(0, \tau )\), then the derivatives are given by

$$ {}^{CF}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{\omega } \bigl(\varphi (t) \bigr)= \frac{ \mathscr{M}(\omega )}{1-\omega } \int _{0}^{t} \bigl(\varphi (t)-\varphi ( \xi ) \bigr)\exp \biggl[-\omega \frac{z-\xi }{1-\omega } \biggr]\,d\xi . $$

Definition 2


For \(\varphi \in \mathcal{H}^{1}(0, \tau )\), \(\tau >0\), the integral in Caputo–Fabrizio form is given as follows:

$$ {}^{CF}\mathcal{I}_{t}^{\omega } \bigl[\varphi (t) \bigr]= \frac{(1-\omega )}{\mathscr{M}(\omega )}\varphi (t)+ \frac{\omega }{\mathscr{M}(\omega )} \int _{0}^{t} \varphi (\xi )\,d\xi ,\quad \omega \in (0, 1]. $$

Definition 3


The Laplace transform of \({}^{CF}\mathcal{D}^{\omega }_{t} u(t)\) with \(\mathscr{M}(\omega )=1\) is given as follows:

$$ \mathscr{L} \bigl[{}^{CF}\mathcal{D}^{\omega }_{t} u(t) \bigr]= \frac{s\mathscr{L}[u(t)]-u(0)}{s+\omega (1-s)},\quad s\geq 0, \omega \in (0, 1]. $$


Corresponding to existence theory, let \(\mathcal{J}=[0, \tau ]\) and \(0\leq t\leq \tau <\infty \), we define the space as \(\mathbf{Z}=C([0, \tau ]\times \mathcal{R}^{2}, \mathcal{R})\) equipped with the norm \(\|(u, v)\|=\sup_{t\in \mathcal{J}}[|u(t)|+|v(t)|]\).

Theorem 1


Let \(\mathbb{B}\)be a convex subset of Z, and we have two operators \(\mathbb{F}\), \(\mathbb{G}\)with

  1. 1.

    \(\mathbb{F}w + \mathbb{G}w\in \mathbb{B}\)for every \(w\in \mathbb{B}\);

  2. 2.

    \(\mathbb{F}\)is a contraction;

  3. 3.

    \(\mathbb{G}\)is continuous and compact.

Then the operator equation \(\mathbb{F}w+\mathbb{G}w=w\)has at least one solution.

3 Existence and uniqueness results of fractional order predator–prey equations

In this part some results about existence and uniqueness are given about the solution of the proposed model (2). Upon using integral operator \({}^{CF}\mathcal{I}_{t}^{\omega }\) on both sides of (2) and putting the initial conditions, one has

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} u(t)=\alpha +\frac{(1-\omega )}{\mathscr{M}(\omega )}\varphi _{1}(t,u,v)+ \frac{\omega }{\mathscr{M}(\omega )\Gamma (\omega )}\int _{0}^{t} (t- \xi )^{\omega -1} \varphi _{1}(\xi , u(\xi ), v(\xi ))\,d\xi , \\ \beta (t)=\beta +\frac{(1-\omega )}{\mathscr{M}(\omega )}\varphi _{2}(t,u,v)+ \frac{\omega }{\mathscr{M}(\omega )\Gamma (\omega )}\int _{0}^{t} (t- \xi )^{\omega -1} \varphi _{2}(\xi , u(\xi ), v(\xi ))\,d\xi , \end{cases} $$

which further may be written as

$$ \mathbf{W}(t)=\mathbf{W}_{0}+\Psi \bigl(t, \mathbf{W}(t) \bigr) \frac{(1-\omega )}{\mathscr{M}(\omega )}+ \frac{\omega }{\mathscr{M}(\omega )} \int _{0}^{t} \Psi \bigl(\xi , \mathbf{W}(\xi ) \bigr)\,d\xi , $$


$$ \mathbf{W}(t)= \textstyle\begin{cases} u(t), \\ v(t), \end{cases}\displaystyle \qquad \mathbf{W}_{0}= \textstyle\begin{cases} \alpha, \\ \beta , \end{cases}\displaystyle \qquad \Psi \bigl(t, \mathbf{W}(t) \bigr)= \textstyle\begin{cases} \varphi _{1}(t,u,v), \\ \varphi _{2}(t,u,v). \end{cases} $$

Now, to derive our results, we define the following assumptions:

  1. (A1)

    There exist constants \(\mathbf{L}_{\Psi }>0\) such that, for each \(\mathbf{W}, \bar{\mathbf{W}} \in \mathbf{Z}\),

    $$ \bigl\vert \Psi \bigl(t, \mathbf{W}(t) \bigr)-\Psi \bigl(t, \bar{ \mathbf{W}}(t) \bigr) \bigr\vert \leq \mathbf{L}_{\Psi } \bigl[ \vert \mathbf{W}- \bar{\mathbf{W}} \vert \bigr]; $$
  2. (A2)

    There exist constants \(C_{\Psi }, C_{\Psi }>0\) and \(\mathbf{M}_{\Psi }>0\) such that

    $$ \bigl\vert \Psi \bigl(t, \mathbf{W}(t) \bigr) \bigr\vert \leq C_{\Psi } \vert \mathbf{W} \vert +M_{\Psi }. $$

Using (4) and (5), the operators are defined as follows:

$$ \begin{aligned} &\mathbb{F}(\mathbf{W})=\mathbf{W}_{0}(t)+ \Psi \bigl(t, \mathbf{W}(t) \bigr) \frac{(1-\omega )}{\mathscr{M}(\omega )}, \\ &\mathbb{G}(\mathbf{W})=\frac{\omega }{\mathscr{M}(\omega )} \int _{0}^{t} \Psi \bigl(\xi , \mathbf{W}(\xi ) \bigr)\,d\xi . \end{aligned} $$

Theorem 2

With the help of (A1) and (A2), the integral system (4) has at least one solution provided that \(\frac{\mathbf{L}_{\Psi }}{\mathscr{M}(\omega )}<1\).


Let \(\mathbb{B}=\{\mathbf{W}\in \mathbf{Z}: \|\mathbf{W}\|\leq \rho , \rho >0\}\) be a closed and convex subset of Z, we need to prove that \(\mathbb{F}:\mathbb{B}\rightarrow \mathbb{B}\) is a contraction. Let \(\mathbf{W}-\bar{\mathbf{W}}\in \mathbb{B}\), we have

$$\begin{aligned} \Vert \mathbb{F}\mathbf{W}-\mathbb{F}\bar{\mathbf{W}} \Vert =& \sup _{t\in \mathcal{J}} \biggl\vert (\Psi \bigl(t, \mathbf{W}(t) \bigr)- \bigl(\Psi \bigl(t, \bar{\mathbf{W}}(t) \bigr) \bigr)\frac{(1-\omega )}{\mathscr{M}(\omega )} \biggr\vert \\ \leq & \frac{(1-\omega )}{\mathscr{M}(\omega )}\mathbf{L}_{\Psi } \sup _{t\in \mathcal{J}} \bigl\vert \mathbf{W}(t)-\bar{\mathbf{W}}(t) \bigr\vert \\ \leq & \frac{\mathbf{L}_{\Psi }}{\mathscr{M}(\omega )} \Vert \mathbf{W}- \bar{\mathbf{W}} \Vert . \end{aligned}$$

Hence \(\mathbb{F}\) is a contraction.

For \(\mathbb{G}\) to be compact and continuous, let any \(\mathbf{W}\in \mathbb{B}\), we have

$$\begin{aligned} \bigl\Vert \mathbb{G}(\mathbf{W}) \bigr\Vert =& \sup_{t\in \mathcal{J}} \biggl\vert \frac{\omega }{\mathscr{M}(\omega )} \int _{0}^{t} \Psi \bigl(\xi , \mathbf{W}(\xi ) \bigr)\,d\xi \biggr\vert \\ \leq & \frac{ \tau }{\mathscr{M}(\omega )}[C_{\Psi }\rho +\mathbf{M}_{ \Psi }]:= \Delta . \end{aligned}$$

From (7) we conclude that \(\mathbb{G}\) is bounded. Also Ψ is continuous, so is \(\mathbb{G}\). Along the same lines, we can prove that \(\mathbb{G}\) is equicontinuous by taking \(t_{1}< t_{2} \in \mathcal{J}\). By using Arzelá–Ascoli theorem, the operator \(\mathbb{G}\) is completely continuous operator and also uniformly bounded as proved already. Hence \(\mathbb{G}\) is relatively compact. By Krasnoselskii’s fixed point theorem, problem (4) has at least one solution. Consequently, the considered system 2 has at least one solution. □

Theorem 3

Under assumption (A1), integral system (4) has unique solution if \(\frac{(1+\tau )\mathbf{L}}{\mathscr{M}(\omega )}<1\). Consequently, the system under consideration has unique solution.


Let us define \(\mathbf{T}: \mathbf{Z}\rightarrow \mathbf{Z}\) by

$$ \mathbf{T}(\mathbf{W})=\mathbf{W}_{0}+\Psi \bigl(t, \mathbf{W}(t) \bigr) \frac{(1-\omega )}{\mathscr{M}(\omega )}+ \frac{\omega }{\mathscr{M}(\omega )} \int _{0}^{t} \Psi \bigl(\xi , \mathbf{W}(\xi ) \bigr)\,d\xi . $$

Let \(\mathbf{W}, \bar{\mathbf{W}}\in \mathbf{Z}\), we have

$$\begin{aligned} \bigl\Vert \mathbf{T}(\mathbf{W})-\mathbf{T}(\bar{ \mathbf{W}}) \bigr\Vert \leq & \sup_{t \in \mathcal{J}} \frac{(1-\omega )}{\mathscr{M}(\omega )} \bigl\vert \Psi \bigl(t, \mathbf{W}(t) \bigr)-\Psi \bigl(t, \bar{\mathbf{W}}(t) \bigr) \bigr\vert \\ &{}+\frac{\omega }{\mathscr{M}(\omega )}\sup_{t\in \mathcal{J}} \int _{0}^{t} \bigl\vert \Psi \bigl(\xi , \mathbf{W}(\xi ) \bigr)-\Psi \bigl(\xi , \bar{\mathbf{W}}(\xi ) \bigr) \bigr\vert \,d\xi \\ \leq &\frac{(1+\tau )\mathbf{L}}{\mathscr{M}(\omega )} \Vert \mathbf{W} - \bar{\mathbf{W}} \Vert . \end{aligned}$$

Hence T is a contraction and the concerned problem (4) has unique solution, and so the considered model (2) has unique solution. □

4 Approximate solutions to predator–prey equations (2)

To compute the required approximate solution, for easiness, take \(\mathscr{M}(\omega )=1\). Using the Laplace transform on both sides of system (2), we have

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} \mathscr{L} [u(t) ]=\frac{u(0)}{s}+\frac{s+\omega (1-s)}{s} \mathscr{L} [a_{1}u(t)-b_{1} u(t)v(t) ], \\ \mathscr{L} [v(t) ]=\frac{v(0)}{s}+\frac{s+\omega (1-s)}{s} \mathscr{L} [a_{2}u(t)v(t)-b_{2}v(t) ]. \end{cases} $$

Now assume the solution in the series form as follows:

$$ u(t)=\sum_{q=0}^{\infty }u_{q}(t), \qquad v(t)=\sum_{q=0}^{\infty }v_{q}(t) . $$

Further expressing the nonlinear terms \(u(t)v(t)\) by using the decomposition method

$$ u(t)v(t)=\sum_{q=0}^{\infty } A_{q} (u, v), $$

where the “Adomian polynomial” \(A_{q}(u,v)\) can be defined as

$$ A_{q}(u,v)=\frac{1}{q!}\frac{d^{q}}{d\lambda ^{q}} \Biggl[\sum _{j=0}^{p} \lambda ^{j}u_{j}(t) \sum_{j=0}^{p}\lambda ^{j}v_{j}(t) \Biggr] \Bigg|_{ \lambda =0}. $$

Hence in view of (10) and (11), system (9) becomes

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} \mathscr{L} [\sum_{q=0}^{\infty }u_{q}(t) ]= \frac{u(0)}{s}+ \frac{s+\omega (1-s)}{s}\mathscr{L} [a_{1}(t) \sum_{q=0}^{\infty }u_{q}(t)-b_{1}(t) \sum_{q=0}^{\infty }A_{q}(u,v) ], \\ \mathscr{L} [\sum_{q=0}^{\infty }v_{q}(t) ]=\frac{v(0)}{s}+ \frac{s+\eta (1-s)}{s}\mathscr{L} [a_{2}(t)\sum_{q=0}^{\infty }A_{q}(u,v)-b_{2}(t) \sum_{q=0}^{\infty }v_{q} ]. \end{cases} $$

From (12), we equate terms as follows:

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} \mathscr{L} [u_{0}(t) ]=\frac{u_{0}}{s},\qquad \mathscr{L} [v_{0}(t) ]= \frac{v_{0}}{s}, \\ \mathscr{L} [u_{1}(t) ]=\frac{s+\omega (1-s)}{s}\mathscr{L} [a_{1}(t)u_{0}-b_{1}(t) A_{0}(u,v) ], \\ \mathscr{L} [v_{1}(t) ] =\frac{s+\omega (1-s)}{s}\mathscr{L} [a_{2}(t)A_{0}(u,v)-b_{2}(t)v_{0} ], \\ \mathscr{L} [u_{2}(t) ] =\frac{s+\omega (1-s)}{s}\mathscr{L} [a_{1}(t)u_{1}-b_{1}(t)A_{1}(u,v) ], \\ \mathscr{L} [v_{2}(t) ]=\frac{s+\omega (1-s)}{s}\mathscr{L} [a_{2}(t)A_{1}(u,v)-b_{2}(t)v_{1} ], \\ \mathscr{L} [u_{3}(t) ]=\frac{s+\omega (1-s)}{s}\mathscr{L} [a_{1}(t)u_{2}-b_{1}(t)A_{2}(u,v) ], \\ \mathscr{L} [v_{3}(t) ]=\frac{s+\omega (1-s)}{s}\mathscr{L} [a_{2}(t)A_{2}(u,v)-b_{2}(t)v_{2} ], \\ \vdots \\ \mathscr{L} [u_{q+1}(t) ]=\frac{s+\omega (1-s)}{s}\mathscr{L} [a_{1}(t)u_{q}-b_{1}(t)A_{q}(u,v) ], \\ \mathscr{L} [v_{q+1}(t) ] =\frac{s+\omega (1-s)}{s}\mathscr{L} [a_{2}(t)A_{q}(u,v)-b_{2}(t)v_{q} ],\quad q\geq 0. \end{cases} $$

Case I:

In the first case we take coefficients as constant functions \(a_{1}(t)=a_{1}\), \(b_{1}(t)=b_{1}\), \(c_{1}(t)=c_{1}\), \(d_{1}(t)=d_{1}\) in (13). After performing simplification, we get

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} u_{0}(t)= \alpha ,\qquad v_{0}(t)=\beta , \\ u_{1}(t)= [a_{1}\alpha -b_{1}\alpha \beta ] (1+\omega (t-1) ), \\ v_{1}(t)= (1+\omega (t-1) ) [a_{2}\alpha \beta -b_{2} \beta ], \\ u_{2}(t)= [(a_{1}-b_{1}\beta ) (a_{1}\alpha -b_{1}\alpha \beta )-b_{1} \alpha (a_{2}\alpha \beta -b_{2}\beta ) ] (1+ \omega ^{2}(t-1) ), \\ v_{2}(t)= [(\alpha a_{2}-b_{2}) (a_{2}\alpha \beta -b_{2}\beta )+a_{2} \beta (a_{2}\alpha \beta -b_{2}\beta ) ] (1+\omega ^{2}(t-1) ), \\ u_{3}(t)= [(a_{1}-b_{1}\beta ) ((a_{1}-b_{1}\beta ) (a_{1}\alpha -b_{1} \alpha \beta )-b_{1}\alpha (a_{2} \alpha \beta -b_{2}\beta ) ) \\ \hphantom{u_{3}(t)={}}{}-b_{1}\alpha ((\alpha a_{2}-b_{2}) ) -b_{1}(a_{1}\alpha -b_{1}\alpha \beta ) (a_{2}\alpha \beta -b_{2} \beta ) ] (1+\omega ^{3}(t-1) ), \\ v_{3}(t)= [(a_{2}\alpha -b_{2}) ((\alpha a_{2}-b_{2}) (a_{2} \alpha \beta -b_{2}\beta )+a_{2}\beta (a_{2}\alpha \beta -b_{2}\beta ) ) \\ \hphantom{v_{3}(t)={}}{}-b_{1} \alpha (a_{2}\alpha \beta -b_{2}\beta ))+a_{2}(a_{1}\alpha -b_{1}\alpha \beta ) (a_{2}\alpha \beta -b_{2} \beta ) \\ \hphantom{v_{3}(t)={}}{}+a_{2}\beta ((a_{1}-b_{1}\beta ) (a_{1}\alpha -b_{1}\alpha \beta ) ] (1+\omega ^{3}(t-1) ) \end{cases} $$

and so on. In this way the other terms are computed.

Case II:

Here, we take some coefficients as linear functions \(a_{1}(t)=t\), \(b_{2}(t)=t\) and \(a_{2}\) and \(b_{1}\) are constants. We obtain the resultant solution as follows:

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} u_{0}(t)= \alpha ,\qquad v_{0}(t)=\beta , \\ u_{1}(t)=\alpha (t+\omega (\frac{t^{2}}{2!}-t ) )-b_{1} \alpha \beta (1+\omega (t-1) ), \\ v_{1}(t)= (1+\omega (t-1) )a_{2}\alpha \beta - \beta (t+\omega ( \frac{t^{2}}{2!}-t ) ), \end{cases} $$

and so on. The remaining terms may similarly be computed. The required solutions in both cases will be written as

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} u(t)=u_{0}+ u_{1}(t)+u_{2}(t)+u_{3}(t)+\cdots , \\ v(t)=v_{0}+ v_{1}(t)+v_{2}(t)+v_{3}(t)+ \cdots . \end{cases} $$

5 Results and discussion

Here, by using Matlab, we present solutions (16) up to initial ten terms by graphs using the numerical values for parameters as given in Table 1. The solutions are displayed against various fractional orders in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.

Figure 1
figure 1

Graphical representation of the approximate solution u for different fractional order taking initial ten terms of the series in Case I

Figure 2
figure 2

Graphical representation of the approximate solution v for different fractional order taking initial ten terms of the series in Case I

Table 1 Values of parameters taken for Case I

Further on using Matlab, we present solutions (16) up to initial ten terms by graphs using the numerical values for parameters as given in Table 2 in Case II. The solutions are displayed against various fractional orders in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.

Figure 3
figure 3

Graphical representation of the approximate solution u for different fractional order taking initial ten terms of the series in Case II

Figure 4
figure 4

Graphical representation of the approximate solution v for different fractional order taking initial ten terms of the series in Case II

Table 2 Values of parameters taken for Case II

From Figs. 1, 3 we see that the population u is deceasing at different rate due to fractional order. The smaller the order, the faster the decay process, and hence stability occurs at smaller order first and then at greater one, as compared. In the same fashion the population v grows in Figs. 2 and 4, respectively, at different rate due to fractional order. The solution tends to the classical (integer) order solution when \(\omega \rightarrow 1\). The solution obtained here for CFFD is close to the solution obtained by using the homotopy method in [20] by using Caputo ordinary derivatives. We have presented the solutions for both cases, i.e., Case I and Case II, in the aforesaid figures. From the figures, we conclude that CFFD can also be used as a powerful tool to investigate such systems.

6 Conclusion

Since predator–prey models are debatably the building blocks of the bio- and ecosystems in which both the species depend on each other, we have taken two sets of parameter values in Tables 1 and 2. We have graphed the approximate solutions for different fractional order in Figs. 14, respectively. We see that the population of predators increases as shown in Figs. 2, 4, respectively. The growth rate is faster at smaller fractional order, and as the order increases, the solution behavior coincides with the solution at integer order. Consequently, the population of prey goes on deceasing as in Figs. 1 and 3. The decay rate is faster on smaller fractional order, while slower on greater order. Hence, the dynamical system addressing the relationship between prey and predator has been investigated under CFFD from qualitative and analytical aspects. By using fixed point approach, the existence of the model has been verified. Also, by combining the Laplace transform with the decomposition method, some approximate analytical results have been established under two cases. In the first case for constant coefficients and in Case II the concerned results have been obtained for variable coefficients. Hence we concluded that taking few terms of the series solutions we can efficiently describe the model under investigation.


  1. Naghipour, A., Manafian, J.: Application of the Laplace Adomian decomposition method and implicit methods for solving Burgers’ equations. TWMS J. Pure Appl. Math. 6(1), 68–77 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Thieme, H.R.: Convergence results and a Poincaré–Bendixson trichotomy for asymptotically autonomous differential equations. J. Math. Biol. 30(7), 755–763 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Biazar, J.: Solution of the epidemic model by Adomian decomposition method. Appl. Math. Comput. 173(2), 1101–1106 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Podlubny, I.: Fractional Differential Equations. Mathematics in Science and Engineering. Academic Press, New York (1999)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Kilbas, A.A., Srivastava, H., Trujillo, J.: Theory and Application of Fractional Differential Equations. North Holland Mathematics Studies, vol. 204. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Abdon, A.: Fractal-fractional differentiation and integration: connecting fractal calculus and fractional calculus to predict complex system. Chaos Solitons Fractals 102, 396–406 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Yudong, Z., et al.: Tea category identification using a novel fractional Fourier entropy and Jaya algorithm. Entropy 18(3), 77 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jagdev, S., et al.: A fractional epidemiological model for computer viruses pertaining to a new fractional derivative. Appl. Math. Comput. 316, 504–515 (2018)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Ndolane, S.: Second-grade fluid model with Caputo–Liouville generalized fractional derivative. Chaos Solitons Fractals 133, 109631 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Abdon, A.: Fractional discretization: the African’s tortoise walk. Chaos Solitons Fractals 130, 109399 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. El-Saka, A.A.A.: The fractional-order SIS epidemic model with variable population size. J. Egypt. Math. Soc. 22, 50–54 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Gomez-Aguilar, J.F., et al.: Analysis of fractal-fractional malaria transmission model. Fractals (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ivorra, B., et al.: Mathematical modeling of the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) considering its particular characteristics. The case of China. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 88, 105303 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Yan, D., Cao, H.: The global dynamics for an age-structured tuberculosis transmission model with the exponential progression rate. Appl. Math. Model. 75, 769–786 (2019)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Kucharski, A.J., Russell, T.W., Diamond, C., Liu, Y., Edmunds, J., Funk, S., et al.: Early dynamics of transmission and control of COVID-19: a mathematical modelling study. Lancet Infect. Dis. (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Matignon, D.: Stability results for fractional differential equations with applications to control processing. In: Computational Engineering in Systems Applications, vol. 2, pp. 963–968 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Abrams, P.A.: The evolution of predator–prey interactions: theory and evidence. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 79–105 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Berryman, A.: The origins and evolution of predator–prey theory. Ecology 73, 1530–1535 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tahara, T., et al.: Asymptotic stability of a modified Lotka–Volterra model with small immigrations. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 7029 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yiha, M.D., Koya, P.R., Tibebu, T.: Analysis of prey–predator system with prey population experiencing critical depensation growth function. Am. J. Appl. Math. 3(6), 327–334 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Caputo, M., Fabrizio, M.: A new definition of fractional derivative without singular kernel. Prog. Fract. Differ. Appl. 1(2), 1–13 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Singh, J., et al.: Analysis of an El Nino-southern oscillation model with a new fractional derivative. Chaos Solitons Fractals 99, 109–115 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Tarasov, V.E.: Caputo–Fabrizio operator in terms of integer derivatives: memory or distributed lag. Comput. Appl. Math. 38(3), 113 (2019)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Abdon, A.: Fractional discretization: the African’s tortoise walk. Chaos Solitons Fractals 130, 109399 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Yang, X.-J., et al.: On exact traveling-wave solutions for local fractional Korteweg–de Vries equation. Chaos 26(8), 084312 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Abdon, A.: Blind in a commutative world: simple illustrations with functions and chaotic attractors. Chaos Solitons Fractals 114, 347–363 (2018)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Abdulaziz, O., Hashim, I., Momani, S.: Solving systems of fractional differential equations by homotopy-perturbation method. Phys. Lett. A 372(4), 451–459 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Shah, K., Alqudah, M.A., Jarad, F., Abdeljawad, T.: Semi-analytical study of Pine Wilt disease model with convex rate under Caputo–Fabrizio fractional order derivative. Chaos Solitons Fractals 135, 109754 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Nazir, G., Shah, K., Debbouche, A., Khan, R.A.: Study of HIV mathematical model under nonsingular kernel type derivative of fractional order. Chaos Solitons Fractals 139, 110095 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Haq, F., Shah, K., Rahman, G., Shahzad, M.: Numerical solution of fractional order smoking model via Laplace Adomian decomposition method. Alex. Eng. J. 57(2), 1061–1069 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ali, A., Shah, K., Khan, R.A.: Numerical treatment for traveling wave solutions of fractional Whitham–Broer–Kaup equations. Alex. Eng. J. 57(3), 1991–1998 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kiymaz, O.: An algorithm for solving initial value problems using Laplace Adomian decomposition method. Appl. Math. Sci. 3(30), 1453–1459 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Burton, T.A.: Krasnoselskii N-tupled fixed point theorem with applications to fractional nonlinear dynamical system. Adv. Math. Phys. 2019, Article ID 6763842 (2019)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no data sets were generated or analyzed during the current study.


This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University through the Fast-track Research Funding Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors equally contributed to this manuscript and approved the final version.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Thabet Abdeljawad or Qasem Al-Mdallal.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alqudah, M.A., Abdeljawad, T., Eiman et al. Existence theory and approximate solution to prey–predator coupled system involving nonsingular kernel type derivative. Adv Differ Equ 2020, 520 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: