CC0 license approved for use on CRAN
Update my DESCRIPTION files, use the new Author@R convention.
Rebecca’s comment on mntd in comparative methods
This lab notebook gets mentioned for good practices in academic workflow.
Working on treebase paper
Lecture notes for tomorrow
forage fish writing
Reading over (Munch et. al. 2005). I think this is a very nice treatment, a lot clearer I think than lots of other stuff I’ve looked at (thanks Tim & Jim!). I think it highlights one of the difficulties at the boundary between our sections though.
I did notice they introduce predator density as a parameter, μT, rather than as a function of forage fish density (N). They assume top-down effects aren’t density dependent (by assuming predator pop doesn’t grow when prey grows, though they could have added N in elsewhere in the T equation instead, they don’t). Since they’ve assumed top-down mechanisms are density independent, they can’t get an equilibrium size determined by top-down effects alone, equation (4) i.e. the pattern of control they report “finding” appears to me to be the pattern they “assumed” when they chose to make T independent of N. (Maybe I’m missing something but I feel I keep running into this kind of recursive argument).
Greatly enjoyed reading Walters 2007. The example of predictive disagreement between the two equally good-fitting shrimp-harvest models is a fantastic example, and quite evocative of what Steve Pacala talks about in the historic fits on the climate models.
Munch S, Snover M, Watters G and Mangel M (2005). “A Unified Treatment of Top-Down And Bottom-up Control of Reproduction in Populations.” Ecology Letters, 8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00766.x.