, 55:9 | Cite as

Nonlinear Galerkin methods for a system of PDEs with Turing instabilities

  • Konstantinos Spiliotis
  • Lucia Russo
  • Francesco Giannino
  • Salvatore Cuomo
  • Constantinos Siettos
  • Gerardo Toraldo


We address and discuss the application of nonlinear Galerkin methods for the model reduction and numerical solution of partial differential equations (PDE) with Turing instabilities in comparison with standard (linear) Galerkin methods. The model considered is a system of PDEs modelling the pattern formation in vegetation dynamics. In particular, by constructing the approximate inertial manifold on the basis of the spectral decomposition of the solution, we implement the so-called Euler–Galerkin method and we compare its efficiency and accuracy versus the linear Galerkin methods. We compare the efficiency of the methods by (a) the accuracy of the computed bifurcation points, and, (b) by the computation of the Hausdorff distance between the limit sets obtained by the Galerkin methods and the ones obtained with a reference finite difference scheme. The efficiency with respect to the required CPU time is also accessed. For our illustrations we used three different ODE time integrators, from the Matlab ODE suite. Our results indicate that the performance of the Euler–Galerkin method is superior compared to the linear Galerkin method when either explicit or linearly implicit time integration scheme are adopted. For the particular problem considered, we found that the dimension of approximate inertial manifold is strongly affected by the lenght of the spatial domain. Indeeed, we show that the number of modes required to accurately describe the long time Turing pattern forming solutions increases as the domain increases.


Inertial manifold Reaction–diffusion system Pattern formation Dissipative PDE 

Mathematics Subject Classification

65N30 37L65 35B40 35B36 35B38 35B32 



K.S., F.G., S.C. were supported by the grant “Programma di finanziamento della ricerca di Ateneo 2015” of the University of Naples Federico II, Italy.


  1. 1.
    Adrover, A., Continillo, G., Crescitelli, S., Giona, M., Russo, L.: Wavelet-like collocation method for finite-dimensional reduction of distributed systems. Comput. Chem. Eng. 24(12), 2687–2703 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adrover, A., Continillo, G., Crescitelli, S., Gionaa, M., Russo, L.: Construction of approximate inertial manifold by decimation of collocation equations of distributed parameter systems. Comput. Chem. Eng. 26(1), 113–123 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arrieta, J.M., Santamara, E.: Distance of attractors of reaction–diffusion equations in thin domains. J. Differ. Equ. 263(9), 5459–5506 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bizon, K., Continillo, G., Russo, L., Smua, J.: On POD reduced models of tubular reactor with periodic regimes. Comput. Chem. Eng. 32(6), 1305–1315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cartenì, F., Marasco, A., Bonanomi, G., Mazzoleni, S., Rietkerk, M., Giannino, F.: Negative plant soil feedback and ring formation in clonal plants. J. Theor. Biol. 313, 153–161 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, M., Temam, R.: Nonlinear Galerkin method in the finite difference case and wavelet-like incremental unknowns. Numer. Math. 64, 271–294 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Constantin, P., Foias, C., Nicolaenko, B., Temam, R.: Integral Manifolds and Inertial Manifolds for Dissipative Partial Differential Equations. Springer, Berlin (1989)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crawford, J.D., Knobloch, E.: On degenerate Hopf bifurcation with broken O(2) symmetry. Nonlinearity 1, 617–652 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dettori, L.: Spectral approximations of attractors of a class of semilinear parabolic equations. Galcolo 27, 139–168 (1990)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Devulder, C., Marion, M.: Class of numerical algorithms for large time integration: the nonlinear Galerkin methods. SIAM J. Num. Anal. 29(2), 462–483 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dhooge, A., Govaerts, W., Kuznetsof, Y.A.: MatCont: a matlab package for numerical bifurcation analysis of ODEs. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 29, 141–164 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dubois, T., Jauberteau, F., Marion, M., Temam, R.: Subgrid modelling and the interaction of small and large wavelengths in turbulent flows. Comput. Phys. Commun. 65(1–3), 100–106 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foias, C., Sell, G.R., Temam, R.: Inertial manifolds for nonlinear evolutionary equations. J. Differ. Equ. 73, 309–353 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Foias, C., Jolly, M.S., Kevrekidis, I.G., Sell, G.R., Titi, E.S.: On the computation of inertial manifolds. Phys. Lett. A 131(7), 433–437 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garcia-Archilla, B.: Some practical experience with the time integration of dissipative equations. J. Comput. Phys. 122(1), 25–29 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garcia-Archilla, B., Frutos, J.: Time integration of the non-linear Galerkin method. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 15(2), 221–244 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gilad, E., von Hardenberg, J., Provenzale, A., Shachak, M., Meron, E.: Ecosystem engineers: from pattern formation to habitat creation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 1–4 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goubet, O.: Construction of approximate inertial manifolds using wavelets. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 23, 1455–1481 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Graham, M.D., Kevrekidis, I.G.: Alternative approaches to the Karhunen–Loeve decomposition for model reduction and data analysis. Comput. Chem. Eng. 20, 495–506 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gray, P., Scott, S.K.: Autocatalytic reactions in the isothermal, continuous stirred tank reactor: oscillations and instabilities in the system A + 2B 3B. B C. Chem. Eng. Sci. 39, 1087–1097 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grosso, M., Russo, L., Maffetone, P.L., Crescitelli, S.: Nonlinear Galerkin method for numerical approximation of the dynamics of mesophases under flow. (2000)
  22. 22.
    Haken, H.: Synergetics, an Introduction: Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions and Self-Organization in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. Springer, New York (1983)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    von Hardenberg, J., Meron, E., Shachak, M., Zarm, I.Y.: Diversity of vegetation patterns and desertification. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 198101–4 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heywood, J., Rannacher, R.: On the question of turbulence modeling by approximate inertial manifolds and the nonlinear Galerkin method. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 30(6), 1603–1621 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    HilleRisLambers, R., Rietkerk, M., Bosch, F.V.D., Prins, H.H.T., Kroon, H.D.: Vegetation pattern formation in semi-arid grazing systems. Ecology 82, 50–61 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holmes, P., Lumley, J.L., Berkooz, G.: Turbulence, Coherent Structures, Dynamical Systems and Symmetry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hyman, J.M., Nicolaenko, B.: The Kuramoto–Sivashinsky equation: a bridge between PDEs and dynamical systems. Phys. D 18, 113–126 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jolly, M.S., Kevrekidis, I.G., Titi, E.S.: Approximate inertial manifolds for the Kuramoto–Sivashinski equation: analysis and computations. Phys. D 44, 38–60 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jolly, M.S., Rosa, R., Temam, R.: Accurate computations on inertial manifolds. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 22(6), 2216–2238 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jones, D.A., Margolin, L.G., Titi, E.S.: On the effectiveness of the approximate inertial manifold a computational study. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 7, 243–260 (1995)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kan, X., Duan, J., Kevrekidis, I.G., Roberts, A.J.: Simulating stochastic inertial manifolds by a backward–forward approach. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 12(1), 487–514 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kirby, M.: Minimal dynamical systems from PDEs using sobolev eigenfunctions. Phys. D 57, 466–475 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Klausmeier, C.A.: Regular and irregular patterns in semiarid vegetation. Science 284, 1826–8 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lord, G.J.: Attractors and inertial manifolds for finite-difference approximations of the complex Ginzburg–Landau equation. SIAM J. Num. Anal. 34(4), 1483–1512 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lu, F., Lin, K.K., Chorin, A.J.: Data-based stochastic model reduction for the Kuramoto–Sivashinsky equation. Phys. D 340(1), 46–57 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lunasin, E., Titi, E.S.: Finite determining parameters feedback control for distributed nonlinear dissipative systems a computational study. Evol. Equ. Control Theory 6(4), 535–557 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mach, J., Bene, M., Strachota, P.: Nonlinear Galerkin finite element method applied to the system of reaction diffusion equations in one space dimension. Comput. Math. Appl. 73(9), 2053–2065 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Marasco, A., Iuorio, A., Carten, F., Bonanomi, G., Tartakovsky, D., Mazzoleni, S., Giannino, F.: Vegetation pattern formation due to interactions between water availability and toxicity in plant–soil feedback. Bull. Math. Biol. 76, 2866–2883 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Margolin, L.G., Titi, E.S., Wynne, S.: The postprocessing Galerkin and nonlinear Galerkin methods—A truncation analysis point of view. SIAM J. Num. Anal. 41(2), 695–714 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marion, M., Temam, M.: Nonlinear Galerkin methods. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 26(5), 11391157 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Meinhardt, H.: Models of Biological Pattern Formation. Academic Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Meinhardt, H.: The Algorithmic Beauty of Sea Shells. Springer, Berlin (1995)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mengers, J.D., Powers, J.M.: One-dimensional slow invariant manifolds for fully coupled reaction and micro-scale diffusion. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 12(2), 560–595 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Meron, E., Gilad, E., von Hardenberg, J., Shachak, M., Zarmi, Y.: Vegetation patterns along a rainfall gradient. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 19, 367–376 (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nicolaenko, B., Foias, C., Temam, R.: The connection between infinite dimensional and finite dimensional dynamical systems. In: Proceedings of the AMs-IMS-SIAM Joint Summer Research Conference, Contemporary Mathematics series (1989)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pearson, J.E.: Complex patterns in a simple system. Science 261, 189–192 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rietkerk, M., Boerlijst, M.C., van Langevelde, F., Hillerislambers, R., van de Koppel, J., Kumar, L., Prins, H.H.T., de Roos, A.M.: Self-organization of vegetation in arid ecosystems. Am. Nat. 160, 524530 (2002)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rietkerk, M., Dekker, S.C., de Ruiter, P.C., van de Koppel, J.: Self-organized patchiness and catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Science 305, 1926–1929 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Robinson, J.C.: Finite dimensional behavior in dissipative partial differential equations. Chaos 5, 330–345 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Robinson, J.C.: Infinite-Dimensional Dynamical Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Russo, L., Adrover, A., Continillo, G., Crescitelli, S., Giona, M.: Dynamic behavior of a reaction/diffusion system: wavelet-like collocations and approximate inertial manifolds. Proc. Int. Conf. Control Oscil. Chaos 2, 356–359 (2000)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Scheffer, M.: Critical Transitions in Nature and Society. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2009)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J., Folke, C., Walker, B.: Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413, 591–596 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schmidtmann, O., Fuede, F., Seehafer, N.: Non linear Galegrkin methods for 3D magneto-hydrodynamic equations. Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos 7, 1497–1507 (1997)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sembera, J., Bene, M.: Nonlinear Galerkin method for reaction diffusion systems admitting invariant regions. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 136, 163–176 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shampine, L.F., Reichelt, M.W.: The MATLAB ODE suite. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 18, 1–22 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Shen, J., Temam, R.: Nonlinear Galerkin method using Chebyshev and Legendre polynomials I. The one-dimensional case. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 32, 215–234 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sherratt, J.A., Lord, G.J.: Nonlinear dynamics and pattern bifurcations in a model for vegetation stripes in semi-arid environments. Theor. Popul. Biol. 71, 1–11 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sirovich, L., Knight, B.W., Rodriguez, J.D.: Optimal low-dimensional dynamical approximations. Quart. Appl. Math. XLVIII, 535–548 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Temam, R.: Infinite-Dimensional Dynamical Systems in Mechanics and Physics, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (1997)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Temam, R.: Inertial manifolds and multigrid methods. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 21, 154–178 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Turing, A.M.: The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 237(641), 37–72 (1952)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konstantinos Spiliotis
    • 1
  • Lucia Russo
    • 2
  • Francesco Giannino
    • 1
  • Salvatore Cuomo
    • 3
  • Constantinos Siettos
    • 4
  • Gerardo Toraldo
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratory of Applied Ecology and System Dynamics, Department of Agricultural SciencesUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Istituto di Ricerche sulla CombustioneConsiglio Nazionale delle RicercheNaplesItaly
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics and Applications “Renato Caccioppoli”University of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  4. 4.School of Applied Mathematics and Physical SciencesNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations