\documentclass[reqno]{amsart}
\usepackage{hyperref}

\AtBeginDocument{{\noindent\small
\emph{Electronic Journal of Differential Equations},
Vol. 2015 (2015), No. 144, pp. 1--27.\newline
ISSN: 1072-6691. URL: http://ejde.math.txstate.edu or http://ejde.math.unt.edu
\newline ftp ejde.math.txstate.edu}
\thanks{\copyright 2015 Texas State University - San Marcos.}
\vspace{9mm}}

\begin{document}
\title[\hfilneg EJDE-2015/144\hfil
Traveling wavefronts for a  dispersal equation]
{Existence, uniqueness and stability of
traveling wavefronts for nonlocal dispersal equations with
convolution type bistable nonlinearity}

\author[G.-B. Zhang, R. Ma \hfil EJDE-2015/144\hfilneg]
{Guo-Bao Zhang, Ruyun Ma}

\address{Guo-Bao Zhang (corresponding author) \newline
College of Mathematics and Statistics, Northwest Normal University,
Lanzhou, Gansu 730070,  China}
\email{zhanggb2011@nwnu.edu.cn}

\address{Ruyun Ma \newline
College of Mathematics and Statistics,
Northwest Normal University,
Lanzhou, Gansu 730070, China}
\email{mary@nwnu.edu.cn}

\thanks{Submitted August 8, 2014. Published June 6, 2015.}
\subjclass[2010]{35K57, 35R20, 92D25}
\keywords{Nonlocal dispersal; traveling wavefronts; bistable nonlinearity;
\hfill\break\indent continuation method; squeezing technique}

\begin{abstract}
 This article concerns the bistable traveling wavefronts of a
 nonlocal dispersal equation with convolution type bistable
 nonlinearity. Applying a homotopy method, we establish the existence
 of traveling wavefronts. If the wave speed does not vanish, i.e.
 $c\neq 0$, then the uniqueness (up to translation) and the globally
 asymptotical stability of traveling wavefronts are proved by the
 comparison principle and squeezing technique.
\end{abstract}

\maketitle
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\allowdisplaybreaks

\section{Introduction}

In this article, we consider the traveling wave solutions of the
 delayed nonlocal dispersal equation
\begin{equation}\label{101}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial
t}=J*u-u-du+\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b(u(x-y,t-\tau))dy,
\end{equation}
in which $x\in\mathbb{R}$, $t>0$. Equation \eqref{101} represents
the dynamical population model of a single-species with
age-structure in ecology \cite{HMW,YY,Zhang2}. Here $u(x,t)$ is the
density of population at location $x$ and at time $t$, $d>0$ is the
death rate, and $b(\cdot)$ is the birth function. The parameter
$\tau>0$ is the maturation time, we call it the time-delay. $J*u-u$
is a nonlocal dispersal operator, which can be interpreted as the
net rate of increase due to dispersal, where, $J(x)$ is a
non-negative, unit and symmetric kernel, and $J*u$ is a spatial
convolution defined by
\[
(J*u)(x,t)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}J(x-y)u(y,t)dy.
\]
 As stated in
\cite{CCR,Fife,LSW}, if $J(x-y)$ is considered to be the probability
distribution of jumping from location $y$ to location $x$, then $(J
*u)(x,t)=\int_\mathbb{R}J(x-y)u(y, t)dy$ is the
rate at which individuals are arriving to location $x$ from all
other places, while, the term
$-u(x,t)=-\int_\mathbb{R}J(x-y)u(x,t)dy$ is the rate at which they
are leaving location $x$ to travel to all other places.

Throughout this article, we assume that the kernel functions $J\in
C^1(\mathbb{R})$ and $K\in C^2(\mathbb{R})$, and the birth function
$b\in C^1(\mathbb{R}^+,\mathbb{R}^+)$ satisfy:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(H1)] $J(x)=J(-x)\ge 0$, $K(x)=K(-x)\ge0$ for
$x\in\mathbb{R}$.

\item[(H2)] $\int_{\mathbb{R}}J(x)dx=1$, $\int_{\mathbb{R}}K(x)dx=1$.

\item[(H3)] $\int_{\mathbb{R}}\{|x|J(x)+|J'(x)|\}dx<+\infty$,
$\int_{\mathbb{R}}\{|x|K(x)+|K'(x)|+|K''(x)|\}dx<+\infty$.

\item[(H4)]$b(0)=d\alpha-b(\alpha)=d-b(1)=0$ for
some $0<\alpha<1$.

\item[(H5)]$b'(u)> 0$ for $u\in (0,1)$, $d>\max\{b'(0),b'(1)\}$.

\item[(H6)]$b'(\alpha)>d$.
 \end{itemize}

A specific function $b(u)=pu^2e^{-\beta u}$  with $p>0$ and
$\beta>0$, which has been widely used in the mathematical biology
literature, satisfies the above conditions for a wide range of
parameters $p$ and $\beta$. From {\rm (H4)--(H6)}, we can see that
$0$, $\alpha$ and $1$ are constant equilibria of \eqref{101}, and
the equilibria $0$ and $1$ are stable and $\alpha$ is unstable for
the spatially homogeneous equation associated with \eqref{101}. We
are interested in bistable waves of nonlocal dispersal equation
\eqref{101}, i.e., traveling wave solutions connecting the two
stable equilibria $0$ and $1$. A \emph{traveling wave solution} of
\eqref{101} always refers to a pair $(U, c)$, where $U = U(\xi)$ is
a function on $\mathbb{R}$ and $c$ is a constant, such that $u(x, t)
:= U(\xi)$, $\xi=x+ct$ is a solution of \eqref{101} and satisfies
the following asymptotic boundary conditions
\[
U(-\infty)=e_1, \quad U(+\infty)=e_2,
\]
where $e_1$ and $e_2$ are two equilibria of \eqref{101}. Since we
are interested in traveling waves connecting $0$ and $1$, in this
paper, $e_1=0$ and $e_2=1$. We call $c$ the traveling wave speed and
$U$ the profile of the wave solution. If $c = 0$, we say $U$ is a
standing wave. Moreover, If $U(\xi)$ is monotone in
$\xi\in\mathbb{R}$, then it is called a traveling wavefront.

For some special cases of the equation \eqref{101}, many well-known
results have been obtained. Some of them can be summarized as
follows:

(i) If $K(x)=\delta(x)$, $\tau=0$ and $-du+b(u)=:f(u)$, then
\eqref{101} reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{102}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=J*u-u+f(u).
\end{equation}
Equation \eqref{102} has been extensively studied recently due to
its wide applications in material science \cite{Bates}, population
dynamics \cite{CCR,CD,CDM}, epidemiology \cite{MK} and neural
network \cite{ZhL}. Many excellent results about traveling wave
solutions of \eqref{102} are obtained, see Bates et al.
\cite{Bates}, Chen \cite{Chen} and Yajisita \cite{Y} for the
bistable equations; Coville et al. \cite{CD,CDM}, Carr and Chmaj
\cite{Carr}, Pan et al. \cite{PLL1,PLL2} for monostable equations;
Zhang et al. \cite{Zhang1,ZLW} for degenerate monostable equations
and references cited therein.

(ii) If $K(x)=\delta(x)$, then \eqref{101} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{103}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=J*u-u-du+b(u(x,t-\tau)).
\end{equation}
Pan et al. \cite{PLL2} considered the equation \eqref{103} with
monostable nonlinearity. They established the existence and
asymptotic behavior of traveling wavefronts by constructing proper
upper and lower solutions, and proved the asymptotic stability and
uniqueness of traveling wavefronts by applying the idea of squeezing
technique. In particular, when $b(u)=\alpha e^{-\gamma \tau}
u(x,t-\tau)$ and $du$ is replaced by $\beta u^2$, Li and Lin
\cite{LL} gave the existence of traveling wavefronts in view of a
pair of admissible upper-lower solutions. Recently, Zhang and Li
\cite{ZL} further proved that the traveling wavefronts with large
speed are globally exponentially stable by using the weighted energy
method together with the comparison principle.

Note that the birth rate function $b(\cdot)$ in \eqref{103} is
considered to be local. In ecological context, there is no real
justification for assuming that the birth of individuals of the
population is a local behavior (see
\cite{FG,Ma,Mei,MLLS1,Wang,Zou}). The species' activities always
involve the whole space and they move and marry in all region but
not isolated in one spot. For that reason, many people begin to
generalize the equation \eqref{103} by incorporating nonlocal
effects in birth rate function. Inspired by the nonlocal
reaction-diffusion model \cite{SWZ,LW}, by introducing the nonlocal
dispersal into an age-structured population model
\[
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial u}{\partial
a}=D(a)\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}-d(a)u,
\]
 and integrating
along characteristics, Zhang \cite{Zhang2} and Yu and Yuan \cite{YY}
independently derived the model \eqref{101}, which has a nonlocal
nonlinearity term. Although the nonlocal dispersal operator $J*u-u$
lacks compactness and regularity, it maintains a maximum principle,
which consequently enables a comparison principle, see \cite{Fife}.
 Zhang \cite{Zhang2} combined
Schauder's fixed point theorem with upper-lower solutions to
investigate the existence of traveling wave solutions when the
nonlinearity function is monostable and crossing-monostable. Very
recently, Zhang and Ma \cite{Zhang3} further proved that the minimal
wave speed of traveling waves is also the spreading speed for the
solutions of \eqref{101} with initial functions having compact
supports. In \cite{HMW}, Huang et al. proved that the planar
traveling waves of \eqref{101} with monostable nonlinearity are
globally asymptotically stable. We should point out that the above
authors only considered \eqref{101} with monostable nonlinearity.
When the nonlinearity is of bistable type, the existence, uniqueness
and stability of traveling wavefronts of \eqref{101} remain an open
problem.  As we know, such a problem is also very significant, see
\cite{MW} for the corresponding local diffusion case. Hence, the aim
of this paper is to solve this problem.

In view of the existence of traveling wavefronts for both the
nonlocal monostable equation \eqref{101} and the bistable non-local
delayed diffusion equation \cite{MW},
it is then expected
that the nonlocal bistable equation \eqref{101} supports the
existence of traveling wavefronts. Typically for bistable dynamics,
the existence of a traveling wave solution is proven by a homotopy
method or vanishing viscosity techniques \cite{Bates,Co,Co1,MZ}, or
a recursive method for abstract monotone dynamical systems \cite{Y},
or by taking the asymptotical limit, as $t\to +\infty$, of a
solution to \eqref{101} with an appropriate initial data
\cite{Chen}. In this paper, we shall take the first method to prove
the existence of traveling wavefronts of \eqref{101}. Although our
method is based on the work of \cite{Bates,Co,MZ}, the technical
details are quite different, due to the combination of nonlocal
dispersal and nonlocal nonlinearity. In order to study the
uniqueness and asymptotic stability of traveling wavefronts with
nonzero speed, we shall construct various pairs of super- and
subsolutions and utilize the comparison principle and the squeezing
technique, which is introduced in \cite{Chen,FM}, and applied in
many other papers \cite{MD,MW,SZ,WLR}.

Now, we state the main result as follows.

\begin{theorem}[Existence]\label{lemma208}
Assume that {\rm (H1)--(H6)} hold. Then there exists a non-decreasing
traveling wavefront $(U,c)$ to \eqref{101} connecting two equilibria
$0$ and $1$.
\end{theorem}


\begin{theorem}[Uniqueness]\label{th403}
Assume that {\rm (H1)--(H6)} hold. Let $(U,c)$ be a traveling
wavefront with $c\not=0$ as given in Theorem \ref{lemma208}. Then
the traveling wavefronts of \eqref{101} are unique up to a
translation in the sense that for any traveling wavefront $\tilde
U(x+\tilde c t)$ with $0\le \tilde U(\xi)\le 1$, $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$,
we have $\tilde c=c$ and $\tilde U(\cdot)=U(\cdot+\xi_0)$ for some
$\xi_0\in\mathbb{R}$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem}[Stability]\label{th505}
Assume that {\rm (H1)--(H6)} hold. Let $(U,c)$ be a traveling
wavefront with $c\not=0$ as given in Theorem \ref{lemma208}. Then
$U(x+ct)$ is globally asymptotically stable with phase shift in the
sense that there exists $k>0$ such that for any $\varphi\in[0,1]_C$
with
\[
\limsup_{x\to -\infty}\max_{s\in[-\tau,0]}\varphi(x,s)<\alpha<\liminf_{x\to
+\infty}\min_{s\in[-\tau,0]}\varphi(x,s),
\]
the solution $u(x,t;\varphi)$ of \eqref{101} with initial data
$\varphi$ satisfies
\[
|u(x,t;\varphi)-U(x+ct+\xi_0)|\le Me^{-kt},\quad x\in\mathbb{R},
t\ge 0,
\]
for some $M=M(\varphi)>0$ and $\xi_0=\xi_0(\varphi)\in\mathbb{R}$.
\end{theorem}

We remark that by the continuity of $b$ and the assumption
{\rm (H5)}, we can obtain that $du>b(u)$ for $u\in(0,\alpha)$ and
$du<b(u)$ for $u\in(\alpha,1)$. Moreover, we can make an extension
by choosing a positive constant $\delta_0>0$ such that $du<b(u)<0$
for $u\in[-\delta_0,0]$ and $du>b(u)>0$ for $u\in (1,1+\delta_0]$.
We can also assume that $b'(u)\ge 0$ for $u\in[-\delta_0,
1+\delta_0]$. By the first part of {\rm (H5)}, this can be achieved
by modifying (if necessary) the definition of $b$ outside the closed
interval $[0,1]$ to a new $C^1$-smooth function and applying our
results to the new function $b$.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we
establish the existence of traveling wavefronts of \eqref{101}. In
Section 3, we give some results on the corresponding initial value
problem of \eqref{101}. In Sections 4 and 5, the uniqueness (up to
translation) and stability of traveling wavefronts are proved by
applying the elementary super- and subsolution comparison method and
squeezing technique.

\section{Existence of traveling wavefronts}

Substituting $U(x+ct)$ into \eqref{101} and denoting $x+ct$ as
$\xi$, we obtain the following wave profile equation
\begin{equation}\label{201}
cU'=J*U-U-dU+\int_\mathbb{R} K(y)b(U(\xi-y-c\tau))dy
\end{equation}
with the boundary conditions
\begin{equation}\label{201a}
U(-\infty)=0, \quad U(+\infty)=1.
\end{equation}

 In this section,
we shall use a homotopy method, i.e., continuation method to prove
the existence of traveling wavefronts of \eqref{101}. The main ideas
of this method can be described in the following three steps:
\smallskip

\noindent\textbf{Step 1.} We embed \eqref{201} into a family of equations
continuously parameterized by $\theta\in[0,1]$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{202}
\theta(J*U-U)+(1-\theta) U''-cU'-dU+\int_\mathbb{R}
K(y)b(U(\xi-y-c\tau))dy=0.
\end{equation}
When $\theta=0$, the equation \eqref{202} is already known to admit
a unique (up to translation) traveling wavefronts (see \cite{MW}),
and when $\theta=1$, the equation \eqref{202} becomes \eqref{201}.
\smallskip

\noindent\textbf{Step 2.} Applying a continuation argument given by the
Implicit Function Theorem, we pass in increments from $0$ to $1$ in
$\theta$, obtaining existence for all values in the process.
\smallskip

\noindent\textbf{Step 3.} We extract a converging sequence when $\theta$ goes
to $1$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma201}
For $\theta=0$, \eqref{202} has a unique non-decreasing solution $U$
satisfying $0<U'(\xi)\le \frac{b(1)}{2\sqrt{d}}$ for all
$\xi\in\mathbb{R}$.
\end{lemma}

The proof can be found in \cite[Theorem 4.3, Lemma 2.5]{MW} and so
is omitted.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma202}
 Let
$\theta\in(0,1)$ and $U$ satisfy \eqref{202} and \eqref{201a}. Then
$U(\xi)\in (0,1)$ for all $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Firstly, it is clear that any $L^\infty$ solution of \eqref{202} is
of class $C^3$ . If $U$ reaches its global maximum at $\xi_0$ with
$U(\xi_0)\ge 1$, then $U'(\xi_0)=0$, $U''(\xi_0)\le 0$ and
$U(\xi)\le U(\xi_0)$ for all $\xi\in \mathbb{R}$, which together
with $\int_\mathbb{R}J(x)dx=1$ and $\int_\mathbb{R}K(x)dx=1$ imply
that
\begin{gather}
(J*U-U)(\xi_0)\le 0,\label{204a}\\
 \int_\mathbb{R} K(y)b(U(\xi_0-y-c\tau))dy\le
\int_\mathbb{R} K(y)b(U(\xi_0))dy=b(U(\xi_0))\le
dU(\xi_0)\label{204d},
\end{gather}
and by \eqref{202}, one has
\begin{equation}\label{205a}
\theta(J*U-U)(\xi_0)-dU(\xi_0)+\int_\mathbb{R}
K(y)b(U(\xi_0-y-c\tau))dy\ge0.
\end{equation}
Taking into account \eqref{204d}, we further get from \eqref{205a}
that
\begin{equation}\label{206a}
\theta(J*U-U)(\xi_0)\ge 0.
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{204a} and \eqref{206a}, we obtain that
$(J*U-U)(\xi_0)=0$. That is,
\begin{align*}
(J*U-U)(\xi_0)=\int_\mathbb{R}J(y-\xi_0)(U(y)-U(\xi_0))dy=0,
\end{align*}
which implies that $U(y)=U(\xi_0)$ for all $y\in \xi_0+
\operatorname{supp}(J)$. By an iteration of this process, one can show that
$U(y)\equiv U(\xi_0)$ for all $y\in\mathbb{R}$, which contradicts to
the fact that $U$ is not a constant. Hence, we obtain that
$U(\xi)<1$ for all $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$. A similar argument shows that
$U(\xi)> 0$ for all $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}



Now assume that $(U_0,c_0)$ is a solution of \eqref{202} and
\eqref{201a} for some $\theta_0\in [0,1)$ and that $U_0'(\xi)>0$ for
all $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$. We shall apply the Implicit Function Theorem
to obtain a solution for $\theta>\theta_0$.

We take perturbations in the space:
\begin{gather*}
X_0=\left\{\text{uniformly continuous functions on $\mathbb{R}$
which vanish at $\pm\infty$}\right\}.
\end{gather*}


Let $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}(U_0,c_0;\theta_0)$ be the linear
operator defined in $X_0$ by
\begin{align*}
 \mathcal{L}v
&=\theta_0(J*v-v)+(1-\theta_0)v''-c_0v'-dv \\
&\quad +\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau))v(\cdot-y-c_0\tau)dy,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{dom}(\mathcal{L})=X_1\equiv \{v\in X_0:v''\in X_0\} .
\end{align*}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma203}
$\mathcal{L}$ has $0$ as a simple eigenvalue.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
It is easy to see that $\mathcal{L}U'_0=0$, which means that $0$ is
an eigenvalue of $\mathcal{L}$ with eigenfunction $ U'_0$. Thus,
 we need only to prove the simplicity of the eigenvalue $0$.
 Suppose that $\phi$ is another
eigenfunction with eigenvalue 0 and assume also that $\phi$ is
positive at some points. We shall show that $U'_0$ and $\phi$ are
linearly dependent by considering the family of eigenfunctions
\begin{align*}
\phi_\beta=U'_0+\beta\phi,\quad \beta\in\mathbb{R}.
\end{align*}

Let
\begin{align*}
\bar\beta=\sup\{\beta<0: \phi_\beta(\xi)<0 \text{ for some
$\xi\in\mathbb{R}$}\}.
\end{align*}
Then $\bar\beta$ is well defined since $\phi$ is positive at some
points and $U'_0> 0$ on $\mathbb{R}$. For $\beta<\bar\beta$, let
$\xi_\beta$ be a point where $\phi_\beta$ achieves its negative
minimum. Thus, $(J*\phi_\beta-\phi_\beta)(\xi_\beta)\ge 0$ and
$\phi''_\beta(\xi_\beta)\ge 0$ and $\phi'_\beta(\xi_\beta)=0$. In
fact, $(J*\phi_\beta-\phi_\beta)(\xi_\beta)>0$, since otherwise
$\phi_\beta$ becomes a constant. It then follows that
\begin{align*}
&\theta_0(J*\phi_\beta-\phi_\beta)(\xi_\beta)
+(1-\theta_0)\phi''_\beta(\xi_\beta)-d\phi_\beta(\xi_\beta)\\
&+ \int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\xi_\beta-y-c_0\tau))\phi_\beta(\xi_\beta-y-c_0\tau)dy=0.
\end{align*}
Hence,
\begin{align*}
0\ge d\phi_\beta(\xi_\beta)&\ge
\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\xi_\beta-y-c_0\tau))\phi_\beta(\xi_\beta-y-c_0\tau)dy\\
&\ge \phi_\beta(\xi_\beta)\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\xi_\beta-y-c_0\tau))dy,
\end{align*}
which implies
\begin{equation}\label{209h}
\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\xi_\beta-y-c_0\tau))dy\ge d.
\end{equation}
It is easy to verify that $\{\xi_\beta\}_{\beta<\bar\beta}$ is
bounded. Indeed, suppose that there exists a sequence $\{\beta_n\}$
with $\beta_n<\bar\beta$ such that
$|\xi_{\beta_n}|\to +\infty$ as $n\to \infty$.
 Then without loss of generality,
we assume that $\xi_{\beta_n}\to +\infty$. By Lebesgue's
dominated convergence theorem, we obtain from \eqref{209h} that
$b'(1)\ge d$, which contradicts to the assumption {\rm (H5)}.

Thus, we choose $\{\beta_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$, a sequence which
converges to $\bar\beta$. Let $\{\xi_{\beta_{n}}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$
be the corresponding sequence of negative minimum. Since
$\{\xi_{\beta_{n}}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is bounded sequence in
$\mathbb{R}$, we can therefore extract a converging sub-sequence
$\{\xi_{\beta_{n_k}}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that
$\xi_{\beta_{n_k}}$ converges to some $\bar\xi$. Observe that
$\phi_{\bar\beta}(\bar\xi)=0\le \phi_{\bar\beta}(\xi)$ for all
$\xi\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\phi'_{\bar\beta}(\bar\xi)=0$. Thus, we
obtain at $\bar\xi$ that
\[
(J*\phi_{\bar\beta}-\phi_{\bar\beta})(\bar\xi)\ge 0, \quad
\phi''_{\bar\beta}(\bar\xi)\ge 0,
\]
and
\begin{align*}
&\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\bar\xi-y-c_0\tau))\phi_{\bar\beta}(\bar\xi-y-c_0\tau)dy
\\
&\ge\phi_{\bar\beta}(\bar\xi)\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\bar\xi-y-c_0\tau))dy=0.
\end{align*}
We also have
\begin{align*}
&\theta_0(J*\phi_{\bar\beta}-\phi_{\bar\beta})(\bar\xi)
+(1-\theta_0)\phi''_{\bar\beta}(\bar\xi)\\
&+\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\bar\xi-y-c_0\tau))
\phi_{\bar\beta}(\bar\xi-y-c_0\tau)dy=0.
\end{align*}
It then follows that
\begin{align*}
(J*\phi_{\bar\beta}-\phi_{\bar\beta})(\bar\xi)= 0.
\end{align*}
By a similar argument as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma202}, we
obtain that $\phi_{\bar\beta}\equiv 0$. Hence, $U'_0$ and $\phi$ are
linearly dependent. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}

The formal adjoint of $\mathcal{L}$ is given by
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L^*}v &=\theta_0(J*v-v)+(1-\theta_0)v''+c_0v'-dv\\
&\quad +\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau))v(\cdot-y-c_0\tau)dy.
\end{align*}

It is easy to show that $0$ is also a simple eigenvalue of
$\mathcal{L^*}$, and $U'_0(-\xi)$ is an eigenfunction corresponding
to $0$. Moreover, $0$ is an isolated eigenvalue, since the same
holds for the operator $\mathcal{M}$:
$$
\mathcal{M}v =v''+c_0v'-dv+
\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau))v(\cdot-y-c_0\tau)dy
$$
and the added term $\theta_0(J*v-v)$ leaves the essential spectrum
unchanged (see \cite{Bates}). By the Fredholm Alternative, for $f\in
X_0$, $\mathcal{L}u = f$ has a solution in $X_1$ if and only if
$\int_\mathbb{R}f \phi^*dx= 0$ where $\phi^*$ is the eigenfunction
associated to the eigenvalue $0$ of $\mathcal{L^*}$.

We now state the continuation result.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma204}
Let $(U_0,c_0)$ be a solution of \eqref{202} and \eqref{201a} such
that $U'_0>0$. Then there exists $\eta> 0$ such that for
$\theta\in[\theta_0, \theta_0 + \eta)$, the problem \eqref{202} and
\eqref{201a} has a solution $(U, c)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We shall use the Implicit Function Theorem. Without loss of
generality, we may assume $U_0(0) = \alpha$. For $(v,c)\in
X_1\times\mathbb{R}$ and $\theta\in\mathbb{R}$, we define
\begin{align*}
G(v,c,\theta)
&=\Bigl(\theta(J*(U_0+v)-(U_0+v))+(1-\theta)(U_0+v)''-(c_0+c)(U_0+v)'\\
&\quad -d(U_0+v)+\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b((U_0+v)(\cdot-y-(c_0+c)\tau))dy,\ \
(U_0+v)(0)\Bigr).
\end{align*}
Clearly, $G:X_1\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}\to
X_0\times \mathbb{R}$ is of class $C^1$. Also, we have $G(0,0,
\theta_0)=(0,U_0)$ and
\begin{align*}
DG:&=\frac{\partial G}{\partial (v,c)}(0,0,\theta_0)\\&=
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathcal{L} &-U'_0-\tau\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau))
U'_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau)dy\\
\delta &0
\end{pmatrix},
\end{align*}
where $\delta v=v(0)$.

If we can show that $DG : X_1\times \mathbb{R}\to X_0 \times\mathbb{R}$
is invertible, then the lemma would follow from the
Implicit Function Theorem. To this end, let
$(g,b)\in X_0\times\mathbb{R}$. We want to show the existence of a unique
$(v,c)\in X_1\times\mathbb{R}$ solving
\[
DG(v,c)=(g,b).
\]
That is,
\begin{gather}
\mathcal{L} v-
cU'_0-c\tau\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau))
U'_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau)dy=g,\label{203}\\
v(0)=b.\label{204}
\end{gather}
As we observed above, \eqref{203} is solvable if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{205}
-c\int_\mathbb{R}\left(U'_0+\tau\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau))
U'_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau)dy\right)\phi^*=\int_\mathbb{R}g\phi^*.
\end{equation}


We shall prove  that the integral on the left of \eqref{205} is not
zero. Suppose for the contrary that this is not true, then there
exists $v_0\in  X_1$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{206}
\mathcal{L}v_0=U'_0+\tau\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau))
U'_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau)dy.
\end{equation}
Multiplying \eqref{206} by $U'_0(-\xi)$ and integrating over
$\mathbb{R}$ yield
\[
0=\int_\mathbb{R}U'_0\mathcal{L}v_0=\int_\mathbb{R}U'_0
\Big\{U'_0+\tau\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau))
U'_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau)dy\Big\}>0,
\]
which leads to a contradiction. Hence, \eqref{205} holds.

Furthermore, \eqref{205} determines
\[
c=-\frac{\int_\mathbb{R}g\phi^*}{\int_\mathbb{R}
\left(U'_0+\tau\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(U_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau))
U'_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau)dy\right)\phi^*}.
\]
 With this value of $c$, the solution of \eqref{203} is determined
up to an additive term $\sigma U'_0$, where $\sigma\in\mathbb{R}$.
That means, any solution of
$\mathcal{L} \tilde v=g+ cU'_0+c\tau\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)
b'(U_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau))U'_0(\cdot-y-c_0\tau)dy$
can be written as $\tilde v=v+\sigma U'_0$, where $v$ is the
solution of \eqref{203}. Now \eqref{204} is satisfied by a unique
choice of $\sigma$ since $U'_0(0)> 0$. Thus, $DG$ is invertible.
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
{\rm We need to point out that the solution $U_\theta$ obtained by
the Implicit Function Theorem also satisfies the boundary condition
\eqref{201a}.}
\end{remark}

To prove  Lemma \ref{lemma204}, we needed
the condition $U'_0>0$. Thus, if we want to apply this lemma we must
to show that for all $\theta\in[\theta_0,\theta_0+\eta]$, any smooth
solution $U_\theta$ of \eqref{202} previously constructed satisfies
$U'_\theta>0$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma205}
Let $\theta\in[\theta_0,\theta_0+\eta)$ and $(U_\theta,c_\theta)$ be
the solution given above. Then $U'_\theta(\xi)>0$ for all
$\xi\in\mathbb{R}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We first prove that $U'_\theta(\xi)\ge 0$ for all
$\xi\in\mathbb{R}$. By contradiction, we assume that there exists
$\theta\in[\theta_0,\theta_0+\eta)$ such that there exists
$\xi\in\mathbb{R}$ with $U'_\theta(\xi)<0$. Let
$$
\bar\theta=\inf\{\theta>\theta_0;\quad
U'_\theta(\xi)<0 \text{ for some $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$}\}.
$$
It is well defined, since $\theta_0\le \bar\theta<\theta_0+\eta$. It also
implies that $U_{\bar\theta}$ exists. From the definition of
$\bar\theta$, there exists a decreasing sequence
$\theta_n\to \bar\theta$ on which $U'_{\theta_n}(\xi)$ has a
negative minimum at some point $\xi_{\theta_n}$. At this minimum,
$U'_{\theta_n}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{212c}
\begin{aligned}
&\theta_n(J*U'_{\theta_n}-U'_{\theta_n})(\xi_{\theta_n})+(1-\theta_n)
U'''_{\theta_n}(\xi_{\theta_n}) \\
+&\int_\mathbb{R}
K(y)b'(U_{\theta_n}(\xi_{\theta_n}-y-c_{\theta_n}\tau))U'_{\theta_n}
(\xi_{\theta_n}-y-c_{\theta_n}\tau)dy=0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

From Lemma \ref{lemma204}, we obtain that $U_{\theta_n}\to
U_{\bar\theta}$ uniformly, and the sequence $\{\xi_{\theta_n}\}$ is
bounded. Hence, we can extract a subsequence which converges to
 $\bar\xi$. It is easy to see that $U'_{\bar\theta}(\bar\xi)=0\le
U'_{\bar\theta}(\xi)$ for all $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$. Hence,
$U''_{\bar\theta}(\bar\xi)=0$ and $U'''_{\bar\theta}(\bar\xi)\ge 0$.
By taking $n\to \infty$ in \eqref{212c}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{212d}
\begin{aligned}
0&=\bar\theta(J*U'_{\bar\theta}-U'_{\bar\theta})(\bar\xi)+(1-\bar\theta)
U'''_{\bar\theta}(\bar\xi) \\
&\quad +\int_\mathbb{R}
K(y)b'(U_{\bar\theta}(\bar\xi-y-c_{\bar\theta}\tau))U'_{\bar\theta}
(\bar\xi-y-c_{\bar\theta}\tau)dy.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Since $U_{\bar\theta}(\xi)\in (0,1)$ for all $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$, we
have $b'(U_{\bar\theta}(\xi))>0$. Hence,
\begin{align*}
\int_\mathbb{R} K(y)b'(U_{\bar\theta}
(\bar\xi-y-c_{\bar\theta}\tau))U'_{\bar\theta}
(\bar\xi-y-c_{\bar\theta}\tau)dy\ge0.
\end{align*}
It then follows from \eqref{212d} that
$(J*U'_{\bar\theta}-U'_{\bar\theta})(\bar\xi)=0$. This implies that
$U'_{\bar\theta}(\xi)\equiv 0$. That means that $U_{\bar\theta}$ is
a constant. This is impossible. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}

To continue the solution branch to $\theta\in[0,1)$, we
need some a priori estimates on the solution $U_\theta$ of
\eqref{202} for $\theta\in[0,1)$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma206}
Suppose that for $\theta\in[0,\bar\theta)$, there exists a solution
$(U_\theta,c_\theta)$ of \eqref{202} and \eqref{201a}. Then
$\{c_\theta: \theta\in [0,\bar\theta)\}$ is bounded.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We show this by contradiction. Suppose that this set is unbounded.
Then there would exist a sequence $\{\theta_n\}$ with $c_n \equiv
c_{\theta_n}\to \pm\infty$ as $n\to \infty$. For the
sake of convenience, we write $U_n\equiv U_{\theta_n}$. Since
$U'_n(\xi)\to 0$ as $|\xi|\to+\infty$, $|U'_n(\xi)|$
achieves its maximum value at some point $\xi_n$ of $\mathbb{R}$. At
$\xi_n$, we have $U''(\xi_n)=0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{214h}
\begin{aligned}
&\|c_nU'_n\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})}
=|c_n U'_n(\xi_n)| \\
&=\big|\theta_n(J*U_n-U_n)(\xi_n)-dU_n(\xi_n)+\int_\mathbb{R}
K(y)b(U_n(\xi_n-y-c_n\tau))dy\big| \\
&\le 2+d+b(1).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It then follows that
\begin{align*}
\|U'_n\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})}\to 0 \quad \text{as $n\to
\infty$}.
\end{align*}

We now assert that for any $\epsilon> 0$ and any closed interval $I
\subset(0,1)$ of positive length there exists $\xi_n$ such that
$U_n(\xi_n)\in I$ and $|U''_ n (\xi_n)| <\epsilon$. If this were not
the case, there would exist such an interval $I_0$ and a number
$\epsilon_0> 0$ such that $|U''_ n|\ge\epsilon_0$ on the interval
$[a_n,b_n]$, where $U_n([a_n,b_n]) = I_0$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{211a}
2\|U'_n\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})}\ge
|U'_n(b_n)-U'_n(a_n)|=|U''_n(b_n-a_n)|\ge \epsilon(b_n-a_n),
\end{equation}
and by the Mean Value Theorem, the length of $I_0$ is
\begin{equation}\label{212a}
|I_0|=U_n(\bar b_n)-U_n(\bar
a_n)\le\|U'_n\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})}(\bar b_n-\bar
a_n)\le\|U'_n\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})}( b_n- a_n),
\end{equation}
where $\bar a_n, \bar b_n\in [a_n,b_n]$ with
$$
U_n(\bar a_n)=\min_{\xi\in [a_n,b_n]}U_n(\xi) \quad\text{and}\quad
U_n(\bar b_n)=\max_{\xi\in [a_n,b_n]}U_n(\xi).
$$
Combining \eqref{211a} and \eqref{212a}, we obtain that
$2\|U'_n\|^2_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})}\ge \epsilon_0|I_0|$,
 which contradicts to the fact that $\|U'_n\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})}\to 0$
as $n\to \infty$. Thus, the assertion is established.

Now take $r> 0$ small and let $I$ be such that
\[
du-b(u)\le -r\quad \text{for all $u\in I$}
\]
in the case that $c_n\to -\infty$, and such that
\[
du-b(u)\ge r\quad \text{for all $u\in I$}
\]
in the case that $c_n\to +\infty$. Take $\epsilon=r/2$ and
$\{\xi_n\}$ to be the sequence given by the assertion above. Without
loss of generality, we assume that $c_n\to +\infty$, then
\eqref{202} with $\theta=\theta_n$, $c=c_n$ and $U=U_n$ evaluated at
$\xi_n$ gives
\begin{align*}
-r &\geq -c_nU'_n-dU_n(\xi_n)+b(U_n(\xi_n))\\
&\geq  -c_nU'_n-dU_n(\xi_n)+b(U_n(\xi_n-c_n\tau))\\
&\geq -(J*U_n-U_n)(\xi_n)-(1-\theta_n)U''_n(\xi_n)\\
&\quad -\int_\mathbb{R}[b(U_n(\xi_n-y-c_n\tau))-
b(U_n(\xi_n-c_n\tau))]K(y)dy\\
&\geq -|(J*U_n-U_n)(\xi_n)|-|U''_n(\xi_n)|
-b'_{\rm max}\|U'_n\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})}\int_\mathbb{R}|y|K(y)dy\\
&\geq -\|U'_n\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})}\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy-\epsilon-
b'_{\rm max}\|U'_n\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})}\int_\mathbb{R}|y|K(y)dy.
\end{align*}
Since  $\|U'_n\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})}\to 0$ as
$n\to \infty$ and $\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy<+\infty$, and
$\int_\mathbb{R}|y|K(y)dy<+\infty$, taking $n\to \infty$, we
have $r \le \epsilon=r/2$, a contradiction. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma207}
Suppose that for $\theta\in[0,\bar\theta)$, there exists a solution
$(U_\theta,c_\theta)$ of \eqref{202} and \eqref{201a}. Then
$\{U_\theta: \theta\in [0,\bar\theta)\}$ is bounded in
$C^3(\mathbb{R})$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
It follows from \eqref{202} that $v_\theta\equiv U'_\theta$
satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{op}
\begin{aligned}
&\theta(J*v_\theta-v_\theta)+(1-\theta) v''_\theta-c_\theta
v'_\theta-dv_\theta \\
&+\int_\mathbb{R} K(y)b'(U_\theta(\xi-y-c\tau))v_\theta(\xi-y-c\tau)dy=0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Notice that
\begin{align*}
&\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)
b'(U_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau))U'_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau)dy \\
&= -b(U_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau))K(y)|^{+\infty}_{-\infty}
+\int_\mathbb{R}b(U_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau))K'(y)dy  \\
&= \int_\mathbb{R}b(U_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau))K'(y)dy.
\end{align*}
Then  equation \eqref{op} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{pp}
\begin{aligned}
&\theta(J*v_\theta-v_\theta)+(1-\theta) v''_\theta-c_\theta
v'_\theta-dv_\theta \\
&+\int_\mathbb{R}b(U_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau))K'(y)dy=0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Since $U'_\theta(\xi)\to 0$ as $|\xi|\to \infty$,
 $v_\theta\equiv U'_\theta$ achieves its positive maximum at some point
$\xi_\theta\in\mathbb{R}$, which implies that
$v'_\theta(\xi_\theta)=0$ and $v''_\theta(\xi_\theta)<0$. Thus, we
obtain from \eqref{pp} that
\[
0<dv_\theta(\xi_\theta)\le
\int_\mathbb{R}b(U_\theta(\xi_\theta-y-c_\theta\tau))K'(y)dy\le
b(1)\int_\mathbb{R}|K'(y)|dy.
\]
Hence,
\begin{align*}
\|v_\theta\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})} =v_\theta(\xi_\theta)\le
\frac{b(1)}{d}\int_\mathbb{R}|K'(y)|dy.
\end{align*}


Differentiating \eqref{pp},  one has
\begin{equation}\label{pq}
\begin{aligned}
&\theta(J*v_\theta'-v_\theta')+(1-\theta)v'''_\theta-c_\theta
v''_\theta-dv_\theta'  \\
&+\int_\mathbb{R}K'(y)
b'(U_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau))U'_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau)dy=0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Since
\begin{align*}
&\int_\mathbb{R}K'(y)
b'(U_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau))U'_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau)dy \\
&= -b(U_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau))K'(y)|^{+\infty}_{-\infty}
+\int_\mathbb{R}b(U_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau))K''(y)dy  \\
&= \int_\mathbb{R}b(U_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau))K''(y)dy,
\end{align*}
equation \eqref{pq} reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{pq1}
\begin{aligned}
&\theta(J*v_\theta'-v_\theta')+(1-\theta)v'''_\theta-c_\theta
v''_\theta-dv_\theta'  \\
&+\int_\mathbb{R} b(U_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau))K''(y)dy=0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

It is easy to see that $v'_\theta(\xi)\to 0$ as
$|\xi|\to \infty$. Thus,
 $|v'_\theta|$ achieves its maximum at some point
$\chi_\theta\in\mathbb{R}$. Without loss of generality, we assume
$v'_\theta(\chi)\ge 0$. Then $v''_\theta(\chi_\theta)=0$ and
$v'''_\theta(\chi_\theta)\le0$. Thus, we have from \eqref{pq1} that
\[
dv'_\theta(\chi_\theta)\le
\int_\mathbb{R}b(U_\theta(\xi_\theta-y-c_\theta\tau))K''(y)dy\le
b(1)\int_\mathbb{R}|K''(y)|dy,
\]
which shows that
\[
\|v'_\theta\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})} =v'_\theta(\chi_\theta)\le
\frac{b(1)}{d}\int_\mathbb{R}|K''(y)|dy.
\]
Furthermore, differentiating \eqref{pq1}, we get
\begin{align*}
&\theta(J*v_\theta''-v_\theta'')+(1-\theta)v^{(4)}_\theta-c_\theta
v'''_\theta-dv_\theta''  \\
&+\int_\mathbb{R}
b'(U_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau))v_\theta(\xi-y-c_\theta\tau)K''(y)dy=0.
\end{align*}
By a similar argument, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|v''_\theta\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})} \le
\frac{1}{d}b'_{\rm max}\|v_\theta\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})}
\int_\mathbb{R}|K''(y)|dy.
\end{align*}
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}



\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{lemma208}]
Since for $\theta= 0$ there exists a positive increasing solution
$U_0$, we may apply Lemma 2.4 to get the existence of a solution
$U_\theta$ of \eqref{202} and \eqref{201a} for each
$\theta\in(0,\upsilon)$ for some $\upsilon>0$. By Lemma
\ref{lemma205}, we further obtain that $U'_\theta(\xi)>0$ for
$\xi\in\mathbb{R}$. Define
\[
\bar\theta=\sup\{\theta>0:\text{ there exists a positive increasing
solution $U_\theta$ of \eqref{202}}\}.
\]
Clearly, $\bar\theta\ge \upsilon$. We shall show that
$\bar\theta\ge 1$. We argue by contradiction, assume that $\bar\theta< 1$. Choose a
sequence $(\theta_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that
$\theta_n\to \bar\theta$, and for each $n$, \eqref{202} has
a positive increasing solution denoted by $(U_n, c_n)$. Recall that
$(U_n, c_n)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{ka}
\begin{gathered}
\begin{aligned}
&\theta_n(J*U_n-U_n)+(1-\theta_n) U''_n-c_nU'_n-dU_n\\
&+\int_\mathbb{R} K(y)b(U_n(\xi-y-c_n\tau))dy=0,
\end{aligned}\\
U_n(-\infty)=0,\quad  U_n(+\infty)=1.
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
Without loss of generality we may also normalize $U_n$ by
$U_n(0) = \alpha$. By Lemmas \ref{lemma206} and \ref{lemma207},
there exists a positive constant $C$ independent of $n$
such that for each $n$ we
have $\|U_n\|_{C^3(\mathbb{R})}\le C$ and $|c_n|\le C$. Since
$\{c_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is bounded, we can extract a converging
subsequence $\{c_{n_j}\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$, such that $c_{n_j}$
converges to some real number $\bar c$. Let $\{U_{n_j}\}$ be the
corresponding wave profile of wave speed $c_{n_j}$. Note that
$\{U_{n_j}\}$ consists of positive uniformly bounded increasing
functions. By Helly's theorem and $C^3$ estimates, it then follows
that there exists a subsequence, still denoted by $\{U_{n_j}\}$,
which converges pointwise and $C^2_{loc}$ to a positive smooth
function $\bar U$ as $j\to +\infty$. Hence, $(U_{n_j},
c_{n_j})\to(\bar U, \bar c)$ as $j\to +\infty$.
Therefore, by letting $j\to+\infty$ in \eqref{ka} with
$n=n_j$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{ks}
\bar\theta(J*\bar U-\bar U)+(1-\bar \theta) \bar U''-\bar c\bar U'-d\bar U
+\int_\mathbb{R} K(y)b(\bar U(\xi-y-\bar c\tau))dy=0.
\end{equation}
Clearly, this solution satisfies $\bar U'\ge 0$. Therefore, if
$\bar\theta< 1$ and $\bar U$ satisfies (2.2), then by Lemma
\ref{lemma202}, $\bar U(\xi)\in (0,1)$, and hence the proof of Lemma
\ref{lemma205}  again shows that $\bar U'> 0$. Since we have assume
that $\bar\theta <1$, then it can be shown that there exists a
positive increasing solution of \eqref{202} for $\theta\in [0,
\bar\theta+\eta)$ for some positive $\eta$ by applying Lemma
\ref{lemma204} again with $\bar U$ instead of $U_0$. It leads to a
contradiction with the definition of $\bar\theta$. Thus,
$\bar\theta\ge 1$ and the equation \eqref{202} has a solution for
every $\theta\in [0, 1)$.

We can get a solution for $\theta= 1$ in the same way above. Let
$(\theta_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\theta_n\to 1$ and
$(U_n, c_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the corresponding normalized
sequence of solution. From Lemmas \ref{lemma206} and \ref{lemma207},
we have $\|U_n\|_{C_2(\mathbb{R})}\le C$ and $|c_n|\le C$ for some
positive constant $C$. Thus, by Helly's theorem and a priori
estimate, there exists a non-decreasing function $\hat U$ and a
constant $\hat c$ such that $U_{¦È\theta_n}\to \hat U$
pointwise and $c_n\to \hat c$. From the $C^2$ estimates, up
to extraction, we have $U_{¦È\theta_n}\to \hat U$ in
$C^1_{loc}$. Therefore, $\hat U$ satisfies \eqref{201}, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{kf}
J*\hat U-\bar U-\hat c\hat U'-d\hat U +\int_\mathbb{R} K(y)b(\hat
U(\xi-y-\hat c\tau))dy=0.
\end{equation}

It remains to prove that $\hat U$ satisfies the boundary condition
\eqref{201a}. This will be done with the proof of the assumption
below \eqref{ks}, i.e., $\bar U$ satisfies \eqref{201a}.
 Since $\bar U$ is positive
bounded non-decreasing function, it admits limits as $\xi\to
\pm\infty$. By Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem, we see
from \eqref{kf} that these limits are zeros of the function
$du-b(u)$, $u\in [0,1]$.

Suppose that $\bar c\ge 0$. Notice that $\alpha$ is the intermediate
zero of $du-b(u)$. Take $\bar\alpha \in(0,\alpha)$ and translate
$U_\theta$ so that $U_\theta(0) =\bar\alpha$ for each $\theta$. We
still may take a sequence of $\theta\to \bar\theta$, a
subsequence of the original one, so that $U_\theta$ converges
pointwise to some $\bar U$. Since $c$ is independent of
translations, we still have $c_\theta \to \bar c$. Then
$\lim_{\xi\to -\infty}\bar U(\xi) = 0$ and
$\lim_{\xi\to +\infty}\bar U(\xi)\in \{\alpha, 1\}$. If
$\lim_{\xi\to +\infty}\bar U(\xi)= 1$, then we are done.
Hence, we now assume that $\lim_{\xi\to +\infty}\bar
U(\xi)=\alpha$. Due to the monotonicity of $\bar U$, it implies that
$d\bar U(\xi)-b(\bar U(\xi))>0$ for $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$.

If $\bar\theta<1$, from the above discussion, we can see that $\bar
U$ is of class $C^2$ and satisfies \eqref{202}. Hence,
\begin{equation}\label{210}
\begin{aligned}
0&<\int^M_{-M}(d\bar U(\xi)-b(\bar U(\xi)))\,d\xi\le \int^M_{-M}(d\bar
U(\xi)-b(\bar U(\xi-\bar c\tau)))\,d\xi
\\
&= \int^M_{-M}\Bigl[\bar\theta(J*\bar U-\bar
U)(\xi)+(1-\bar\theta)\bar U''(\xi)-\bar c\bar U'(\xi)
\\
&\quad +\int_\mathbb{R}[b(U(\xi-y-\bar c\tau))-b(U(\xi-\bar
c\tau))]K(y)dy\Bigr]\,d\xi.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It is easy to show that
\begin{align*}
\int^M_{-M}(J*\bar U-\bar U)(\xi)\,d\xi
&= \int^M_{-M}\int_\mathbb{R}J(y)[\bar U(\xi-y)-\bar
U(\xi)]dy\,d\xi\\
&= -\int^M_{-M}\int_\mathbb{R}J(y)\int_0^1 y\bar
U'(\xi-ty)\,dt\,dy\,d\xi\\
&= -\int_\mathbb{R}yJ(y)\int_0^1
\Big(\int^M_{-M}U'(\xi-ty)\,d\xi\Big)\,dt\,dy\\
&= -\int_\mathbb{R}yJ(y)\int_0^1
(\bar U(M-ty)-\bar U(-M-ty))\,dt\,dy
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&\int^M_{-M}\int_\mathbb{R}[b(U(\xi-y-\bar c\tau))-b(U(\xi-\bar
c\tau))]K(y)dy\,d\xi\\
&= -\int^M_{-M}\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)\int_0^1
yb'(\bar U(\xi-ty-\bar c\tau))\bar U'(\xi-ty-\bar c\tau)\,dt\,dy\,d\xi\\
&= -\int_\mathbb{R}yK(y)\int_0^1 [b(\bar U(M-ty-\bar c\tau))-b(\bar
U(-M-ty-\bar c\tau))]\,dt\,dy.
\end{align*}
Hence, from \eqref{210} it follows that
\begin{align*}
0&< \int^M_{-M}[d\bar U(\xi)-b(\bar U(\xi))]\,d\xi\\ \le&-\bar\theta
\int_\mathbb{R}yJ(y)\int_0^1 (\bar U(M-ty)-\bar
U(-M-ty))\,dt\,dy\\
&\quad +(1-\bar\theta)(\bar U'(M)-\bar
U'(-M))\\
&\quad -\int_\mathbb{R}yK(y)\int_0^1 [b(\bar U(M-ty-\bar
c\tau))-b(\bar U(-M-ty-\bar c\tau))]\,dt\,dy.
\end{align*}

Taking  $M\to +\infty$ in the above inequality and using
Fubini's Theorem, Lebesgue's Theorem and the evenness of $J$ and
$K$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
0&<\int_\mathbb{R}[d\bar U(\xi)-b(\bar U(\xi))]\,d\xi\\ &\le
-\bar\theta(1-\alpha)\int_\mathbb{R}yJ(y)dy-(
b(1)-b(\alpha))\int_\mathbb{R}yK(y)dy=0,
\end{align*}
which leads to a contradiction.

If $\bar\theta=1$, then $\bar U$ satisfies \eqref{201}. Similarly,
by using Lebesgue's Theorem and the evenness of $J$ and $K$, we can
see from \eqref{210} that
\begin{align*}
0&<\int_\mathbb{R}[d\bar U(\xi)-b(\bar U(\xi))]\,d\xi\\
&\le -(1-\alpha)\int_\mathbb{R}yJ(y)dy-(b(1)-b(\alpha))
\int_\mathbb{R}yK(y)dy=0.
\end{align*}
It is a contradiction.

For the case $\bar c< 0$, we can use a similar argument by taking
$\bar\alpha\in (\alpha,1)$. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}

\section{Initial value problem}

Consider the initial value problem
\begin{equation}\label{301}
\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}
=J*u-u-du+\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b(u(x-y,t-\tau))dy,  \quad
x\in\mathbb{R},t>0,\\
u(x,s)=\varphi(x,s),  \quad x\in\mathbb{R}, s\in[-\tau,0].
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}

It can be seen from \cite{HMW} that for the initial value problem
\eqref{301}, we have the following result on the existence of
solutions.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem3.1}
Assume $\varphi(x,s)\in C([-\tau,0];C(\mathbb{R}))$ with $0\le
\varphi(x,s)\le 1$ for $(x,s)\in \mathbb{R}\times[-\tau,0]$. Then
the solution to \eqref{301} uniquely and globally exists, and
satisfies that  $u(x,t)\in C^1([0,+\infty); C(\mathbb{R}))$, and
$0\le u(x,t)\le 1$ for $(x,t)\in\mathbb{R}\times[0,+\infty)$.
\end{lemma}


Let $X$ be the Banach space defined by
\begin{align*}
X=\{\varphi(x)|\varphi(x):\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}\text{ is
uniformly continuous and bounded}\}
\end{align*}
with the usual supremum norm $|\cdot|_X$. Let
\begin{align*}
X^+=\{\varphi(x)\in X:\varphi(x)\ge 0, x\in \mathbb{R}\}.
\end{align*}
It is easily seen that $X^+$ is a closed cone of $X$ and $X$ is a
Banach lattice under the partial ordering induced by $X^+$.

$\int_\mathbb{R}J(x-y)[u(y)-u(x)]dy:X\to X$ is bounded
linear operator with respect to the norm $|\cdot|_X$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{302a}
\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial
t}=\int_\mathbb{R}J(x-y)[u(y,t)-u(x,t)]dy,\\
 u(x,0)=\varphi(x)\in X
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
generates a strongly continuous analytic semigroup $T(t)$ on $X$ and
$T(t)X^+ \subset X^+$, that is $T(t)u(x)\gg 0$ if $u(x)\ge 0$ has a
nonempty support and $t > 0$. Moreover, the mild solution of
\eqref{302a} can be given by $u(x, t)=T(t)\varphi(x)$. For more
details, we can refer to Pan et al. \cite{PLL2}. The theory of the
operator semigroup can be seen in Pazy \cite{Pazy}.

For any $\varphi\in[0, 1]_C=\{\varphi\in C: \varphi(x,s)\in[0,1],
x\in\mathbb{R}, s\in [-\tau,0] \}$, define
\begin{align*}
F(\varphi)(x)=-d\varphi(x,0)+\int_\mathbb{R}K(x-y)b(\varphi(y,-\tau))dy,
\quad x\in\mathbb{R}.
\end{align*}
Since $b\in C^1(\mathbb{R}^+,\mathbb{R}^+)$, we can verify that
$F(\varphi)\in X$ and $F:[0,1]_C\to X$ is globally Lipschitz
continuous.

From {\rm (H5)}, it can be seen that for $\phi\le\psi$,
\begin{equation}\label{302}
\begin{aligned}
&F(\psi)(x)-F(\phi)(x)\\
&= -d(\psi(x,0)-\phi(x,0)) +\int_\mathbb{R}K(x-y)
[b(\psi(y,-\tau))-b(\phi(y,-\tau))]dy \\
&\geq -d(\psi(x,0)-\phi(x,0)).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

\begin{definition}\label{Def201} \rm
A continuous function $v:[-\tau, l]\to X$, $l>0$ is called a
supersolution {\rm(}subsolution{\rm)} of \eqref{101} on $[0,l)$ if
\begin{equation}\label{303}
v(t)\ge (\le) T(t-s)v(s)+\int_{s}^t T(t-r) F(v_r)dr
\end{equation}
for all $0\le s<t<l$. If $v$ is both a supersolution and a
subsolution on $[0,l)$, then it is said to be a mild solution of
\eqref{301}.
\end{definition}

\begin{remark}\label{rem304} \rm
Assume that $v:[-\tau, l)\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ with
$l>0$ and $v$ is $C$ in $x\in\mathbb{R}$, $C^1$ in $t\in[0,l)$, and
satisfies the following inequality
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}\ge(\le) J* v-
v-dv+\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b( v(x-y,t-\tau))dy, \quad x\in\mathbb{R},
t>0,
\end{equation*}
Then by the positivity of $T(t):X^+\to X^+$ implies that
\eqref{303} holds. Hence, $v$ is a supersolution
(subsolution) of \eqref{101} on $[0,l)$.
\end{remark}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma303}
For any supersolution $u^+(x,t)$ and subsolution $u^-(x,t)$ of
\eqref{101} on $\mathbb{R}\times [0£¬+\infty)$ with $0\le
u^+(x,t),u^-(x,t)\le 1$ for $x\in\mathbb{R}$, $t\in[-\tau,+\infty)$,
and  $u^+(x,s)\ge u^-(x,s)$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $s\in
[-\tau,0]$, there holds $u^+(x,t)\ge u^-(x,t)$ for $x\in\mathbb{R},
t\ge0$, and there exists a positive continuous function
$\Theta(x,t)$ defined on $[0,+\infty)\times [0,+\infty)$ such that
\begin{align*}
u^+(x,t)-u^-(x,t)\ge \Theta (|x|,t)\int^{1}_0[u^+(y,0)-u^-(y,0)]dy
\end{align*}
for $x\in\mathbb{R}$, $t>0$ and $z\in\mathbb{R}$.
\end{lemma}

The proof of the comparison principle in Lemma \ref{lemma303}
strongly depends on the analyticity and positivity of semigroup
$T(t)$. For more details, we can refer the readers to
\cite{MS1,MS2}. Hence, we omit the proof here. It can also be seen
in \cite{HMW} for another type of proof. Due to \eqref{302}, the
proof of the last inequality in Lemma \ref{lemma303} is only a minor
modification of the proof of Lemma 2.3 in \cite{Zhang1}, so we omit
it.

\section{Uniqueness of traveling wavefronts}

It is well known that standing waves (that is, traveling waves with
speed $c=0$) are not necessarily unique, see \cite{Chen,CGW}. Hence,
we consider the uniqueness of traveling wavefronts only when
$c\not=0$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma401}
Let $U(x+ct)$ be a non-decreasing traveling wavefront of
\eqref{101}. Then for $c\not=0$,
\begin{gather}
0<U'(\xi)\le \frac{1}{|c|}(1+b(1)) \quad \text{for all
$\xi\in\mathbb{R},$}\label{400a}\\
\lim_{\xi\to \pm\infty}U'(\xi)=0.\label{400b}
\end{gather}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{303}, we have that for $\xi=x+ct$ and every $h>0$,
\begin{align*}
U(\xi+h)-U(\xi)\ge \Theta(|x|,t)\int^{1}_0[U(y+h)-U(y)]dy>0.
\end{align*}
Then,
\begin{align*}
U'(\xi)\ge\Theta(|x|,t)(U(1)-U(0))>0.
\end{align*}
It is easy to see that for $c\not =0$,
\[
U(\xi)=\frac{1}{c}\int_{-\infty}^\xi e^{-\frac{d+1}{c}(\xi-s)}H(U)(s)ds,
\]
where
\[
H(U)(\xi)=J*U(\xi)+\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b(U(\xi-y,t-\tau))dy.
\]
Hence,
\begin{equation}\label{U}
U'(\xi)=\frac{1}{c}H(U)(\xi)+\frac{1}{c}\int_{-\infty}^\xi
\Big(-\frac{d+1}{c}\Big)e^{-\frac{d+1}{c}(\xi-s)}H(U)(s)ds,
\end{equation}
When $c>0$, we obtain
\[
U'(\xi)\le\frac{1}{c}H(U)(\xi)\le\frac{1}{c}(1+b(1)).
\]
When $c<0$, one has
\[
U'(\xi)\le\frac{1}{c}\int_{-\infty}^\xi
\Big(-\frac{d+1}{c}\Big)e^{-\frac{d+1}{c}(\xi-s)}H(U)(s)ds\le-\frac{1}{c}(1+b(1)).
\]
Thus, \eqref{400a} is obtained. Finally, \eqref{400b} follows from
\eqref{201a} and \eqref{U}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma402}
 Let $U(x+ct)$ be a non-decreasing
traveling wavefront of \eqref{101} with $c\not=0$. Then there exist
three positive numbers $\beta_0$ {\rm(}which is independent of
$U${\rm)}, $\sigma_0$ and $\bar\delta$ such that for any
$\delta\in(0,\bar\delta]$ and every $\xi_0\in\mathbb{R}$, the
function $w^+$ and $w^-$ defined by
\begin{align*}
w^\pm(x,t):=U(x+ct+\xi_0\pm\sigma_0\delta(e^{\beta_0\tau}-e^{-\beta_0
t}))\pm\delta e^{-\beta_0t}
\end{align*}
are a supersolution and a subsolution of \eqref{101} on
$[0,+\infty)$, respectively.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
By {\rm (H5)}, we can choose $\beta_0>0$ and $\epsilon^*>0$ such
that
\[
d>\beta_0+e^{\beta_0\tau}(\max\{b'(0),b'(1)\}+\epsilon^*).
\]
Since $b'(u)\ge 0$ for $u\in[0,1]$, there exists a sufficiently
small number $\delta^*>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{401}
\begin{gathered}
0\le b'(\eta)\le b'(0)+\epsilon^* \quad \text{for all
$\eta\in[-\delta^*,\delta^*]$}, \\
0\le b'(\eta)\le b'(1)+\epsilon^* \quad \text{for all
$\eta\in[1-\delta^*,1+\delta^*]$}.
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}

 Let $c_0=|c|\tau+(e^{\beta_0\tau}-1)$. By the boundary condition
\eqref{201a}, there exists
$M_0=M_0(U,\beta_0,\delta^*,\epsilon^*)>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{402}
\begin{gathered}
U(\xi)\le \delta^* \quad \text{for all $\xi\le -M_0/2+c_0$},  \\
U(\xi)\ge 1-\delta^* \quad \text{for all $\xi\ge M_0/2-c_0$}
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{403}
d>\beta_0+e^{\beta_0
\tau}(\max\{b'(0),b'(1)\}+\epsilon^*)+e^{\beta_0
\tau}b'_{\rm max}\Big[\int_{\frac{M_0}{2}}^{+\infty}
+\int_{-\infty}^{-\frac{M_0}{2}}K(y)dy\Big].
\end{equation}
Set
\begin{equation}\label{404}
m_0:=m_0(U,\beta_0,\delta^*,\epsilon^*)=\min\{U'(\xi):|\xi|\le
M_0\}>0,
\end{equation}
and define
\begin{gather}\label{405}
\sigma_0:=\frac{1}{m_0\beta_0}\left\{(e^{\beta_0\tau}b'_{\rm max}-d)
+\beta_0\right\}>0, \\
\label{405h}
\bar\delta=\min\big\{\frac{1}{\sigma_0},\delta^*e^{-\beta_0\tau}\big\}.
\end{gather}

We only prove that $w^+(x,t)$ is a supersolution of \eqref{101},
since the similar argument can be used for $w^-(x,t)$. By a
translation, we can assume that $\xi_0=0$. For any given
$\delta\in(0,\bar\delta]$, let
$\xi(x,t)=x+ct+\sigma_0\delta(e^{\beta_0\tau}-e^{-\beta_0t})$. Then
for any $t\ge 0$, we have
\begin{align*}
&S(w^+)(x,t)  \\
:&= \frac{\partial w^+}{\partial
t}-J*w^++w^++dw^+-\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b(w^+(x-y,t-\tau))dy \\
&=  U'(\xi(x,t))\left(c+\sigma_0\delta\beta_0e^{-\beta_0
t}\right)-\beta_0\delta e^{-\beta_0
t}-\int_\mathbb{R}J(y)U(\xi(x,t)-y)dy  \\
&\quad +U(\xi(x,t))+dU(\xi(x,t))+d\delta e^{-\beta_0 t}  \\
&\quad -\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b\Big(U\Big[\xi(x,t)-y-c\tau
+\sigma_0\delta\big(e^{\beta_0\tau}-
e^{-\beta_0(t-\tau)}\big)-\sigma_0\delta\big(e^{\beta_0\tau}-
e^{-\beta_0t}\big)\Big] \\
&\quad + \delta e^{-\beta_0(t-\tau)}\Big)dy  \\
&= \Big\{cU'(\xi(x,t))-\int_\mathbb{R}J(y)U(\xi(x,t)-y)dy
+U(\xi(x,t))+dU(\xi(x,t))\Big\} \\
&\quad +\sigma_0\delta\beta_0e^{-\beta_0 t}U'(\xi(x,t))-\beta_0\delta
e^{-\beta_0 t}+d\delta e^{-\beta_0 t}  \\
&\quad- \int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b\Big(U
\Big[\xi(x,t)-y-c\tau+\sigma_0\delta\left(e^{\beta_0\tau}-
e^{-\beta_0(t-\tau)}\right)-\sigma_0\delta\left(e^{\beta_0\tau}-
e^{-\beta_0t}\right)\Big]\\
&\quad +\delta
e^{-\beta_0(t-\tau)}\Big)dy  \\
&= \sigma_0\delta\beta_0e^{-\beta_0 t}U'(\xi(x,t))-\beta_0\delta
e^{-\beta_0 t}+d\delta e^{-\beta_0
t}\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b[U(\xi(x,t)-y-c\tau)]dy
\\
&\quad - \int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b\left(U\left[\xi(x,t)-y-c\tau+\sigma_0\delta\left(1-
e^{-\beta_0\tau}\right)e^{-\beta_0 t}\right]+\delta
e^{-\beta_0(t-\tau)}\right)dy  \\
&=
[\sigma_0\delta\beta_0U'(\xi(x,t))-\beta_0\delta+d\delta]e^{-\beta_0
t}  \\
&\quad -\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(\tilde
\eta)\Bigl\{U[\xi(x,t)-y-c\tau+\sigma_0\delta(1-e^{\beta_0\tau})e^{-\beta_0t}]
+\delta e^{-\beta_0(t-\tau)} \\
&\quad -U(\xi(x,t)-y-c\tau)\Bigr\}dy \\
&= \delta
e^{-\beta_0t}\Big[\sigma_0\beta_0U'(\xi(x,t))-\beta_0+d
 +\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(\tilde \eta)[U'(\tilde
\xi)\sigma_0(e^{\beta_0\tau}-1)-e^{\beta_0\tau}]dy\Big],
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\tilde \eta
&= \theta U[\xi(x,t)-y-c\tau+\sigma_0\delta(1-e^{\beta_0\tau})
e^{-\beta_0t}]+\theta\delta
e^{-\beta_0(t-\tau)}\\
&\quad +(1-\theta)U[\xi(x,t)-y-c\tau]
\end{align*}
and
\[
\tilde \xi= \xi(x,t)-y-c\tau+\theta\sigma_0(1-e^{\beta_0\tau})e^{-\beta_0t}.
\]
It is easy to see that $0\le\tilde\eta\le 1+\delta e^{-\beta\tau}\le
1+\delta^*$. Thus, $b'(\tilde \eta)\ge 0$, and
\begin{equation}\label{406}
S(w^+)(x,t)\ge \delta
e^{-\beta_0t}\Big\{\sigma_0\beta_0U'(\xi(x,t))-\beta_0+d-e^{\beta_0\tau}
\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(\tilde\eta)dy\Big\}.
\end{equation}
We need to consider three cases.
\smallskip

\noindent\textbf{Case (i):} $|\xi(x,t)|\le M_0$. In this case, by \eqref{404},
\eqref{405} and \eqref{406}, one has
\begin{align*}
S(w^+)(x,t)\ge\delta
e^{-\beta_0t}\{\sigma_0\beta_0m_0-\beta_0+d-e^{\beta_0\tau}b'_{\rm max}\}=
0.
\end{align*}
\smallskip

\noindent\textbf{Case (ii):}
 $\xi(x,t)\ge M_0$. For
$y\in[-\frac{1}{2}\xi(x,t),\frac{1}{2}\xi(x,t)]$, we have
$$
\frac{1}{2}M_0\le \frac{1}{2}\xi(x,t)\le \xi(x,t)- y\le \frac{3}{2}\xi(x,t).
$$
By the choice of $\bar\delta$, for any
$\delta\in(0,\bar\delta]$, one has $\sigma_0\delta\le 1$, and hence,
\begin{align*}
&\xi(x,t)-y-c\tau+\sigma_0\delta(1-e^{\beta_0\tau})e^{-\beta_0t}\\
&\ge \frac{1}{2}M_0-c\tau+\sigma_0\delta(1-e^{\beta_0\tau})\ge
\frac{1}{2}M_0-c_0,
\end{align*}
and
\[
\xi(x,t)-y-c\tau \ge\frac{1}{2}M_0-c\tau\ge \frac{1}{2}M_0-c_0.
\]
Then by \eqref{402} and \eqref{405h}, we have
\[
1+\delta^*\ge 1+\delta e^{\beta_0\tau}\ge \tilde \eta\ge 1-\delta^*.
\]
Furthermore, by \eqref{401}, we get
$b'(\tilde \eta)\le b'(1)+\epsilon^*$.
Hence, by \eqref{403} and \eqref{406}, we have
\begin{align*}
S(w^+)(x,t)
&\geq  \delta
e^{-\beta_0t}\Big\{\sigma_0\beta_0U'(\xi(x,t))-\beta_0+d-e^{\beta_0\tau}
\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(\tilde\eta)dy\Big\}\\
&\geq   \delta e^{-\beta_0t}\Big\{-\beta_0+d-e^{\beta_0\tau}
\int_{-\frac{1}{2}\xi(x,t)}^{\frac{1}{2}\xi(x,t)}K(y)b'(\tilde\eta)dy\\
& \quad -e^{\beta_0\tau}
\int_{-\infty}^{-\frac{1}{2}\xi(x,t)}K(y)b'(\tilde\eta)dy-e^{\beta_0\tau}
\int_{\frac{1}{2}\xi(x,t)}^{+\infty}K(y)b'(\tilde\eta)dy\Big\}\\
&\geq \delta
e^{-\beta_0t}\Big\{-\beta_0+d-e^{\beta_0\tau}(b'(1)+\epsilon^*)\\
& \quad -e^{\beta_0\tau}b'_{\rm max}
\Big[\int_{\frac{1}{2}M_0}^{+\infty}
+\int_{-\infty}^{-\frac{1}{2}M_0}K(y)dy\Big]\Big\}
\geq  0.
\end{align*}
\smallskip

\noindent\textbf{Case (iii):}
 $\xi(x,t)\le -M_0$. The proof is similar to that for the
Case (ii) and is omitted. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}


\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{th403}]
Since $\tilde U(\xi)$ and $U(\xi)$ have the same limits as
$\xi\to \pm\infty$, there exist $\tilde \xi\in\mathbb{R}$
and a sufficiently large number $p>0$ such that for every
$s\in[-\tau,0]$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}$,
\[
U(x+cs+\tilde\xi)-\bar\delta<\tilde U(x+\tilde
s)<U(x+cs+\tilde\xi+p)+\bar\delta,
\]
and hence,
\begin{align*}
&U(x+cs+\tilde\xi-\sigma_0\bar\delta(e^{\beta_0\tau}-e^{-\beta_0
s}))-\bar\delta e^{-\beta_0 s}\\
&< \tilde U(x+\tilde c
s)<U(x+cs+\tilde\xi+p+\sigma_0\bar\delta(e^{\beta_0\tau}-e^{-\beta_0
s}))+\bar\delta e^{-\beta_0 s},
\end{align*}
where $\beta_0$, $\sigma_0$ and $\bar\delta$ are given in Lemma
\ref{lemma402}. By the comparison principle, we obtain that for all
$x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $t\ge 0$,
\begin{align*}
&U(x+ct+\tilde\xi-\sigma_0\bar\delta(e^{\beta_0\tau}-e^{-\beta_0
t}))-\bar\delta e^{-\beta_0 t}\\
&< \tilde U(x+\tilde c
t)<U(x+ct+\tilde\xi+p+\sigma_0\bar\delta(e^{\beta_0\tau}-e^{-\beta_0
t}))+\bar\delta e^{-\beta_0 t}.
\end{align*}
Keeping $\xi=x +ct$ fixed and letting $t\to \infty$, we then
obtain from the first inequality that $c\le\tilde c$ and from the
second inequality that $c\ge \tilde c$. Thus, $\tilde c= c$. In
addition,
\begin{equation}\label{420}
U(\xi+\tilde\xi-\sigma_0\bar\delta e^{\beta_0\tau})-\bar\delta
e^{-\beta_0 t}<\tilde U(\xi)<U(\xi+\tilde\xi+p+\sigma_0\bar\delta
e^{\beta_0\tau})\text{ for $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$.}
\end{equation}

Define
\begin{align*}
\xi^*:=\inf\{\xi:\tilde U(\cdot)\le U(\cdot+\xi)\} \text{ and }
\xi_*:=\sup\{\xi:\tilde U(\cdot)\ge U(\cdot+\xi)\}.
\end{align*}
From \eqref{420}, we can see that both $\xi^*$ and $\xi_*$ are well
defined. Since $U(\cdot+\xi_*)\le \tilde U(\cdot)\le
U(\cdot+\xi^*)$, we have $\xi_*\le \xi^*$.

We need only to prove that $\xi_*=\xi^*$. By contradiction, we
assume that $\xi_*<\xi^*$ and $\tilde U(\cdot)\not\equiv
U(\cdot+\xi^*)$. Since $\lim_{\xi\to \pm\infty}U'(\xi)=0$,
there exists a large positive constant $B=B(U)>0$ such that
\begin{align*}
2\sigma_0e^{\beta_0\tau}U'(\xi)\le 1 \text{ for $|\xi|\ge B$.}
\end{align*}
Note that $\tilde U(\cdot)\le U(\cdot+\xi^*)$ and $\tilde
U(\cdot)\not\equiv U(\cdot+\xi^*)$, by Lemma \ref{303}, it follows
that $\tilde U(\cdot)<U(\cdot+\xi^*)$ on $\mathbb{R}$. Consequently,
by the continuity of $U$ and $\tilde U$, there exists a small
constant $\rho\in [0,\bar\delta]$ with $
\rho\le\frac{1}{2\sigma_0}e^{-\beta_0\tau}$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{408}
\tilde U(\xi)<U(\xi+\xi^*-2\sigma_0\rho e^{\beta_0\tau}), \text{ if
$\xi\in [-B-1-\xi^*,B+1-\xi^*]$.}
\end{equation}
When $|\xi+\xi^*|\ge B+1$, one has
\begin{equation}\label{409}
\begin{aligned}
U(\xi+\xi^*-2\sigma_0\rho e^{\beta_0\tau})-\tilde U(\xi)
&>U(\xi+\xi^*-2\sigma_0\rho e^{\beta_0\tau})-\tilde
 U(\xi+\xi^*)\\
&= -2\sigma_0\rho e^{\beta_0\tau}U'(\xi+\xi^*-2\theta\sigma_0\rho
e^{\beta_0\tau})\ge -\rho.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{408} and \eqref{409}, we obtain that for any
$x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $s\in[-\tau,0]$,
\[
\tilde U(x+cs)\le U(x+cs+\xi^*-2\sigma_0\rho
e^{\beta_0\tau}+\sigma_0
 \rho (e^{\beta_0\tau}-e^{-\beta_0s}))+\rho e^{-\beta_0s}.
\]
Hence, by the comparison principle, for any $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and
$t\ge 0$,
\begin{equation}\label{410}
\tilde U(x+ct)\le U(x+ct+\xi^*-2\sigma_0\rho
e^{\beta_0\tau}+\sigma_0
 \rho(e^{\beta_0\tau}-e^{-\beta_0t}))+\rho e^{-\beta_0t}.
\end{equation}
Keep $\xi=x+ct$ fixed and let $t\to \infty$ in \eqref{410}.
Then we have $\tilde U(\xi)\le U(\xi+\xi^*-\sigma_0\rho e^{\beta_0
r})$ for all $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$. This contradicts the definition of
$\xi^*$. Hence, $\xi_*=\xi^*$. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}

PAGE 20

\section{Stability of traveling wavefronts}


Let $\zeta\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R})$ be a fixed function with the
following properties:
\begin{gather*}
\zeta(s)=0, \text{ if }s\le -2; \quad
\zeta(s)=1,\text{ if } s\ge 2;\\
0<\zeta'(s)<1, \text{ if } s\in (-2,2).
\end{gather*}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma501}
For any $\delta\in (0,\delta_0]$, $\delta_0\le \alpha/2$, there
exist two positive numbers $\epsilon= \epsilon(\delta)$ and
$C = C(\delta)$ such that for every $\xi^\pm \in\mathbb{R}$, the
functions $v^\pm(x,t)$ defined by
\begin{gather*}
v^+(x,t):=1+\delta-[1-(\alpha-2\delta)e^{-\epsilon
t}]\zeta(-\epsilon(x-\xi^++Ct)),\\
v^-(x,t):=-\delta+[1-(1-\alpha-2\delta)e^{-\epsilon
t}]\zeta(\epsilon(x-\xi^--Ct))
\end{gather*}
are a supersolution and a subsolution of \eqref{101} on
$[0,+\infty)$, respectively.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Since $du-b(u)>0$ for $u\in(0,\alpha)\cup (1,1+\delta)$, we obtain
$$
M_1=M_1(\delta)=\min\{du-bu:u\in[\delta,\alpha-\delta/2]\}>0.
$$
By {\rm (H5)}, we choose $\mu\in [1/2,1)$ and $\gamma>0$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{mu}
d\mu>b'(1)+\gamma
\end{equation}
and
\begin{align*}
0\le b'(\eta)<b'(1)+\gamma \quad \text{for }\eta\in [1,1+\delta].
\end{align*}
Let $\epsilon^*=\epsilon^*(\delta)> 0$ be such that
$\epsilon^*\le\min\{\delta/2, 2(1-\mu)\delta\}$, and let
$k=k(\delta)\in(0, 1)$ be such that
\begin{gather}
0\le \zeta(s) <\epsilon^*/2, \quad \text{if $s<-2+k$},\label{502}\\
1\ge\zeta(s)>1-\epsilon^*/2,\quad \text{if $s>2-k$}.\label{503}
\end{gather}

Take $\nu=\nu(\delta)<0$ small enough such that
$(1+\nu)(2-k/2)>2-k$. Take $\epsilon=\epsilon(\delta)> 0$
sufficiently small and $M_0=M_0(\delta)>0$ sufficiently large such
that $\alpha e^{\epsilon\tau} <1$, $\epsilon M_0\le -\nu(2-k)$,
\begin{equation}\label{ga}
-\epsilon\alpha-2\epsilon\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy
+d(1+\mu\delta)-\delta(b'(1)+\gamma)>0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{501}
\begin{aligned}
&-M_1+\epsilon\alpha +2\epsilon\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy+\epsilon\tau
b'_{\rm max} e^{\epsilon\tau} \\
&+b'_{\rm max}\epsilon^*+2
b'_{\rm max}\Big[\int_{M_0}^{+\infty}+\int_{-\infty}^{-M_0}K(y)dy\Big]<0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Define
\[
\sigma:=\min\{\zeta'(s):-2+k/2\le s\le 2-k/2\}>0.
\]
Then take $C=C(\delta)>0$ large enough so that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
C\epsilon(1-\alpha)\sigma
&> \epsilon\alpha+2\epsilon
\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy+\epsilon\tau b'_{\rm max}
e^{\epsilon\tau}\\
&\quad +\max\{|du-b(u)|: u\in [\delta,1+\delta]\}+2b'_{\rm max}.
\end{aligned} \label{tt}
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that for $t\ge -\tau$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}$,
$$
\delta\le v^+(x,t)\le 1+\delta,\quad -\delta\le v^-(x,t)\le 1-\delta.
$$
Set $\xi=x-\xi^++Ct$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{504}
\begin{aligned}
S(v^+)(x,t):
&= \frac{\partial v^+}{\partial
t}-J*v^++v^++dv^+-\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b(v^+(x-y,t-\tau))dy \\
&= -\epsilon(\alpha-2\delta)e^{-\epsilon t}\zeta(-\epsilon
\xi)+\epsilon C[1-(\alpha-2\delta)e^{-\epsilon
t}]\zeta'(-\epsilon\xi) \\
&\quad +[1-(\alpha-2\delta)e^{-\epsilon
t}]\left[\int_\mathbb{R}J(y)\zeta(-\epsilon(\xi-y))dy-\zeta(-\epsilon\xi)\right]
\\
&\quad +dv^+-\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b(v^+(x-y,t-\tau))dy  \\
&\geq -\epsilon\alpha+\epsilon
C(1-\alpha)\zeta'(-\epsilon\xi)+[1-(\alpha-2\delta)e^{-\epsilon
t}] \\
&\quad \times\int_\mathbb{R}J(y)|\zeta(-\epsilon(\xi-y))-\zeta(-\epsilon\xi)|dy
\\
&\quad +dv^+-\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b(v^+(x-y,t-\tau))dy \\
&\geq -\epsilon\alpha+\epsilon
C(1-\alpha)\zeta'(-\epsilon\xi)-2\epsilon\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy  \\
&\quad +dv^+-\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b(v^+(x-y,t-\tau))dy.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By a direct computation, it follows that for all $t\ge -\tau$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial
t}v^+(x,t)
&= -\epsilon(\alpha-2\delta)e^{-\epsilon t}+\epsilon
C[1-(\alpha-2\delta)e^{-\epsilon t}]\zeta'(-\epsilon\xi)\\
&\ge -\epsilon(\alpha-2\delta)e^{-\epsilon t}\ge -\epsilon
e^{\epsilon\tau},
\end{align*}
and hence, for all $t\ge 0$,
\begin{align*}
&b(v^+(x,t-\tau))-b(v^+(x,t))=b'(\eta_1)[v^+(x,t-\tau)-v^+(x,t)]
\\
&= -\tau b'(\eta_1)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}v^+(x,t^*)\le
\epsilon\tau b'(\eta_1)e^{\epsilon\tau}\le \epsilon\tau
b'_{\rm max}e^{\epsilon\tau},
\end{align*}
where $t^*\in[t-\tau,t]$ and $\eta_1=\theta
v^+(x,t)+(1-\theta)v^+(x,t-\tau)$.

On the other hand, for $t\ge 0$, one has
\begin{align*}
&|v^+(x-y,t-\tau)-v^+(x,t-\tau)|\\
&= (1-(\alpha-2\delta)e^{-\epsilon(t-\tau)})
|\zeta(-\epsilon(\xi-y-C\tau))-\zeta(-\epsilon(\xi-C\tau))|\\
&\le |\zeta(-\epsilon(\xi-y-C\tau))-\zeta(-\epsilon(\xi-C\tau))|.
\end{align*}
It then follows that
\begin{equation}\label{505}
\begin{aligned}
S(v^+)(x,t)
&\geq -\epsilon\alpha+\epsilon
C(1-\alpha)\zeta'(-\epsilon\xi)-2\epsilon\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy  \\
&\quad +dv^+(x,t)-b(v^+(x,t))-(b(v^+(x,t-\tau))-b(v^+(x,t))) \\
&\quad -\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)(b(v^+(x-y,t-\tau))-b(v^+(x,t-\tau)))dy \\
&\geq -\epsilon\alpha+\epsilon
C(1-\alpha)\zeta'(-\epsilon\xi)-2\epsilon\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy  \\
&\quad +dv^+(x,t)-b(v^+(x,t))-(b(v^+(x,t-\tau))-b(v^+(x,t)))  \\
&\quad -\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(\eta_2)|v^+(x-y,t-\tau)-v^+(x,t-\tau)|dy  \\
&\geq -\epsilon\alpha+\epsilon
C(1-\alpha)\zeta'(-\epsilon\xi)-2\epsilon\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy  \\
&\quad +dv^+(x,t)-b(v^+(x,t))-\epsilon\tau b'_{\rm max}e^{\epsilon\tau}
  \\
&\quad -b'_{\rm max}\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)|\zeta(-\epsilon(\xi-y-C\tau))
-\zeta(-\epsilon(\xi-C\tau))|dy,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\eta_2=\theta v^+(x,t-\tau)+(1-\theta)v^+(x-y,t-\tau)\in[\delta,1+\delta]$.

We distinguish three cases:
\smallskip

\noindent\textbf{Case (i):} $-\epsilon\xi\le-2+k/2$.
In this case, $-\epsilon\xi\le-2+k$. By \eqref{502}, $0\le
\zeta(-\epsilon\xi)< \epsilon^*/2$. Recall the
$\epsilon^*<2(1-\mu)\delta$, we then have
\begin{align*}
1+\delta
&\ge v^+(x,t)\ge 1+\delta-[1-(\alpha-2\delta)e^{-\epsilon
t}]\epsilon^*/2\\
&\ge 1+\delta-\epsilon^*/2\ge
1+\delta-(1-\mu)\delta=1+\mu\delta\ge1+\delta/2
\end{align*}
for all $t\ge 0$.

It then follows from  \eqref{504} that
\begin{align*}
S(v^+)(x,t)
&\geq -\epsilon\alpha-2\epsilon\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy
+dv^+(x,t)-d  \\
&\quad -\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)[b(v^+(x-y,t-\tau))-b(1)]dy\\
&\geq -\epsilon\alpha-2\epsilon\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy+d\mu\delta  \\
&\quad -\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(\eta^*)(v^+(x-y,t-\tau)-1)dy
\\
&\geq -\epsilon\alpha-2\epsilon\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy
+d\mu\delta-\delta\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(\eta^*)dy,
\end{align*}
where $\eta^*=\theta v^+(x-y,t-\tau)+(1-\theta)\in [1,1+\delta] $.

Therefore, by \eqref{mu} and \eqref{ga}, we get
\begin{align*}
S(v^+)(x,t)
&\geq -\epsilon\alpha-2\epsilon\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy
+d\mu\delta-\delta\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b'(\eta^*)dy\\
&\geq  -\epsilon\alpha-2\epsilon\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy
+d\mu\delta-\delta(b'(1)+\gamma) >0.
\end{align*}
\smallskip

\noindent\textbf{Case (ii):} $-\epsilon\xi\ge 2-k/2$.
In this case, $-\epsilon\xi\ge2-k$. By \eqref{503},
$1-\epsilon^*/2\le \zeta(-\epsilon\xi)\le 1$. It then follows that
\begin{align*}
\delta
&\le v^+(x,t)\le (1+\delta)-[1-(\alpha-2\delta)e^{-\epsilon
t}](1-\frac{\epsilon^*}{2})\\
&\le (1+\delta)-[1-\alpha+2\delta](1-\frac{\epsilon^*}{2})\\ \le
&1+\delta-1+\alpha-2\delta+\epsilon^*\\
&\le \alpha-\delta+\epsilon^*\le \alpha-\frac{\delta}{2}.
\end{align*}
Thus, we can see that
\[
dv^+(x,t)-b(v^+(x,t))\ge
\min\{du-b(u):u\in[\delta,\alpha-\delta/2]\}=M_1.
\]
By the choice of $\epsilon$ and $\nu<0$, we have
\[
\nu\xi\ge -\nu\frac{2-k/2}{\epsilon}
\ge \frac{-\nu(2-k)}{\epsilon}\ge M_0,
\]
and for any $y\in[-\nu\xi,\nu\xi]$,
\begin{gather*}
-\epsilon(\xi-y-C\tau)
\ge -\epsilon\xi(1+\nu)+\epsilon C\tau\ge (1+\nu)(2-k/2)> 2-k,
\\
-\epsilon(\xi-C\tau)\ge 2-k/2+\epsilon C\tau>2-k.
\end{gather*}
Then, we obtain
\[
\int^{\nu\xi}_{-\nu\xi}|\zeta(-\epsilon(\xi-y-C\tau))-\zeta(-\epsilon(\xi-C\tau))|K(y)dy
\le \epsilon^*/2\int^{\nu\xi}_{-\nu\xi}K(y)dy\le \epsilon^*.
\]
Therefore, by \eqref{505} and \eqref{501}, we get
\begin{align*}
S(v^+)(x,t)
&\geq -\epsilon\alpha-2\epsilon\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy-\epsilon\tau
b'_{\rm max}e^{\epsilon\tau}+M_1\\
&\quad -b'_{\rm max}\int^{\nu\xi}_{-\nu\xi}|\zeta(-\epsilon(\xi-y-C\tau))
 -\zeta(-\epsilon(\xi-C\tau))|K(y)dy \\
&\quad -2b'_{\rm max}\Big[\int^{-\nu\xi}_{-\infty}+\int_{\nu\xi}^{+\infty}
K(y)dy\Big]\\
&\ge -\epsilon\alpha-2\epsilon\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy-\epsilon\tau
b'_{\rm max}e^{\epsilon\tau}+M_1-b'_{\rm max}\epsilon^*
\\
&\quad -2b'_{\rm max}\Big[\int^{-\nu\xi}_{-\infty}+\int_{\nu\xi}^{+\infty}K(y)dy
\Big]>0.
\end{align*}
\smallskip

\noindent\textbf{Case (iii):}
 $-2+k/2\le-\epsilon\xi\le 2-k/2$.
In this case, by \eqref{tt}, one has
\begin{align*}
S(v^+)(x,t)
&\ge C\epsilon(1-\alpha)\sigma-\epsilon\alpha-2\epsilon
\int_\mathbb{R}|y|J(y)dy-\epsilon\tau b'_{\rm max} e^{\epsilon\tau}\\
&-\max\{|du-b(u)|: u\in [\delta,1+\delta]\}-2b'_{\rm max}>0.
\end{align*}

Combining Cases (i)-(iii), we obtain
\[
\frac{\partial v^+}{\partial t}\ge
J*v^+-v^+-dv^++\int_\mathbb{R}K(y)b(v^+(x-y,t-\tau))dy,\quad
x\in\mathbb{R},t\ge 0.
\]
 Thus, $v^+(x,t)$ is a supersolution of \eqref{101} on
$[0,+\infty)$. Similarly, we can prove that $v^-(x,t)$ is a
subsolution of \eqref{101} on $[0,+\infty)$. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\rm
Clearly, the functions $v^+$ and $v^-$ have the following
properties:
\begin{gather*}
v^+(x,s)=1+\delta, \quad \text{if $s\in [-\tau,0]$, $x\ge
\xi^+-Cs+2\epsilon^{-1}$,}\\
v^+(x,s)\ge \alpha-\delta,  \quad \text{for all $s\in [-\tau,0]$ and
$x\in\mathbb{R}$,}\\
v^+(x,t)=\delta+(\alpha-2\delta)e^{-\epsilon t},\quad \text{for all
$t\ge -\tau$ and $x\le \xi^+-Ct-2\epsilon^{-1}$,}\\
v^-(x,s)=-\delta, \quad \text{if $s\in [-\tau,0]$, $x\le
\xi^++Cs-2\epsilon^{-1}$,}\\
v^-(x,s)\le \alpha+\delta, \quad \text{for all $s\in [-\tau,0]$ and
$x\in\mathbb{R}$,}\\
v^-(x,t)=1-\delta-(1-\alpha-2\delta)e^{-\epsilon t}, \quad
\text{for all $t\ge -\tau$ and $x\ge \xi^-+Ct+2\epsilon^{-1}$}.
\end{gather*}
\end{remark}

Let $U(x+ct)$ be a non-decreasing traveling wavefronts of
\eqref{101}. We define the following two functions:
\[
w^\pm(x,t,\eta,\delta):=U(x+ct+\eta\pm\sigma_0\delta(e^{\beta_0\tau}-e^{-\beta_0
t}))\pm\delta e^{-\beta_0t},
\]
where $\sigma_0$ and $\beta_0$ are as in Lemma \ref{lemma402}.


\begin{lemma}\label{lemma503}
Let $U(x+ct)$ be a non-decreasing traveling wavefront of
\eqref{101}. Then there exists a positive number $\epsilon^*$ such
that if $u(x,t)$ is a solution of \eqref{101} on $[0,+\infty)$ with
initial data $0\le u(x,s)\le 1$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and
$s\in[-\tau,0]$, and for some $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$, $h>0$, $\delta>0$
and $T\ge0$, there holds
\[
w_0^-(x,-cT+\xi,\delta)(s)\le u_T(x)(s)\le
w_0^+(x,-cT+\xi+h,\delta)(s)
\]
 for all
$x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $s\in[-\tau,0]$, then for any $t\ge T+\tau+1$,
there exist $\hat\xi(t)$, $\hat\delta(t)$ and $\hat h(t)$ satisfying
\begin{gather*}
\xi-\sigma_0(2\delta+\epsilon^*\min\{1,h\})e^{\beta_0\tau}\le
\hat\xi(t)\le\xi+h+\sigma_0(2\delta+\epsilon^*\min\{1,h\})e^{\beta_0\tau},
\\
\hat\delta(t)=(\epsilon^*\min\{1,
h\}+\delta)e^{-\beta_0[t-(T+1+\tau)]},
\\
\hat h(t)= h-2\sigma_0\epsilon^*\min\{1,
h\}+\sigma_0(3\delta+\epsilon^*\min\{1, h\})e^{\beta_0\tau}>0,
\end{gather*}
such that
\[
w_0^-(x,-ct+\hat\xi(t),\hat\delta(t))(s)\le u_t(x)(s)\le
w_0^+(x,-ct+\hat\xi(t)+\hat h(t),\hat\delta(t))(s)
\]
for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $s\in[-\tau,0]$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lemma402}, $w^+(x,t,cT+\xi+h, \delta)$ and
$w^-(x,t,cT+\xi,\delta)$ are a supersolution and a subsolution of
\eqref{101}, respectively. It is easy to see that $v(x,t):=u(x,T+t),
t\ge0$, is also a solution to \eqref{101} with
$v_0(x)(s)=u_T(x)(s)$. Then it follows from the comparison principle
that
\[
w^-(x,t,c T+\xi,\delta)\le u(x,t+T)\le w^+(x,t,c T+\xi+h, \delta)
\]
for $x\in\mathbb{R}, t\ge0$. That is,
\begin{align*}
&U(x+c(t+T)+\xi-\sigma_0\delta(e^{\beta_0\tau}-e^{-\beta_0
t}))-\delta e^{-\beta_0t}\le u(x,t+T) \\
&\le U(x+c(t+T)+\xi+h+\sigma_0\delta(e^{\beta_0\tau}-e^{-\beta_0
t}))+\delta e^{-\beta_0t}
\end{align*}
for $x\in\mathbb{R}$, $t\ge0$.

In view of  Lemma \ref{lemma303}, for $x\in\mathbb{R}, t>0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{506}
\begin{aligned}
&u(x,T+t)-w^-(x,t,cT+\xi,\delta)  \\
&\geq \Theta(|x|,t) \int^1_0[u(y,T)-w^-(y,0,cT+\xi,\delta)]dy
\\
&\geq \Theta(|x|,t)\int^1_0[u(y,T)-U(y+cT+\xi-\sigma_0\delta(e^{\beta_0\tau}-1))
+\delta ]dy  \\
&\ge \Theta(|x|,t)\int^1_0[u(y,T)-U(y+cT+\xi)+\delta]dy.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

By Lemma \ref{lemma401}, $\lim_{|r|\to +\infty}U'(r)=0$.
Then we can fix a positive number $M>0$ such that
\[
U'(r)\le \frac{1}{2\sigma_0} \quad \text{for all $|r|\ge M$.}
\]
Let
\[
\epsilon_1=\frac{1}{2}\min\{U'(\eta): |\eta|\le 2\}>0 \quad
\text{and} \quad \overline h=\min\{1,h\}.
\]
By the mean value theorem, we obtain
\[
\int^1_0[U(y+cT+\xi+\overline h)-U(y+cT+\xi)]dy\ge
2\epsilon_1\overline h.
\]
Then at least one of the following two statements is true:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\int_0^1 [u(y,T)-U(y+cT+\xi)]dy\ge\epsilon_1\overline h$.

\item[(ii)] $\int_0^1 [U(y+cT+\xi+\overline h)-u(y,T)]dy\ge\epsilon_1\overline h$.
\end{itemize}
Subsequently, we consider only the case (i). The case (ii) is
similar and thus omitted.

Let $J_1=M_3+|c|(1+\tau)+2$, $z_0=-cT-\xi$ and $J_2=J_1+c+3$. For
$|x-z_0|\le J_1$, further letting $t=1+\tau+s$ in \eqref{506}, and
$\overline \Theta:=\Theta(J_1,1+\tau+s)$, then we get
\begin{equation}\label{508}
\begin{aligned}
&u(x,T+1+\tau+s)  \\
&\geq U(x+c^*(T+1+\tau+s)+\xi-\sigma_0\delta(e^{\beta_0\tau}
-e^{-\beta_0(1+\tau+s)}))  \\
&-\delta e^{-\beta_0(1+\tau+s)}+\Theta(|x|,1+\tau+s))\int^1_0[u(y,T)
-U(y+cT+\xi)]dy \\
&\geq U(x-z_0+c(1+\tau+s)-\sigma_0\delta(e^{\beta_0\tau}
 -e^{-\beta_0(1+\tau+s)})) \\
&-\delta e^{-\beta_0(1+\tau+s)}+\overline\Theta\epsilon_1\overline h.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In addition, we have
\begin{equation}\label{509}
\begin{aligned}
&U(x-z_0+c(1+\tau+s)+2\sigma_0\epsilon^*\overline h
-\sigma_0\delta(e^{\beta_0\tau}-e^{-\beta_0(1+\tau+s)}))
\\
&-U(x-z_0+c(1+\tau+s)-\sigma_0\delta(e^{\beta_0\tau}-e^{-\beta_0(1+\tau+s)}))
 \\
&= U'(\eta_1)2\sigma_0\epsilon^*\overline h\le \overline
\Theta\epsilon_1\overline h,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{gather*}
\epsilon^*=\min\Big\{\frac{1}{3\sigma_0},\quad \min_{|\eta|\le
J_2}\frac{\overline\Theta\epsilon_1}{2\sigma_0\phi'(\eta)}\Big\},
\\
\eta_1=x-z_0+c(1+\tau+s)-\sigma_0\delta(1-e^{-\beta_0})+\theta\cdot
2\sigma_0\epsilon^*\overline h, \quad \theta\in(0,1).
\end{gather*}
It follows that
\[
|\eta_1|=|x-z_0|+c(1+\tau)+\sigma_0\delta+ 2\sigma_0\epsilon^*\le
J_1+c+\sigma_0\delta+ 2\sigma_0\epsilon^*\le J_2.
\]
Hence, by the monotonicity of $U(\cdot)$, \eqref{508} and
\eqref{509}, we have
\begin{align*}
&u(x,T+1+\tau+s)\\
&\geq  U(x+c(T+1+\tau+s)+\xi+2\sigma_0\epsilon^*\bar
h-\sigma_0\delta(e^{\beta_0\tau}-e^{-\beta_0(1+\tau+s)})) \\
&\quad -\delta e^{-\beta_0(1+\tau+s)}.
\end{align*}
The remainder of proof is similar to that of \cite[Lemma 3.1]{SZ},
so is omitted. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}

By Lemmas \ref{lemma402}, \ref{lemma501}, \ref{lemma503}, we can
obtain the following Lemma \ref{lemma504} and Theorem \ref{th505}.
Their proofs are similar to the proofs of \cite{Zhang1}, so we omit
them here.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma504}
Let $U(x+ct)$ be a non-decreasing traveling wavefront of
\eqref{101}, and $\varphi\in[0,1]_C$ be such that
\begin{align*}
\limsup_{x\to
-\infty}\max_{s\in[-\tau,0]}\varphi(x,s)<\alpha<\liminf_{x\to
+\infty}\min_{s\in[-\tau,0]}\varphi(x,s).
\end{align*}
Then, for any $\delta>0$, there exist $T=T(\varphi,\delta)>0$,
$\xi=\xi(\varphi,\delta)\in\mathbb{R}$, and $h=h(\varphi,\delta)>0$
such that
\begin{align*}
w_0^-(x,-cT+\xi,\delta)(s)\le u_T(x,\varphi)(s)\le
w_0^+(x,cT+\xi+h,\delta)(s)
\end{align*}
for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $s\in[-\tau,0]$.
\end{lemma}



\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
The first author was supported by CPSF (2013M530435), SRFDP (20126203120006),
 NSF of China (11401478) and Gansu Provincial Natural Science Foundation
(145RJZA220). The second author was supported by NSF of China
(11061030), SRFDP (20126203110004) and Gansu Provincial National
Science Foundation of China (1208RJZA258).


\begin{thebibliography}{99}

\bibitem{Bates} P. W. Bates, P. C. Fife, X. Ren, X. Wang;
Traveling waves in a convolution model for phase transitions,
\emph{Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.} \textbf{138} (1997), 105-136.


\bibitem{Carr} J. Carr, A. Chmaj;
Uniqueness of travelling waves for nonlocal monostable
equations, \emph{Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.} \textbf{132} (2004),
2433-2439.

\bibitem{CCR} E. Chasseigne, M. Chaves, J. D. Rossi;
Asymptotic behavior for nonlocal diffusion equations, \emph{J. Math. Pure
Appl.} \textbf{86} (2006), 271-291.

\bibitem{Chen} X. Chen;
Existence, uniqueness and asymptotic stability
of traveling waves in non-local evolution equations,
\emph{Adv. Differential Equations} \textbf{2} (1997), 125-160.

\bibitem{CGW} X. Chen, J.-S. Guo, C.-C. Wu;
Traveling waves in discrete periodic media for bistable dynamics,
\emph{Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.} \textbf{189} (2008), 189-236.

\bibitem{Co} J. Coville;
Travelling waves in a nonlocal reaction diffusion equation with
ignition nonlinearity, Ph.D. Thesis, Paris: Universit'e Pierre et
Marie Curie. 2003.

\bibitem{CD} J. Coville, L. Dupaigne;
On a nonlocal reaction diffusion equation arising in population dynamics,
\emph{Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect.} \textbf{137A} (2007), 1-29.

\bibitem{CDM} J. Coville, J. D\'avila, S. Mart\'inez;
 Nonlocal anisotropic dispersal with monostable nonlinearity,
\emph{J. Differential Equations}  \textbf{244} (2008), 3080-3118.

\bibitem{Co1} J. Coville;
Travelling fronts in asymmetric nonlocal reaction diffusion equation:
The bistable and ignition case, 43 pages, Preprint du CMM. 2007.
$\langle <{\rm hal}-00696208\rangle$.

\bibitem{FM} P. C. Fife, J. B. Mcleod;
The approach of solutions of nonlinear diffusion equations
 to travelling front solutions,
\emph{Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.} \textbf{65} (1977), 335-361.

\bibitem{Fife1} P. C. Fife;
Mathematical aspects of reacting and diffusing systems,
Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, 28, Springer Verlag, 1979.

\bibitem{Fife} P. C. Fife;
Some nonclassical trends in parabolic and parabolic-like
evolutions, in: Trends in Nonlinear Analysis, Springer, Berlin,
2003, 153-191.

\bibitem{FG} J. Furter, M. Grinfeld;
Local vs. non-local interactions in population dynamics,
\emph{J. Math.  Biol.} \textbf{27} (1989), 65-80.


\bibitem{HMW} R. Huang, M. Mei, Y. Wang;
Planar traveling waves for nonlocal dispersion equation with
monostable nonlinearity,  \emph{Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. A}
\textbf{32} (2012) 3621-3649.

\bibitem{LSW} W.-T. Li, Y.-J. Sun, Z.-C. Wang;
Entire solutions in the Fisher-KPP equation with nonlocal dispersal,
\emph{Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl.}  \textbf{11} (2010), 2302-2313.

\bibitem{LW} D. Liang, J. Wu;
Travelling waves and numerical approximations in a
reaction ad- vection diffusion equation with nonlocal delayed
effects, \emph{J. Nonlinear Sci.}  \textbf{13} (2003), 289-310.

\bibitem{LL} X. S. Li, G. Lin;
Traveling wavefronts in a single species model with nonlocal
diffusion and age-structure, \emph{Turk. J. Math.}  \textbf{34}
(2010), 377-384.

\bibitem{MZ} S. Ma, X. Zou;
Propagation and its failure in a lattice delayed
differential equation with global interaction, \emph{J. Differential
Equations}  \textbf{212} (2005), 129-190.


\bibitem{MD} S. Ma, Y. Duan;
Asymptotic stability of traveling waves
in a discrete convolution model for phase transitions,
\emph{J. Math. Anal. Appl.} \textbf{308} (2005) 240-256.

\bibitem{MW} S. Ma, J. Wu;
Existence, uniqueness and asymptotic stability of traveling
wavefronts in a non-local delayed diffusion equation,
\emph{J. Dynam. Differential Equations} \textbf{19} (2007), 391-436.

\bibitem{Ma} S. Ma;
Traveling waves for non-local delayed diffusion equation via auxiliary equations,
\emph{J. Differential Equations} \textbf{237} (2007), 259-277.

\bibitem{MS1} R. H. Martin, H. L. Smith;
Abstract functional differential equations
and reaction-diffusion systems, \emph{Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.}
\textbf{321} (1990) 1-44.

\bibitem{MS2} R. H. Martin, H. L. Smith;
Reaction-diffusion systems with the time delay: Monotonicity,
invariance, comparison and convergence,
\emph{J. Reine. Angew. Math.}  \textbf{413} (1991) 1-35.

\bibitem{MK} J. Medlock, M. Kot;
Spreading disease: integro-differential equations old and new,
\emph{Math. Biosci.} \textbf{184} (2003), 201-222.

\bibitem{Mei} M. Mei;
Stability of traveling wavefronts for time delayed reaction-diffusion equations,
\emph{Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Supplement} (2009), 526-535.

\bibitem{MLLS1} M. Mei, C.K. Lin, C.-T. Lin, J. W. H. So;
Traveling wavefronts for time-delayed reaction-diffusion equation: (II) nonlocal
nonlinearity, {J. Differential Equations}  \textbf{247} (2009),
511-529.

\bibitem{PLL1} S. Pan, W.-T. Li, G. Lin;
Travelling wave fronts in nonlocal reaction-diffusion systems and applications,
\emph{Z. Angew. Math. Phys.}  \textbf{60} (2009), 377-392.

\bibitem{PLL2} S. Pan, W.-T. Li, G. Lin;
Existence and stability of traveling wavefronts in a nonlocal diffusion equation
with delay, \emph{Nonlinear Anal.}  \textbf{72} (2010), 3150-3158.

\bibitem{Pazy} A. Pazy;
Semigroups of Linear Operators and Applications to Partial
Differential Equations, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983

\bibitem{SZ} H. L. Smith, X.-Q. Zhao;
Global asymptotic stability of travelling
waves in delayed reaction-diffusion equations, \emph{SIAM J. Math.
Anal.}  \textbf{31} (2000), 514-534.


\bibitem{SWZ} J. W. H. So, J. Wu, X. Zou;
A reaction-diffusion model for a single species with age structure. I.
Travelling wavefronts on unbounded domains,
\emph{Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A}  \textbf{457} (2001), 1841-1853.


\bibitem{Wang} H. Wang;
On the existence of traveling waves for
delayed reaction-diffusion equations, \emph{J. Differential
Equations}  \textbf{247} (2009), 887-905.

\bibitem{WLR} Z.-C. Wang, W.-T. Li, S. Ruan;
Existence and stability of traveling wave fronts
in reaction advection diffusion equations with nonlocal delay,
\emph{J. Differential Equations} 238 (2007), 153-200.

\bibitem{Y} H. Yagisita;
Existence of traveling wave solutions for a
nonlocal bistable equation: an abstract approach, \emph{Publ. RIMS,
Kyoto Univ.} \textbf{45} (2009), 955-979.

\bibitem{YY} Z. X. Yu, R. Yuan;
Traveling waves of a nonlocal dispersal delayed age-structured population model,
\emph{Japan J. Indust. Appl. Math.} \textbf{30} (2013), 165-184.

\bibitem{Zhang2} G.-B. Zhang;
Traveling waves in a nonlocal dispersal population model with
age-structure, \emph{Nonlinear Anal.}  \textbf{74} (2011), 5030-5047.

\bibitem{Zhang1} G.-B. Zhang;
Global stability of wavefronts with minimal
speeds for nonlocal dispersal equations with degenerate
nonlinearity, \emph{Nonlinear Anal.} \textbf{74} (2011), 6518-6529.

\bibitem{ZLW} G.-B. Zhang, W.-T. Li, Z.-C. Wang;
Spreading speeds and traveling waves for nonlocal dispersal equations with
degenerate monostable nonlinearity, \emph{J. Differential Equations}
\textbf{252} (2012), 5096-5124.

\bibitem{ZL} G.-B. Zhang, W.-T. Li;
Nonlinear stability of traveling wavefronts in an
 age-structured population model with nonlocal dispersal and delay,
\emph{Z. Angew. Math. Phys.}  \textbf{64} (2013) 1643-1659.

\bibitem{Zhang3} G.-B. Zhang, R. Ma;
Spreading speeds and traveling waves for a
nonlocal dispersal equation with convolution type
crossing-monostable nonlinearity, \emph{Z. Angew. Math. Phys.}
\textbf{65} (2014), 819-844.

\bibitem{ZhL} L. Zhang;
Existence, uniqueness and exponential stability of
traveling wave solutions of some integral differential equations
arising from neuronal networks, \emph{J. Differential Equations}
\textbf{197} (2004) 162-196.

\bibitem {Zou} X. Zou;
Delay induced traveling wave fronts in
reaction diffusion equations of KPP-Fisher type,
\emph{J. Comput. Appl. Math.} \textbf{146} (2002) 309-321.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}
