Nonlinear Engineering 2022; 11: 100–111
Research Article
Feras Yousef*, Billel Semmar, and Kamal Al Nasr
Dynamics and simulations of discretized Caputo-
conformable fractional-order Lotka–Volterra
models
https://doi.org/10.1515/nleng-2022-0013
received January 22, 2022; accepted March 14, 2022
Abstract: In this article, a prey–predator system is con-
sidered in Caputo-conformable fractional-order deriva-
tives. First, a discretization process, making use of the
piecewise-constant approximation, is performed to secure
discrete-time versions of the two fractional-order systems.
Local dynamic behaviors of the two discretized fractional-
order systems are investigated. Numerical simulations are
executed to assert the outcome of the current work.
Finally, a discussion is conducted to compare the impacts
of the Caputo and conformable fractional derivatives on
the discretized model.
Keywords: Caputo fractional derivative, conformable frac-
tional derivative, prey–predator system, discretization, sta-
bility, bifurcations, chaos
1 Introduction
Dynamic analysis is widely used in engineering and
science. Understanding the dynamics of prey–predator
interactions is one of the most primary operations that
shape the framework and function of ecological societies
[1,2]. To describe the dynamic behavior between prey and
predator, models can be a very useful and powerful tool.
The oldest and most celebrated prey–predator model is
the Lotka–Volterra model, independently introduced by
Lotka [3] and Volterra [4]. This model is formulated in

* Corresponding author: Feras Yousef, Department of Mathematics,
School of Science, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan,
e-mail: fyousef@ju.edu.jo
Billel Semmar: Department of Mathematics, University of Badji
Mokhtar Annaba, Annaba 23000, Algeria,
e-mail: billelsemmar23@gmail.com
Kamal Al Nasr: Department of Computer Science, Tennessee State
University, Nashville, TN 37209, USA, e-mail: Kalnasr@tnstate.edu
Open Access. © 2022 Feras Yousef et al., published by De Gruyter.
International License.
ordinary differential equations such that any small change
of the model will lead to a qualitatively different type of
behavior. The most important feature of this model is that
it lumps prey birth and death rates into one logistic growth
term, and it assumes that the predator birth rate remains a
linear function of their per capita consumption [5].
Predation is normally quantified in terms of the func-
tional and numerical responses, which are the effects
of predation on the prey and predator growth rates,
respectively [6]. The classical model of Lotka–Volterra
under the linear functional response of predator reads
as follows:
⎧ dN = N (a − bN − cR) ,
⎪ dT
(1)
⎨ dR
⎪ dT = R( −d + ceN ) ,
⎩
where N and R are functions of time T , representing the
prey and predator population densities, respectively [7].
The parameters a , b, c, d , and e are considered as posi-
tive constants, representing the maximum birth rate per
capita of prey species, the strength of intraspecific com-
petition of the prey species, the strength of intraspecific
between prey and predators, the death rate per capita of
predator species, and the efficacy of converting ingested
prey to new predators, respectively.
Recently, it has been shown that many mathematical
models can be effectively reformulated via noninteger-
order differential equations owing to the unsuitability
and ability of the integer-order differential equations in
formulating many phenomena [8]. The noninteger-order
derivatives are oftentimes said to be fractional-order deri-
vatives or artlessly fractional derivatives. It is well-known
that the derivatives with integer order are in local nature,
unlike the derivatives with fractional order [9]. It has
been evinced that the nonlocality merit of the fractional
derivatives is employed to make them a suitable tool
for describing the dynamic behaviors of many life phe-
nomena and dynamical models that have inherited the
properties of memory [10,11]. Due to the memory effect,
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 Discretized Caputo-conformable fractional-order Lotka–Volterra models  101

the fractional models integrate all previous information α 2

⎧ D x (t ) = rx (t ) − px (t ) − qx (t )y (t ) , (4)
from the past that makes it easier for the researchers to ⎨ α
⎩ D y (t ) = x (t )y (t ) − qy (t ) ,
predict and translate the biological models more accu-
rately [12]. Consequently, many existing differential equa- where D α is the fractional derivative of Caputo type and
tions describing various phenomena in engineering and defined as follows:
science have been recasted by means of fractional deriva- t
1
tives [13–25], and their solutions and dynamic behaviors D α f (t ) =
Γ(1 − α )
∫(t − τ)−αf (τ)dτ, 0 < α < 1. (5)
continue to be of widespread interest today in many other 0
disciplines [26–35].
Our first aim is to discretize the model (4) making use
In the present work, we nondimensionalize the system
of the piecewise-constant approximation [36] as follows:
(1) by performing the following change of variables.
ea c cd ⎧ D αx (t ) = x ⎛⎡ t ⎤h⎞⎛r − px ⎛⎡ t ⎤h⎞ − qy⎛⎡ t ⎤h⎞⎞ ,
x (t ) = N (T ) , y (t ) = R (T ) , t= T. ⎪ ⎜ ⎟

d d a ⎝⎣ h ⎦ ⎠⎝ ⎝⎣ h ⎦ ⎠ ⎝⎣ h ⎦ ⎠⎠
(6)
⎨ t t
Hence, we are lead to work with the following non- ⎪ D αy (t ) = y⎛⎡ ⎤h⎞⎛−q + x ⎛⎡ ⎤h⎞⎞ ,
⎜ ⎟

dimensionalized system: ⎩ ⎝ ⎣ h ⎦ ⎠⎝ ⎝⎣ h ⎦ ⎠⎠
t
⎧ dx (t ) = rx (t ) − px 2 (t ) − qx (t )y (t ) , where [ h ] denotes the integer part of t ∈ [nh , (n + 1)h),
⎪ dt n = 0, 1, … , and h > 0 is a discretization parameter.
(2)
⎨ d y (t ) The nth iterative solution of system (6) is given by:
⎪ dt = x (t )y (t ) − qy (t ) ,
⎩ α
a2 b a ⎧ xn + 1(t ) = xn(nh) + (t − nh) (xn(nh)(r − pxn(nh)
where r = cd , p = ce , and q = c . ⎪ α Γ (α )
Thus, the following fractional-order system is obtained ⎪
− qyn(nh))) , (7)
by changing the first-order time derivatives by the deriva- ⎨
⎪ (t − nh)α
tives of fractional order. ⎪ yn + 1(t ) = yn(nh) + αΓ(α) ( yn(nh)( −q + xn(nh))) .
α 2 ⎩
⎧ D x (t ) = rx (t ) − px (t ) − qx (t )y (t ) , (3)
⎨ α If we let t → (n + 1)h in system (7), then we will
⎩ D y (t ) = x (t )y (t ) − qy (t ) ,
achieve the discretized version of the model (4):
where 0 < α < 1 is the fractional-order derivative para-
α
meter and t > 0. It is easily verified that the equilibrium ⎧ xn + 1 = xn + h (xn(r − pxn − qy )) ,
n
⎪ α Γ(α )
points of system (3) are the trivial state E0 = (0, 0), the (8)
⎨ h α

( 0), and the steady state of coexis-

axial state E1 =
r
p
, ⎪ yn + 1 = yn + αΓ(α) ( yn( −q + xn)) .
⎩
tence E = (q, ) for r > pq.
r − pq
2 q We next investigate the local stability and bifurcation
Several studies revealed that the discrete-time system to the points of equilibrium for system (8).
exhibits much fruitful dynamic behaviors, such as bifurca-
tions and chaos, than those of its continuous-time system Theorem 2.1. The point of equilibrium E0 = (0, 0) is a
counterpart. Consequently, in the sequel, we will explore (i) Saddle point when 0 < h < α
2αΓ(α)
;
q
the dynamic behaviors of the discretized fractional-order
2αΓ(α)
prey–predator system that includes both Caputo and con- (ii) Source when h > α ;
q
formable fractional derivatives. 2αΓ(α)
(iii) Non-hyperbolic when h = α .
q

2 The dynamics of the discretized Proof. The Jacobian matrix computed at the point of equi-
librium E0 for the linearization of system (8) is given by
Caputo fractional-order α
⎛1 + h r ⎞
prey–predator system ⎜ α Γ (α )
0
⎟
J (E0) = ⎜ hα ⎟
In this section, we consider the Caputo fractional-order 0 1− q
⎜ α Γ (α ) ⎟
version of model (3) as follows: ⎝ ⎠
102  Feras Yousef et al.

hα hα
and has eigenvalues λ1 = 1 + αΓ(α) r and λ2 = 1 − αΓ(α) q . Proof. The Jacobian matrix computed at the point of
Since r > 0, then ∣λ1∣ > 1. Now, since q > 0, we have the equilibrium E2 for the linearization of system (8) is given
following cases: by
2αΓ(α)
(i) If 0 < h < α , then ∣λ2 ∣ < 1 and E0 is a saddle α q2hα ⎞
q ⎛ 1 − pqh −
point. ⎜ α Γ (α ) α Γ(α ) ⎟
2αΓ(α)
J (E2 ) = ⎜ α ⎟.
(ii) If h > α , then ∣λ2 ∣ > 1 and E0 is a source. h ⎛ r − pq ⎞
q ⎜ ⎜ 1 ⎟
⎟
2αΓ(α) ⎝ α Γ(α ) ⎝ q ⎠ ⎠
(iii) If h = α , then ∣λ2 ∣ = 1 and E0 is a nonhyper-
q
Next, the trace and determinant of J (E2 ) are com-
bolic. □
puted as follows:

Theorem 2.2. The point of equilibrium E1 = ( , 0) is a

r
p Tr(J (E2 )) = 2 −
pqhα
and
(i) Sink when q − (
)p < r < min ( , pq);
2αΓ(α)
hα
2αΓ(α)
hα
α Γ(α )
2 (9)
pqhα hα ⎞
(ii) Source when r < (q − )p and r > max ( , pq);
2αΓ(α) 2αΓ(α) Det(J (E2 )) = 1 − + q (r − pq )⎛ . ⎜ ⎟
hα hα α Γ(α ) ⎝ α Γ(α ) ⎠
(iii) Non-hyperbolic when r = (q − )p or r = 2αΓ(α) 2αΓ(α)
hα hα According to the Jury conditions [37], both eigenva-
or r = pq ; lues of the Jacobian matrix J (E2 ) have modulus less than 1
(iv) Saddle point for the other values of parameters except 2pqhα
⎛ −4 ⎞
those values in (i)–(iii). if max ⎜ αΓ(αh)α 2 + pq , pq ⎟ < r < p
q ( )
( αΓ(α)
hα
+q . ) □
⎝ α Γ( α ) ⎠
Proof. The Jacobian matrix computed at the point of
equilibrium E1 of the linearization of system (8) is given The following result is regarding the bifurcation of
by system (8). We refer the reader to [38] for more details
about the major forms of bifurcations in two-dimen-
α hα qr
⎛1 − h r − ⎞ sional maps.
⎜ α Γ (α ) α Γ (α ) p ⎟
J (E1) =
⎜ α
h ⎛r ⎟ Theorem 2.4. The positive point of equilibrium E2 =
⎜ 0 1+ − q ⎞⎟ ⎜ ⎟

⎝ α Γ (α ) ⎝ p ⎠⎠
hα
(q, r − pq
q ) forfeits its stability through a
and has eigenvalues λ1 = 1 − and r λ2 = 1 + (i) Transcritical bifurcation if r = pq ;
αΓ(α)
hα
αΓ(α) ( r
p )
− q . Now, we have the following cases:
(ii) Flip bifurcation if r =
2pqhα
α Γ( α )
−4
+ pq ;
(i) If q − ( 2αΓ(α)
hα )p < r < min ( 2αΓ(α)
hα
, )
pq , then ∣λ1∣ < 1 and q ( ) hα 2
α Γ( α )

∣λ2 ∣ < 1. Hence, E1 is a sink. (iii) Neimark–Sacker bifurcation if r = p ( αΓ(α)

hα
+q . )
(ii) If r < q − ( 2αΓ(α)
hα )
p and r > max ( 2αΓ(α)
hα
, )
pq , then
Proof. From Eq. (9), we have
∣λ1∣ > 1 and ∣λ2 ∣ > 1. Hence, E1 is a source.
(i) Tr(J (E2 )) − Det(J (E2 )) = 1 when r = pq . Hence, the
(iii) if r = q − ( 2αΓ(α)
hα )p or r = 2αΓ(α)
hα
or r = pq , then ∣λ1∣ = 1 point of equilibrium E2 forfeits its stability through
or ∣λ2 ∣ = 1. Hence, E1 is a nonhyperbolic. a transcritical bifurcation when r = pq .
(iv) For other values of parameters except those values 2pqhα
−4
in (i)–(iii), we have ∣λ1∣ < 1 and ∣λ2 ∣ > 1 (or ∣λ1∣ > 1 and (ii) −Tr(J (E2 )) − Det(J (E2 )) = 1 when r = α Γ( α )
hα 2
+ pq .
∣λ2 ∣ < 1). Hence, E1 is a saddle point. □
q ( )
α Γ( α )

Hence, the point of equilibrium E2 forfeits its stabil-

2pqhα
−4
Theorem 2.3. The positive point of equilibrium E2 = ity through a flip bifurcation when r = α Γ( α )
+ pq .
hα 2

(q, r − pq
) is local asymptotically stable if and only if q ( )
α Γ( α )
q

⎛ 2pqhα ⎞
(iii) Det(J (E2 )) = 1 when r = p ( αΓ(α)
hα )
+ q . Hence, the
αΓ(α)
−4 α Γ (α ) point of equilibrium E2 forfeits its stability through
max ⎜ 2
+ pq , pq ⎟ < r < p⎛ α + q ⎞ .
⎜q
⎝ ( )
h α

αΓ(α)
⎟
⎠
⎝ h ⎠ a Neimark–Sacker bifurcation if r = p ( αΓ(α)
hα
+q . ) □
 Discretized Caputo-conformable fractional-order Lotka–Volterra models  103

3 The dynamics of the discretized as a conformable fractional derivative, which is essentially

conformable fractional-order
prey–predator system
Several authors prefer to study the fractional-order models
by using Caputo derivatives because the definition of
Caputo-fractional derivatives shows the property of line-
arity and yields zero the output for a fractional derivative
to a constant. However, this definition fails to show the
usual properties of the derivative such as the chain rule,
product rule, and quotient rule. More recently, Khalil et al.
[39] proposed a novel local derivative operator recognized
an extension of the well-known limit-based derivative,
and this definition satisfies all the usual properties of the
integer-order derivatives [40]. We refer the reader to ref.
[41] for a comparative study of all definitions of fractional-
order derivatives.
The conformable fractional-order version of system
(3) is presented as follows:
α 2
⎧ Da x (t ) = rx (t ) − px (t ) − qx (t )y (t ) , (10)
⎨ α
⎩ Da y (t ) = x (t )y (t ) − qy (t ) ,
where Daα is the fractional derivative of conformable-type
and defined for a function f : [a , ∞) →  , a ≥ 0:

Figure 1: Stable dynamical behavior of system (8) subject to the initial condition (x (0), y (0)) = (0.25, 0.2) for the parameters
p = 0.5, q = 1, h = 0.15, and r = 1 : (a) α = 0.95, (b) α = 0.75, (c) α = 0.6, and (d) α = 0.5.
104  Feras Yousef et al.

Figure 2: Stable dynamical behavior of system (22) subject to the initial condition (x (0), y (0)) = (0.25, 0.2) for the parameters
p = 0.5, q = 1, h = 0.15, and r = 1 : (a) α = 0.95, (b) α = 0.75, (c) α = 0.6, and (d) α = 0.5.

f (t + ε (t − a)1 − α) − f (t ) Applying the rule in Eq. (12) to the first equation in the
Daαf (t ) = lim , 0 < α < 1. (11)
ε→0 ε system (13), for h > 0 and t ∈ [nh , (n + 1)h), n = 0, 1, … ,
From the aforementioned definition, it has been evinced gives the following Bernoulli differential equation:
in ref. [40] the following necessary fact: d x (t )
(t − nh)1 − α + (qy (nh) − r )x (t ) = −px 2 (t ) . (14)
Daαf (t ) = (t − a)1 − αf ′(t ) . (12) dt
We obtain by simplifying this equation
In the following, we will adopt piecewise-constant
approximation to discretize the model (10). x′(t ) (r − qy (nh)) p
− + = . (15)
x 2 (t ) x (t )(t − nh)1 − α (t − nh)1 − α
⎧ D αx (t ) = x (t )⎛⎜r − px (t ) − qy⎛⎡ t ⎤h⎞⎞⎟,
⎪ a
⎝ ⎝⎣ h ⎦ ⎠⎠
(13)
⎨ α t
⎪ Da y (t ) = y (t )⎛⎜−q + x ⎛⎡ ⎤h⎞⎞⎟ .
⎩ ⎝ h
⎝⎣ ⎦ ⎠⎠
 Discretized Caputo-conformable fractional-order Lotka–Volterra models  105

Figure 3: Stable dynamical behavior of system (8) subject to the initial condition (x (0), y (0)) = (0.25, 0.2) for the parameters
p = 0.5, q = 1, α = 0.95, and r = 1 : (a) h = 0.15, (b) h = 0.35, (c) h = 0.55, and (d) h = 0.75.

(t − nh)α xn(r − qyn)

Multiplying Eq. (15) by e (r − qy(nh)) α , we have xn + 1 = . (18)
hα
pxn + (r − qyn − pxn)e−(r − qyn) α
d⎛ 1 (t − nh)α
(r − qy (nh)) α ⎟ ⎞
⎜ e
d t ⎝ x (t ) ⎠ In a similar way, from the second equation in the
(16)
p (r − qy (nh
(t − nh)α
)) α , model (13), we obtain
= 1 − α
e t ∈ [nh , (n + 1)h) .
(t − nh)
d y (t ) (x (nh) − q )
= dt . (19)
Integrating with respect to t on [nh , t ) both sides of y (t ) (t − nh)1 − α
Eq. (16), we obtain
Integrating with respect to t on [nh , t ) both sides of
1 (r − qy(nh)) (t −nh )α 1
e α − Eq. (19), we obtain
x (t ) x (nh)
(17) (t − nh)α
p (t − nh)α
ln y (t ) − ln y (nh) = (x (nh) − q ) ,
= ⎡e (r − qy(nh)) α − 1⎤ . (20)
r − qy (nh) ⎣ ⎦ α
t ∈ [nh , (n + 1)h) .
Ultimately, let t → (n + 1)h in Eq. (17) and replacing
x (nh) with xn yields
106  Feras Yousef et al.

Figure 4: Stable dynamical behavior of system (22) subject to the initial condition (x (0), y (0)) = (0.25, 0.2) for the parameters
p = 0.5, q = 1, α = 0.95, and r = 1 : (a) h = 0.15, (b) h = 0.35, (c) h = 0.55, and (d) h = 0.75.

For t → (n + 1)h in Eq. (20) and replacing y (nh) with Theorem 3.1. The point of equilibrium E0 = (0, 0) is a
yn provides saddle point.
hα
yn + 1 = yne (xn − q) α . (21)
Proof. The Jacobian matrix computed at the point of
Consequently, the discretized version of the model equilibrium E0 for the linearization of system (22) is given
(13) is derived as follows: by

⎧x = xn(r − qyn) hα
⎪ n+1 hα
, ⎛er α 0 ⎞
pxn + (r − qyn − pxn)e−(r − qyn) α (22) J (E0) = ⎜ hα
⎨ 0 e qα⎟
−
α
⎪ yn + 1 = yne (xn − q) hα . ⎝ ⎠
⎩
hα hα
and has eigenvalues λ1 = e r α and λ2 = e−q α . Thus, E0 is a
We next investigate the local stability and bifurcation
saddle point since ∣λ1∣ > 1 and ∣λ2 ∣ < 1. □
to the points of equilibrium for system (22).
 Discretized Caputo-conformable fractional-order Lotka–Volterra models  107

Figure 5: Bifurcation diagram of system (8) as a function of r for the parameters p = 0.5, q = 1, and h = 0.15: (a) α = 0.95 and (b) α = 0.5.

Theorem 3.2. The point of equilibrium E1 =

(i) Saddle point if r > pq;
( , 0) is a
r
p
(i) If r > pq , then ∣λ2 ∣ > 1 and E1 is a saddle point.
(ii) If r < pq , then ∣λ2 ∣ < 1 and E1 is a sink.
(ii) Sink if r < pq; (iii) If r = pq , then ∣λ2 ∣ = 1 and E1 is a nonhyperbolic. □
(iii) Non-hyperbolic if r = pq.
Theorem 3.3. The positive point of equilibrium
Proof. The Jacobian matrix computed at the point of equi-
librium E1 for the linearization of system (22) is given by
(
E2 = q,
r − pq
q ) is local asymptotically stable if and only
α
⎛ e−r hα
q
(
−1 + e−r α ⎞ )
hα
if r < p ( α
hα
+q .)
J (E1) = ⎜ p ⎟,
⎜ α ⎟ Proof. The Jacobian matrix computed at the point of
⎝ 0 e( r
p − q) hα
⎠ equilibrium E2 for the linearization of system (22) is given
hα
and has eigenvalues λ1 = e−r α , which satisfy ∣λ1∣ < 1, and by
α
λ2 = e( r
p − q) hα
. Now, we have the following cases:

Figure 6: Bifurcation diagram of system (22) as a function of r for the parameters p = 0.5, q = 1 , and h = 0.15: (a) α = 0.95 and (b) α = 0.5.
108  Feras Yousef et al.

Figure 7: Maximum Lyapunov exponents corresponding to: (a) Figure 5(a) and (b) Figure 6(a).

hα q hα According to the Jury conditions, both eigenvalues of

⎛ e−pq α ( −1 + e−pq α ) ⎞
p the Jacobian matrix J (E2 ) have modulus less than 1 if and
J (E2 ) = ⎜ ⎟ .
⎜ (r − pq ) hα
⎜
qα
1 ⎟
⎟ only if r < p ( α
hα )
+q . □
⎝ ⎠
The trace and determinant of J (E2 ) are computed as The following result is regarding the bifurcation for
follows: model (22).
hα
Tr(J (E2 )) = 1 + e−pq α and Theorem 3.4. The positive point of equilibrium E2 =

Det(J (E2 )) =
pαe
−pqhα
α − h α (r (
− pq ) −1 + e
−pqhα
α
). (23)
(q, r − pq
q ) forfeits its stability through a Neimark–Sacker
pα bifurcation if r = p ( α
hα )
+q .

Figure 8: Chaotic attractor for the parameters p = 0.5, q = 1 , α = 0.95, h = 0.15, and r = 4: (a) system (8) and (b) system (22).
 Discretized Caputo-conformable fractional-order Lotka–Volterra models  109

Figure 9: Time series plot of system (8) with respect to Figure 5(a): (a) asymptotically stable for r = 2 and (b) chaotic for r = 4, and system
(22) with respect to Figure 6(a): (c) asymptotically stable for r = 2 and (d) chaotic for r = 4.

Proof. From Eq. (23), we have Det(J (E2 )) = 1 when r = be fixed and vary α , h, and r . Suppose that the initial state
of systems (8) and (22) is (0.25, 0.2). Figures 1 and 2
p( α
hα )
+ q . Hence, the point of equilibrium E2 forfeits
demonstrate the local stable dynamic behaviors for the
its stability through a Neimark–Sacker bifurcation if
two-dimensional discrete systems (8) and (22), respec-
r=p ( α
hα
+q .) □ tively, at the positive point of equilibrium E2 with les-
sening the fractional-order parameter α . We note that
lessening the fractional-order parameter α and fixing the
discretization parameter h lead to destabilize the two-
4 Numerical simulations dimensional discrete systems and chaotic behavior occurs.
Figures 3 and 4 show the local stable dynamic behaviors
Theoretical studies cannot be verified without numerical for the two-dimensional discrete systems (8) and (22),
investigation of the obtained results. In the present study, respectively, at the positive point of equilibrium E2 with
numerical computations have been accomplished through rising the discretization parameter h. We note that rising
the use of MATLAB-R2020a software. Let p = 0.5 and q = 1 the discretization parameter h along with fixed fractional-
110  Feras Yousef et al.
order parameter α leads to destabilize the two-dimensional
discrete systems and chaotic behavior occurs.
The bifurcation diagrams in Figures 5 and 6 demonstrate
that rising the values of r may destabilize the point of equili-
brium E2 through a Neimark–Sacker bifurcation. The maxi-
mum Lyapunov exponents corresponding to Figures 5(a)
and 6(a) are given in Figure 7. The chaotic attractor for
system (8) and system (22) is presented in Figure 8. The
chaotic behavior exists when lessening the fractional-order
parameter α and rising the discretization parameter h.
5 Discussion and concluding
remarks
In the present work, fractional-order Lotka–Volterra models
for two fractional-order derivatives types are considered.
Discretization process by means of the piecewise-constant
approximation is applied, and discrete versions of these
systems are obtained. The local stability of the points of
equilibrium of these discrete systems is investigated.
Moreover, the necessary and sufficient asymptotically
stable condition for the point of equilibrium E2 of these
discrete systems is obtained. Numerical simulations are
presented to bolster the analytical results. To further
confirm the chaos, we plot the time series of the systems
(8) and (22), see Figure 9. It is clear that when the bifur-
cation parameter r is increasing, it leads to chaotic
behavior in the systems. The findings of the current
work can be summarized in the following points.
• It can be seen that when lessening the fractional-order
parameter α and fixing the discretization parameter h
(or rising the discretization parameter h and fixing the
fractional-order parameter α ), the discrete Caputo-con-
formable model is destabilized and chaotic behavior
occurs (Figure 8). Thus, the discretized system is stabi-
lized only for relatively large fractional order α (α tends
to one) and for relatively small discretization parameter
h (h tends to zero).
• It can be deduced that when the Caputo-derivative acts
on the fractional-order Lotka–Volterra model, the dis-
crete Caputo-system exhibits richer dynamic behaviors
than the discrete conformable-model.
• It can be observed that the discrete conformable-system
forfeits its stability faster than the discrete Caputo-model
(Figures 1–6).
• By using bifurcation theory, we showed that the discre-
tized Caputo-system undergoes transcritical, flip, and
Neimark–Sacker bifurcation at the positive point of
equilibrium E2 . While, the discrete conformable-system
undergoes only a Neimark–Sacker bifurcation.
On conclusion, these fractional derivatives act to
some extent the same function in importing some of the
inherited properties of the time fractional to the time-
integer Lotka–Volterra prey–predator models.
Funding information: The authors state no funding
involved.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted respon-
sibility for the entire content of this manuscript and
approved its submission.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no
known conflict of interest that could appear to influence
the work presented in this article.
References
[1] Xu C, Yu Y. Stability analysis of time delayed fractional order
predator-prey system with Crowley-Martin functional
response. J App Anal Comp. 2019;9(3):928–42.
[2] Liu R, Liu G. Dynamics of a stochastic three species
prey–predator model with intraguild predation.
J App Anal Comp. 2020;10(1):81–103.
[3] Lotka AJ. Elements of physical biology. Baltimore: Williams
and Wilkins; 1925.
[4] Volterra V. Fluctuations in the abundance of a species
considered mathematically. Nature. 1926;118:558–60.
[5] De Boer RJ. Modeling Population Dynamics: a Graphical
Approach. Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University; 2006.
[6] Leeuwen EV, Jansen VAA, Bright PW. How population dynamics
shape the functional response in a one-predator-two-prey
system. Ecology. 2007;88(6):1571–81.
[7] Elsadany AA, Matouk AE. Dynamical behaviors of fractional-
order Lotka–Volterra predator-prey model and its discretiza-
tion. J App Math Comp. 2015;49(1):269–83.
[8] Yousef F, Alquran M, Jaradat I, Momani S, Baleanu D. Ternary-
fractional differential transform schema: theory and applica-
tion. Adv Differ Equ. 2019;2019:197.
[9] Yousef F, Alquran M, Jaradat I, Momani S, Baleanu D. New
fractional analytical study of three-dimensional evolution
equation equipped with three memory indices. J Comput
Nonlinear Dynam. 2019;14(11):111008.
[10] Du M, Wang Z, Hu H. Measuring memory with the order of
fractional derivative. Sci Rep. 2013;3(1):1–3.
[11] Alquran M, Yousef F, Alquran F, Sulaiman TA, Yusuf A. Dual-
wave solutions for the quadratic-cubic conformable-Caputo
time-fractional Klein-Fock-Gordon equation. Math Comp Simu.
2021;185:62–76.
[12] Yavuz M, Sene N. Stability analysis and numerical computa-
tion of the fractional predator-prey model with the harvesting
rate. Frac Fract. 2020;4(3):35.
 Discretized Caputo-conformable fractional-order Lotka–Volterra models
[13] Naik PA, Eskandari Z, Shahraki HE. Flip and generalized flip
bifurcations of a two-dimensional discrete-time chemical
model. Math Model Numer Simu Appl. 2021;1(2):95–101.
[14] Naik PA, Yavuz M, Qureshi S, Zu J, Townley S. Modeling and
analysis of COVID-19 epidemics with treatment in fractional
derivatives using real data from Pakistan. Eur Phys J Plus.
2020;135(10):1–42.
[15] Yavuz M, Coşar FÖ, Günay F, Özdemir FN. A new mathematical
modeling of the COVID-19 pandemic including the vaccination
campaign. Open J Model Simu. 2021;9(3):299–321.
[16] Allegretti S, Bulai IM, Marino R, Menandro MA, Parisi K.
Vaccination effect conjoint to fraction of avoided contacts for a
Sars-Cov-2 mathematical model. Math Model Numer Simu
Appl. 2021;1(2):56–66.
[17] Özköse F, Yavuz M. Investigation of interactions between
COVID-19 and diabetes with hereditary traits using real data:
a case study in Turkey. Comp Bio Med. 2022;141:105044.
[18] Joshi H, Jha BK. Chaos of calcium diffusion in Parkinsonas
infectious disease model and treatment mechanism via Hilfer
fractional derivative. Math Model Numer Simu Appl.
2021;1(2):84–94.
[19] Özköse F, Senel MT, Habbireeh R. Fractional-order mathema-
tical modelling of cancer cells-cancer stem cells-immune
system interaction with chemotherapy. Math Model Numer
Simu Appl. 2021;1(2):67–83.
[20] Naik PA, Owolabi KM, Yavuz M, Zu J. Chaotic dynamics of a
fractional order HIV-1 model involving AIDS-related cancer
cells. Chaos Solit Fract. 2020;140:110272.
[21] Yavuz M, Özdemir N. Analysis of an epidemic spreading model
with exponential decay law. Math Scie Appl E-Notes.
2020;8(1):142–54.
[22] Gurcan F, Kaya G, Kartal S. Conformable fractional order lotka-
volterra predator-prey model: discretization, stability and
bifurcation. J Comput Nonlinear Dynam. 2019;14(11):111007.
[23] Wang Z, Xie Y, Lu J, Li Y. Stability and bifurcation of a delayed
generalized fractional-order prey–predator model with inter-
specific competition. App Math Comp. 2019;347:360–9.
[24] Ahmed E, Elgazzar AS. On fractional order differential
equations model for nonlocal epidemics. Phys A.
2007;379:607–14.
[25] Ahmed E, El-Sayed AMA, El-Saka HAA. Equilibrium points,
stability and numerical solutions of fractional-order preda-
tor-prey and rabies models. J Math Anal Appl.
2007;325:542–53.
[26] Jaradat I, Alquran M, Sulaiman TA, Yusuf A. Analytic simulation
of the synergy of spatial-temporal memory indices with pro-
portional time delay. Chaos Solit Fract. 2022;156:111818.
 111
[27] Alquran M, Alsukhour M, Ali M, Jaradat I. Combination of
Laplace transform and residual power series techniques to
solve autonomous n-dimensional fractional nonlinear sys-
tems. Nonlinear Eng. 2021;10(1):282–92.
[28] Hammouch Z, Yavuz M, Özdemir N. Numerical solutions and
synchronization of a variable-order fractional chaotic system.
Math Model Numer Simu Appl. 2021;1(1):11–23.
[29] Kumar P, Erturk VS. Dynamics of cholera disease by using two
recent fractional numerical methods. Math Model Numer Simu
Appl. 2021;1(2):102–11.
[30] Maayah B, Yousef F, Arqub OA, Momani S, Alsaedi A.
Computing bifurcations behavior of mixed type singular time-
fractional partial integrodifferential equations of Dirichlet
functions types in Hilbert space with error analysis. Filomat.
2019;33(12):3845–53.
[31] Jaradat I, Alquran M, Katatbeh Q, Yousef F, Momani S,
Baleanu D. An avant-garde handling of temporal-spatial frac-
tional physical models. Int J Nonlinear SciNumer Simu.
2020;21(2):183–94.
[32] Jaradat I, Alquran M, Yousef F, Momani S, Baleanu D. On (2+1)-
dimensional physical models endowed with decoupled spatial
and temporal memory indices. Eur Phys J Plus.
2019;134(7):360.
[33] Momani S, Arqub OA, Maayah B, Yousef F, Alsaedi A. A reliable
algorithm for solving linear and nonlinear Schrödinger equa-
tions. Appl Comput Math. 2018;17(2):151–60.
[34] Yousef F, Alkam O, Saker I. The dynamics of new motion styles
in the time-dependent four-body problem: weaving periodic
solutions. Eur Phys J Plus. 2020;135(9):742.
[35] Yousef F, Momani S, Abdalmohsen R. Analytic solution of
spatial-temporal fractional Klein-Gordon equation arising in
physical models. Proc Int Conf Frac Differ Appl. 2018:1–4.
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3277393.
[36] Kartal S, Gurcan F. Discretization of conformable fractional
differential equations by a piecewise constant approximation.
Int J Comput Math. 2019;96(9):1849–60.
[37] Kot M. Elements of mathematical ecology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 2001.
[38] Elaydi S. Discrete Chaos: with Applications in Science and
Engineering. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2008.
[39] Khalil R, AlHorani M, Yousef A, Sababheh M. A new definition
of fractional derivative. J Compu Appl Math. 2014;264:65–70.
[40] Abdeljawad T. On conformable fractional calculus. J Comput
Appl Math. 2015;279:57–66.
[41] Teodoro GS, TenreiroMachado JA, De Oliveira EC. A review of
definitions of fractional derivatives and other operators.
J Comput Phys. 2019;338:195–208.