International Journal of Dynamics and Control

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40435-023-01189-3

Stability analysis of prey–predator model with two prey and one

predator using fuzzy impulsive control
Khushbu Singh1 · Kaladhar Kolla1

Received: 24 November 2022 / Revised: 7 March 2023 / Accepted: 5 April 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
The study of populations that interact and influence one another’s growth rates is a key component of ecological mathematics.
This paper examines a special case of such interaction. It specifically investigates the predator–prey model with two prey
and one predator. The three-dimensional Lotka–Volterra predator–prey system’s model stability has been examined using
the Takagi–Sugeno (T–S) impulsive control model and the fuzzy impulsive control models. Following the formulation of the
model, the global stabilities and the fuzzy solution are provided through numerical simulations and graphical representations
with appropriate discussion to validate the applicability of the system under consideration.

Keywords T–S model · Stability · Lotka–Volterra predator–prey system

Mathematics Subject Classification 92D25 · 92D40 · 34D23 · 49N25

1 Introduction For a very long period, two-species systems like plant–

The first studies on the interaction between prey and preda-
tor were done by Lotka [1]. Leslie contributed to population
modeling in 1939 when he began studying bio-mathematics.
Additionally, a more comprehensive model formulation by
Richards and Hopkins in 1959 led to the correct formula-
tion of the Lotka–Volterra predator–prey model. Kolmogorov
also looked at Mendel’s laws and gene spreading in addi-
tion to the Lotka–Volterra model, and he developed sev-
eral theories based on differential equations to clarify the
predator–prey model, particularly for small populations. The
dynamical properties of population models have attracted a
lot of attention in recent years [2–5], and among these models,
predator–prey systems are crucial to population dynamics.
Most recently, Li [6] demonstrated the Allee effect, a fear
effect, and delay play roles in population dynamics.
Khushbu Singh and Kaladhar K have contributed equally to this work.
B Kaladhar Kolla
kaladhar@nitw.ac.in
Khushbu Singh
khushbu91@student.nitw.ac.in
1 Department of Mathematics, National Institute of
Technology, Warangal 506004, India
herbivore, predator–prey [7–13], have dominated ecology.
Initially, the remarkable dynamical dynamics of three-
species models were generally neglected by theoretical
ecology. Of course, both theorists and experimenters face
a significant number of new challenges as a result of the
growing number of differential equations and dimensions.
Additionally, this concept has to be examined because certain
three-species communities have recently drawn a lot of inter-
est. Three-species systems, such as two prey, one predator
[14–22], plant, herbivore, parasite [23–26], and plant, pest,
and predator [26–28], are therefore becoming more preva-
lent in several disciplines of ecology. From the theory of
three-species models, we have deduced some golden prin-
ciples. Numerous other researchers have looked at similar
three-species population models, including [29–33].
We have witnessed rapidly growing interest in fuzzy con-
trol in recent years. This is largely sparked by the numerous
successful applications fuzzy control has enjoyed. Despite
the visible success, it has been made aware that many basic
issues remain to be addressed. Among them, stability analy-
sis, systematic design, and performance analysis, to name a
few, are crucial to the validity and applicability of any control
design methodology [34, 35]. However, it should be admit-
ted that the stability of fuzzy logic controller (FLC) is still
an open problem. It is important to point out that there exist

123
 Khushbu Singh and Kaladhar Kolla

many systems, like the predator–prey system, which cannot ferential equations.
commonly endure continuous control inputs, or they have
impulsive dynamical behavior due to abrupt jumps at certain dx P1 x z
= g1 x − ex 2 − + h 1 x yz
instants during the evolving processes. Hence, it is necessary dt a + λr α y + x
to extend FLC and reflect these impulsive jump phenom- dy
= g2 y − P2 yz + h 2 x yz (1)
ena in the predator–prey system. Until recently, few papers dt
talk about the stability of a two-dimensional Lotka–Volterra dz C1 P1 x z
= −dz + + C2 P2 yz
predator–prey system with fuzzy impulsive control [36, 37]. dt a + λr α y + x
The main focus of this paper is to examine predator–prey
models with one predator and two prey and to use the Lotka– where all of the parameters are positive and initial conditions
Volterra model and differential equations to examine the are x(0) > 0, y(0) > 0, z(0) > 0. Here g1 is the intrinsic
interaction between these prey and the predator. The relation- growth rate of the first prey, e is intra-specific competition,
ship between the species will be described in mathematical g2 is the intrinsic growth rate of the second prey, P1 is the
equations and the plots showing such relations will also be predation rate of the first prey, d is the natural death rate of
shown. This is consistent with a prior model by Sharma and the predator, P2 is the predation rate of second prey, C1 is the
Samanta [38] which depicts a two prey and one predator conversion rate of first prey to predator, C2 is the conversion
model in which the stability of model is shown using predator rate of second prey to predator, a is half-saturation constant,
handling times. In this paper, we have considered the Lotka– λr is the ratio between handling time of the predator per
Volterra predator–prey model with two prey and one predator. second prey item and handling time of the predator per first
To improve the model’s reality, we analyze the global and prey item, α is the ratio between capture rate of the second
asymptotic stability [38–41] of this model with the help of prey and capture rate of the first prey, and h 1 , h 2 are the
the T–S model and then presented the graphical solutions coefficients of help between two prey.
for the problem by considerations. Only a few articles have A matrix differential equation is stated as follows to ana-
looked at the stability of the Lotka–Volterra predator–prey lyze the system’s stability:
system with fuzzy impulsive control so far. So, using the
T–S mathematical model and fuzzy impulsive control, the ẋ = Ax + φ(x) (2)
stability of the predator–prey system is examined with the
where
help of Wang [36, 37] and Wu [42].
⎛ ⎞ ⎡ ⎤
ẋ(t) g1 0 0
ẋ = ⎝ ẏ(t)⎠ , A = ⎣ 0 g2 0 ⎦ ,
ż(t) 0 0 −d
⎡ ⎤
2 Model formation −ex 2 − a+λPr1αx y+x
z
+ h 1 x yz
⎢ ⎥
φ(x) = ⎣ −P2 yz + h 2 x yz ⎦
Our mathematical model is based on the following assump- C1 P1 x z
a+λr α y+x + C P
2 2 yz
tions:

3 T–S fuzzy model with Impulsive effects

• The overall population density of the first and second
prey is represented by x and y, respectively.
• z is the predator’s overall population density.
• In the second population of prey, there is no intra-specific
interaction.
• Since the second prey’s growth is exponential, there is a
huge supply of it when there is no predator around.
• Holling type - II functional response regulates the first
prey and predator interaction.
• In the absence of any predator, the first prey population
grows logistically.
Based on the aforementioned hypotheses, the following
model is proposed, which includes a set of non-linear dif-
Lemma 1 Let ẋ = f (x(t)), here the state variable is x(t) ∈
R n , and f ∈ C[R n , R n ] fulfills the condition f (0) = 0, is
a compact vector field defined in W ⊆ R n . Using the tech-
niques proposed by Tanaka [43], we can build a fuzzy model
for the system 1 as shown below.
3.1 Control Rule i (i=1,2,...r)
IF z 1 (t) is Mi1 , z 2 (t) is Mi2 ... and z p (t) is Mi p THEN
ẋ(t) = Ai x(t), where r is no. of T–S fuzzy rules, z 1 (t), z 2 ,…,
z p (t) are the premise variables, each Mi j is a fuzzy set and
Ai ⊆ R n∗n is a constant matrix.
Thus, the nonlinear equations can be transformed into the
following linear equation.

123
Stability analysis of prey–predator model…

If x(t) is Mi then where β j = max C(I + K i j ) , P = C T C

ẋ(t) = Ai x(t), t = τ j Then the system (4) is stable globally and exponentially.
(x) = K i j x(t), t = τ j (3)
i = 1, 2, 3...r ; j = 1, 2, ... 5 Numerical simulation
⎡ ⎤
g1 − z 1 − P1 z 2 + h 1 z 3 0 0 Since most biological systems are complex, fuzzy logic
where Ai = ⎣ h2 z3 g2 − z 4 0 ⎦ and z 1 , should be used to represent them. Thus, the suggested impul-
C1 P1 z 2 C2 z 4 −d sive T–S design model examines predator–prey systems with
z 2 , z 3 , z 4 are related to the values of x(t), y(t), z(t), (here z 1
z the functional response and impulsive effects.
= ex, z 2 = , z 3 = yz, z 4 =P2 z). Mi , x(t), Ai By using fuzzy impulsive T–S design model on (1), the
a + λr α y + x
∈ R 3∗3 , r is the number of the IF-THEN rules, K i, j denotes membership functions as given in Wang [45] are obtained as
the control of the j th impulsive instant, (x)|t=τ j = x(τ j -
z1 ed1 − z 1
τ j−1 ) M1 = , M2 =
ed1 ed1
With center-average defuzzifier, the overall T–S fuzzy
d3
impulsive system can be represented as: z2 (a+λr αd2 +d1 ) − z 2
N1 = d3
, N2 = d3
r a+λr αd2 +d1 (a+λr αd2 +d1 )
ẋ(t) = h i (z(t))(Ai x(t)); t = τ j z3 d2 d3 − z 3
K1 = , K2 =
i=1 d2 d3 d2 d3
(4)
r z4 P2 d3 − z 4
(x) = h i (z(t))K i j ; t = τ j L1 = , L2 =
P2 d3 d3
i=1
and the matrices Ai s are calculated using
where h i (z(t)) = ωi (z(t))/ ri=1 ωi (z(t)),and ωi (z(t)) =
 p r ⎡ ⎤
j=1 Mi j (z(t)).Evidently, h i (z(t)) ≥ 0, i=1 h i (z(t)) = g1 − z 1 − P1 z 2 + h 1 z 3 0 0
1, i = 1,2,…,r
Ai = ⎣ h2 z3 g2 − z 4 0 ⎦ , i = 1 to 16
C1 P1 z 2 C2 z 4 −d
4 Stability analysis
and the defuzzification can be represented as:
Now, we will analyze various stabilities of the impulsive
r
fuzzy system (4) by considering the following theorems given
ẋ(t) = h i (z(t))(Ai x(t)) (8)
in Wang [36].
i=1
Theorem 1 Assume that λi is the maximum eigen value of
[AiT + Ai ](i = 1, 2, 3...r ). Let λ(α) = maxi {λi }, 0 < δ j = here h i s are given as p
τ j − τ j−1 < ∞ is the impulsive distance. If λ(α) ≥ 0 and h i (z(t)) = ωi (z(t))/ ri=1 ωi (z(t)), and ωi (z(t)) = j=1
there exists a constant scalar > 1 and a semi-positive Mi j (z(t)), i=1 to 16, j=1 to 4,
matrix P, such that This fuzzy model exactly represents the nonlinear system
in the region [0,5]x[0,10]x[0,10].
ln( β j ) + λ(α)δ j ≤ 0, P Ai = Ai P (5)
dx P1 x z
= g1 x − ex 2 − + h 1 x yz
where dt a + λr α y + x
dy
P = C T C, β j = max C(I + K i, j ) (6) = g2 y − P2 yz + h 2 x yz (9)
dt
dz C1 P1 x z
then the system (4) is stable globally and asymptotically. = −dz + + C2 P2 yz
dt a + λr α y + x
Theorem 2 Assume that λi is the maximum eigen value of
[AiT + Ai ](i = 1, 2, 3...r ). Let λ(α) = maxi {λi }, 0 < δ j =
τ j − τ j−1 < ∞ is the impulsive distance. If λ(α) < 0 and a 6 Results and discussion
constant scalar 0 ≤ < −λ(α) such that
In the absence of h 1 , h 2 , the system (2) reduces to the work
ln(β) − δ j ≤ 0, P Ai = Ai P (7) of Sharma and Samanta [44]. Sharma and Samanta pre-

123
 Khushbu Singh and Kaladhar Kolla

Table 1 Stability of the system at various parameters

e g1 g2 P1 P2 C1 C2 d a h1 h2 α λr Max(λi )=λ(α) ln( β) + λ(α)δ j Conclusion

5.0 1.5 1.0 3.5 2.0 0.8 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 41.5 −0.0497 Stable
4.0 1.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.1 5.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 11.0 −3.099 Stable
3.0 2.0 0.1 2.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.2 12.0 −2.999 Stable
1.0 2.5 1.0 3.5 2.0 0.8 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 42.5 0.051 Unstable

Fig. 1 Effect of predation coefficient of second prey (P2 ) on prey–predator system under impulsive control

123
Stability analysis of prey–predator model…
Fig. 2 Effect of first prey max time (d1 ) on prey–predator system under impulsive control
sented that their considered system is stable at g1 = 3.5,
e = 17.5, g2 = 0.7, C1 = 0.75, C2 = 0.6, d = 0.2,
λr = 0.2, α = 0.1, P1 = 1.2, P2 = 0.6, d1 = 0.1,
d2 = 0.05, d3 = 2. With the T–S fuzzy impulsive con-
trol model by taking the above values of the parameters,
we obtained max(λi )=λ(α) = 3.5 and found that the sys-
tem (2) is stable globally (1) when =1.5, δ=0.1 (at those
above values, β=0.01 and ln( β) + λ(α)δ j = −3.849 < 0).
Therefore, the proposed T–S fuzzy impulsive control model
can be used with great confidence to study the problem con-
sidered in this paper.
In this section, the global stability of the considered intra-
specific competition predator–prey model (1) is discussed.
Biological systems should be described by a fuzzy logic tech-
123

Fig. 3 Effect of second prey max time (d2 ) on prey–predator system under impulsive control
nique with linguistic description since they are complicated,
nonlinear, and uncertain.
Calculations were carried out by taking the values of the
parameters at g1 = 1.5, e = 5, g2 = 1, C1 = 0.8, C2 = 0.1,
d = 1, h 1 = 0.4, h 2 = 0.1, λr = 0.2, α = 0.3, P1 =
3.5,P2 = 2, d1 = 5, d2 = 10, d3 = 10, in (3) to get the
eigenvalues of [AiT + Ai ](i = 1, 2, 3...r ) as explained in
123
Khushbu Singh and Kaladhar Kolla
Theorems (1, 2). It is found that max(λi )=λ(α) = 0.8 then
we have chosen diag[−0.84, −0.84] as impulsive control
matrix, such that β j = ||I + K || = 0.01. It is noted that the
system (3) is stable globally (1) when =1.5, δ=0.1 (at those
above values, ln( β) + λ(α)δ j = −0.0497 < 0). Further, it
is observed that the prey–predator model is unstable (1) when
g1 = 2.5, e = 1, g2 = 1, C1 = 0.8, C2 = 0.1, d = 1,
Stability analysis of prey–predator model…
Fig. 4 Effect of predator max time (d3 ) on prey–predator system under impulsive control
h 1 = 0.4, h 2 = 0.1, λr = 0.2, α = 0.3, P1 = 3.5, P2 = 2,
d1 = 5, d2 = 10, d3 = 10, since max(λi ) =λ(α) = 42.5,
⇒ ln( β) + λ(α)δ j = 0.051 > 0 for β j = 0.99, =1.5,
δ=0.1. Table 1 presents the stability of the system at various
values of the present study.
The impact of the various parameters on the prey–predator
system (1) with T–S fuzzy impulsive control model is pre-
sented in Figs. (1–9).
The impact of the predation coefficient of second prey (P2 )
parameter on prey–predator population (x, y) under fuzzy
impulsive control can be noted in Fig. 1 at g1 = 1.5, e =
5, C1 = 0.8, C2 = 0.1, d = 1, h 1 = 0.4, h 2 = 0.1,
λr = 0.2, α = 0.3, P1 = 3.5, P2 = 2, d1 =5, d2 =10, and
d3 =10. This figure shows that an increase in the predation
coefficient of the second prey leads to an increase in the first
123

Fig. 5 Effect of coefficient of help between prey (h 1 ) on prey–predator system under impulsive control
prey population and predator population and a decrease in
the second prey population.
The change in prey–predator population (x, y) by varying
first prey max time (d1 ) is shown in Fig. 2 at g1 = 1.5, e = 5,
g2 = 1, C1 = 0.8, C2 = 0.1, d = 1, h 1 = 0.4, h 2 = 0.1,
λr = 0.2, α = 0.3, P1 = 3.5, P2 = 2, d2 =10, and d3 =10.
123
Khushbu Singh and Kaladhar Kolla
This figure displays that the second prey population increases
as d1 decreases.
The dynamical change in prey–predator population (x, y)
by varying second prey max time (d2 ) on prey–predator sys-
tem is shown in Fig. 3 at g1 = 1.5, e = 5, g2 = 1, C1 = 0.8,
C2 = 0.1, d = 1, h 1 = 0.4, h 2 = 0.1, λr = 0.2, α = 0.3,
P1 = 3.5, P2 = 2, d1 =5, and d3 =10. This figure shows that
Stability analysis of prey–predator model…
Fig. 6 Effect of predation coefficient of first prey (P1 ) on prey–predator system under impulsive control
the second prey population and predator population decrease
as d2 increases.
The impact on prey–predator population (x, y) by varying
predator max time (d3 ) is shown in Fig. 4 at g1 = 1.5, e = 5,
g2 = 1, C1 = 0.8, C2 = 0.1, d = 1, h 1 = 0.4, h 2 = 0.1,
λr = 0.2, α = 0.3, P1 = 3.5, P2 = 2, d1 =5, and d2 =10.
It is observed from this figure that, as d3 decreases, the first
and second prey population decreases whereas the predator
population increases.
The effect of the coefficient of help between prey (h 1 ) on
the prey–predator system is shown in Fig. 5 at g1 = 1.5,
e = 5, g2 = 1, C1 = 0.8, C2 = 0.1, d = 1, h 2 = 0.1,
λr = 0.2, α = 0.3, P1 = 3.5, P2 = 2, d1 =5, d2 =10, d3 =10.
123

Fig. 7 Effect of intra-specific competition (e) on prey–predator system under impulsive control
This figure displays that a decrease in h 1 leads to a decrease
in the first prey population.
The effectiveness by varying predation coefficient of the
first prey (P1 ) parameter of prey–predator population (x, y)
under fuzzy impulsive control can be noted in Fig. 6 at g1 =
1.5, e = 5, g2 = 1, C1 = 0.8, C2 = 0.1, d = 1, h 1 = 0.4,
h 2 = 0.1, λr = 0.2, α = 0.3, P2 = 2, d1 =5, d2 =10, and
123
Khushbu Singh and Kaladhar Kolla
d3 =10. This figure shows that an increase in the predation
coefficient of the first prey leads to an increase in the first
prey population.
The effect of intra-specific competition (e) on the prey–
predator system is shown in Fig. 7 at g1 = 1.5, g2 = 1,
C1 = 0.8, C2 = 0.1, d = 1, h 1 = 0.4, h 2 = 0.1, λr = 0.2,
α = 0.3, P1 = 3.5, P2 = 2, d1 =5, d2 =10, and d3 =10. This
Stability analysis of prey–predator model…

Fig. 8 Effect of intrinsic growth rate of second prey (g2 ) on prey–predator system under impulsive control

figure displays that a decrease in intra-specific competition
between prey–predator leads to an increase in the second prey
population.
The effect of intrinsic growth rate of second prey (g2 ) on
prey–predator system is shown in Fig. 8 at g1 = 1.5, e = 5,
C1 = 0.8, C2 = 0.1, d = 1, h 1 = 0.4, h 2 = 0.1, λr =
0.2, α = 0.3, P1 = 3.5, P2 = 2, d1 =5, d2 =10, and d3 =10.
This figure shows an increase in g2 increases the second prey
population.
Finally, the nature of three species (x, y, z) population
(without impulsive control) is presented in Fig. 9 by fixing all
the parameters obtained from T–S fuzzy model at g1 = 1.5,

123

Fig. 9 Plot of predator–prey system without impulsive control
e = 5, g2 = 1, C1 = 0.8, C2 = 0.1, d = 1, h 1 = 0.4,
h 2 = 0.1, λr = 0.2, α = 0.3, P1 = 3.5, P2 = 2, d1 =5,
d2 =10, d3 =10 and initial conditions x(0) = 5, y(0) = 10,
z(0) = 10, and t = 10. The figure clearly shows how the
prey and predator populations reach stability.
123
Khushbu Singh and Kaladhar Kolla
7 Conclusion
Numerous fields, including ecology, dynamics, physics,
algorithms, and epidemiology, depend heavily on mathemati-
cal models. In this paper, we have constructed a mathematical
model of two prey and one predator populations. Firstly, a
nonlinear “Lotka–Volterra” predator–prey model based on
Stability analysis of prey–predator model…
the fuzzy impulsive control was analyzed. The impulsive con-
trol technique, which is analyzed in the framework of fuzzy
systems based on the T–S model, is found appropriate for
very complex and nonlinear systems with impulsive effects.
Then, the complete impulsive fuzzy system is obtained by
combining each local linear impulsive system. Meantime, the
asymptotic stability and exponential stability of the impul-
sive fuzzy system are shown by various stabilities theorems.
Finally, a numerical example of predator–prey systems with
impulsive effects is presented to demonstrate the use of
impulsive fuzzy control, and simulation results demonstrate
the usefulness of suggested approach. From this present
study, the main findings are listed:
• The decrease in intra-specific competition leads to an
increase in the prey population.
• An increase in the prey growth rate causes a rise in the
prey population.
• Predator population grows as predators maximum time
decreases, but prey populations decrease.
• As d2 rises, the second prey population declines and the
predator populations rise because predators are getting
more time to consume more prey.
• More the predation of second prey, more is the population
of predator and first prey because more second prey is
eaten up by predators.
Author Contributions Both authors have contributed equally to the
work.
Funding The authors declare they have no financial interests.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no potential con
ict of interest in relation to the study in this paper.
References
1. Lotka AJ (1925) Elements of physical biology. Williams and
Wilkins, United States
2. Hale JK (1977) Retarded functional differential equations: basic
theory. Theory of functional differential equations. Springer, New
York, pp 36–56
3. Kot M (2001) Elements of mathematical ecology. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge
4. Murray J (2002) Mathematical models in biology and medicine.
Springer, Berlin
5. Brockett RW (2015) Finite dimensional linear systems. SIAM,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
6. Li YX, Liu H, Wei YM, Ma M, Ma G, Ma JY (2022) Popula-
tion dynamic study of prey-predator interactions with weak allee
effect, fear effect, and delay. J Math. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/
8095080
7. Holling CS (1965) The functional response of predators to prey
density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. Mem.
Entomol. Soc. Can. 97(S45):5–60
8. Gilpin ME (1972) Enriched predator-prey systems: theoretical sta-
bility. Science 177(4052):902–904
9. Freedman H, Waltman P (1977) Mathematical analysis of some
three-species food-chain models. Math Biosci 33(3–4):257–276
10. Freedman H, Waltman P (1984) Persistence in models of three
interacting predator-prey populations. Math Biosci 68(2):213–231
11. Freedman H, Waltman P (1985) Persistence in a model of three
competitive populations. Math Biosci 73(1):89–101
12. Erbe L, Freedman H, Rao VSH (1986) Three-species food-chain
models with mutual interference and time delays. Math Biosci
80(1):57–80
13. Butler G, Freedman HI, Waltman P (1986) Uniformly persistent
systems. In: Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society,
pp 425–430
14. Das S, Borthakur M, Gope B (1988) Need for non-conventional
approach in tea pest management. In: Proceedings of the 30th Tock-
lai Conference, pp 80–89
15. Kumar R, Freedman H (1989) A mathematical model of faculta-
tive mutualism with populations interacting in a food chain. Math
Biosci 97(2):235–261
16. Das S, Barua K (1990) Scope of bio-control of pests and diseases
in tea plantations. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Tea Res.: Global Perspective,
Calcutta, pp 119–125
17. Takeuchi Y, Oshime Y, Matsuda H (1992) Persistence and peri-
odic orbits of a three-competitor model with refuges. Math Biosci
108(1):105–125
18. Ruan S (1993) A three-trophic-level model of plankton dynamics
with nutrient recycling. Can Appl Math Quart 1:529–553
19. Renshaw E (1993) Modelling biological populations in space and
time, vol 11. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University
20. Gomez JM, Zamora R (1994) Top-down effects in a tritrophic sys-
tem: parasitoids enhance plant fitness. Ecology 75(4):1023–1030
21. Kuznetsov YA, Rinaldi S (1996) Remarks on food chain dynamics.
Math Biosci 134(1):1–33
22. Li B, Kuang Y (2000) Simple food chain in a chemostat with dis-
tinct removal rates. J Math Anal Appl 242(1):75–92
23. Van Loon DBJGDM (2000) Joop JA: Parasitoid-plant mutualism:
parasitoid attack of herbivore increases plant reproduction. Ento-
mol Exp Appl 97(2):219–227
24. Xiao D, Ruan S (2001) Global analysis in a predator-prey sys-
tem with nonmonotonic functional response. SIAM J Appl Math
61(4):1445–1472
25. Hoballah MEF, Turlings TC (2001) Experimental evidence that
plants under caterpillar attack may benefit from attracting para-
sitoids. Evol Ecol Res 3(5):583–593
26. Bandyopadhyay M, Chakrabarti C (2003) Deterministic and
stochastic analysis of a nonlinear prey-predator system. J Biol Syst
11(02):161–172
27. Samanta G, Manna D, Maiti A (2003) Bioeconomic modelling of
a three-species fishery with switching effect. J Appl Math Comput
12(1):219–231
28. Maiti A, Samanta G (2005) Deterministic and stochastic analysis
of a prey-dependent predator-prey system. Int J Math Educ Sci
Technol 36(1):65–83
29. Srinivasu P, Prasad B, Venkatesulu M (2007) Biological control
through provision of additional food to predators: a theoretical
study. Theor Popul Biol 72(1):111–120
30. Turlings TC, Fritzsche ME (2007) Attraction of parasitic wasps
by caterpillar-damaged plants. In: Novartis foundation symposium
223-insect–plant interactions and induced plant defence: insect-
plant interactions and induced plant defence: novartis foundation
symposium 223, pp 21–42. Wiley Online Library
123

31. Maiti A, Pal A, Samanta G (2008) Effect of time-delay on a food
chain model. Appl Math Comput 200(1):189–203
32. Maiti A, Pal A, Samanta G (2008) Usefulness of biocontrol of pests
in tea: a mathematical model. Math Modell Nat Phenom 3(4):96–
113
33. Gazi NH, Khan SR, Chakrabarti CG (2009) Integration of mussel
in fish farm: mathematical model and analysis. Nonlinear Anal
Hybrid Syst 3(1):74–86
34. Pal A, Samanta G (2010) A single species population in a polluted
environment. Int J Biomath 3(02):187–204
35. Manna K, Volpert V, Banerjee M (2020) Dynamics of a diffusive
two-prey-one-predator model with nonlocal intra-specific compe-
tition for both the prey species. Mathematics 8(1):101
36. Sahoo D, Samanta G (2021) Impact of fear effect in a two prey-one
predator system with switching behaviour in predation. Differ Equ
Dyn Syst 1–23
37. Zhang X, Zou X (2022) Sufficient and necessary conditions for
persistence and extinction of a stochastic two-prey one-predator
system. J Appl Anal Comput 12(5):1861–1884
38. Tseng C-S, Chen B-S, Uang H-J (2001) Fuzzy tracking control
design for nonlinear dynamic systems via ts fuzzy model. IEEE
Trans Fuzzy Syst 9(3):381–392
39. Tong S, Wang W, Qu L (2007) Decentralized robust control for
uncertain ts fuzzy large-scale systems with time-delay. Int J Innov
Comput Inf Control 3(3):657–672
123
Khushbu Singh and Kaladhar Kolla
40. Zheng Y, Chen G (2009) Fuzzy impulsive control of chaotic sys-
tems based on ts fuzzy model. Chaos Solit Fract 39(4):2002–2011
41. Wang Y (2012) Stability analysis of predator-prey system with
fuzzy impulsive control. J Appl Math 2012
42. Wang X, Yu J, Li C, Wang H, Huang T, Huang J (2015) Robust
stability of stochastic fuzzy delayed neural networks with impulsive
time window. Neural Netw 67:84–91
43. Wu L, Su X, Shi P (2015) Model approximation of continuous-time
TS fuzzy stochastic systems. In: Fuzzy control systems with time-
delay and stochastic perturbation, pp 269–286. Springer, China
44. Tanaka K, Wang HO (2001) Fuzzy Control Systems Design and
Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Tokyo Institute of Technology
45. Wang HO, Tanaka K (2004) Fuzzy control systems design and
analysis: a linear matrix inequality approach. John Wiley and Sons,
Tokyo
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such
publishing agreement and applicable law.