You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, cohorts are reduced through starvation mortality by a certain fraction. An alternative would be to kill the cohort completely with a probability corresponding to that starvation fraction.
Advantages:
Reducing the number of cohorts could improve calculation time!
Less chance for ”zombie” cohorts: those cohorts with extremely low density, where it is ambiguous whether they should just be deleted to make space for re-establishment.
Disadvantages:
Model becomes stochastic rather than deterministic. It needs to be evaluated whether a single simulation is representative or whether a number of samples needs to be calculated.
In particular with short-lived herbivores (with fewer cohorts), killing a whole cohort can have a lot of impact on the whole population dynamic.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Idea
Currently, cohorts are reduced through starvation mortality by a certain fraction. An alternative would be to kill the cohort completely with a probability corresponding to that starvation fraction.
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: