Question regarding differing outputs for same species inputs #8
Comments
|
Hey Tracey,
The GUM package takes the info about the scientific name and species group
and looks for a match in the FishBase data, returning NA if it cannot find
that species or if no data is present for those life history variables.
Cheers,
Tyler
…On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Tracey Mangin ***@***.***> wrote:
This is a question about some of the life history parameters that the GUM
package spits out at outputs. While preparing input data for a projection
model, I ran a single fishery's catch history and the outputs for
MaxLength, AgeMat, VonBertK, and Temp were all NAs (this didn't seem like a
problem since we don't actually use any of those in the PT model for
projections).
When I add catch history for three more fisheries to the same inputs used
(same SciName, SpeciesCat, SpeciesGroup, and CommName) and ran the gum
package, these outputs actually contain values for MaxLength, AgeMat, and
VonBertK (Temp is still NA).
Is there a reason that these life history characteristics would be filled
when using the second set of inputs (with more than 1 fishery), but not the
first set (with only 1 fishery)? I'm mostly trying to understand this in
order to answer a question that we received from the researchers in Cuba
using the GUM package.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#8>, or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHyNJ3axmkg3twJyaaMtcgw0laBFIvdPks5rfIJSgaJpZM4MJCKt>
.
--
Tyler Clavelle
Project Researcher
Sustainable Fisheries Group (SFG)
University of California, Santa Barbara
tclavelle@bren.ucsb.edu
(802) 578-8701
|
|
So if the species name, species group, species cat, etc. is the same for both sets of inputs, why would there be outputs for one set of inputs and not the other? The only difference between them is that one has contains four fisheries (four catch histories), but they are all for the same species, species cat, etc. etc. |
|
Oh gotcha, I misread your question. Is the spelling exactly the same?
…On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Tracey Mangin ***@***.***> wrote:
So if the species name, species group, species cat, etc. is the same for
both sets of inputs, why would there be outputs for one set of inputs and
not the other? The only difference between them is that one has contains
four fisheries (four catch histories), but they are all for the same
species, species cat, etc. etc.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#8 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHyNJ2qvibhOTR0ru3fh3ncgOsEtd5TNks5rfIeJgaJpZM4MJCKt>
.
--
Tyler Clavelle
Project Researcher
Sustainable Fisheries Group (SFG)
University of California, Santa Barbara
tclavelle@bren.ucsb.edu
(802) 578-8701
|
|
Resolved! There was a space at the end of the sci name in one of the CSVs. Thanks! |
|
Ha, that'll do it. Sorry for not responding faster. If we're going to keep
using GUM it would be good to dedicate some time to improving the package.
Tracey, is that something you'd want to take on?
Dan
…On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Tracey Mangin ***@***.***> wrote:
Resolved! There was a space at the end of the sci name in one of the CSVs.
Thanks!
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#8 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHuJt64uowR0IHbNwvwrzReCTLINUpAxks5rfIvJgaJpZM4MJCKt>
.
--
PhD Candidate, Project Researcher
Sustainable Fisheries Group
University of California, Santa Barbara
|
|
Hmmm this is not something that I have much experience in, but would think about it if it makes sense to make changes. Another quick question -- I was asked if they can use the model for non-fish species. I'm pretty sure this model has been used for other marine species... what are the guidelines here? Thanks! |
|
It will model non-fish species using the same life-history parameters and
with a surplus production model (PT). If they're comfortable with that then
yes, the model can be used for non-fish species. That being said, it's
certainly not the best model for species like crab, lobster, shrimp, etc.
…On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Tracey Mangin ***@***.***> wrote:
Hmmm this is not something that I have much experience in, but would think
about it if it makes sense to make changes.
Another quick question -- I was asked if they can use the model for
non-fish species. I'm pretty sure this model has been used for other marine
species... what are the guidelines here?
Thanks!
Tracey
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#8 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHyNJztPIa4SYsXALwoKnjTu-ZjdNDp3ks5rfwKVgaJpZM4MJCKt>
.
--
Tyler Clavelle
Project Researcher
Sustainable Fisheries Group (SFG)
University of California, Santa Barbara
tclavelle@bren.ucsb.edu
(802) 578-8701
|
|
Yeah, we use it, but huge huge red flags for those species. They are
realllllly underrepresented in RAM, so the fits are poor, and they really
just don't seem to exhibit surplus production style pop dynamics.
Dan
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Tyler Clavelle <notifications@github.com>
wrote:
… It will model non-fish species using the same life-history parameters and
with a surplus production model (PT). If they're comfortable with that then
yes, the model can be used for non-fish species. That being said, it's
certainly not the best model for species like crab, lobster, shrimp, etc.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Tracey Mangin ***@***.***>
wrote:
> Hmmm this is not something that I have much experience in, but would
think
> about it if it makes sense to make changes.
>
> Another quick question -- I was asked if they can use the model for
> non-fish species. I'm pretty sure this model has been used for other
marine
> species... what are the guidelines here?
>
> Thanks!
> Tracey
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#8 (comment)>, or
mute
> the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-
auth/AHyNJztPIa4SYsXALwoKnjTu-ZjdNDp3ks5rfwKVgaJpZM4MJCKt>
> .
>
--
Tyler Clavelle
Project Researcher
Sustainable Fisheries Group (SFG)
University of California, Santa Barbara
***@***.***
(802) 578-8701
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#8 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHuJtwkye2kvkuDPOVO3VrxXAPLUdU5oks5rfxREgaJpZM4MJCKt>
.
--
PhD Candidate, Project Researcher
Sustainable Fisheries Group
University of California, Santa Barbara
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
This is a question about some of the life history parameters that the GUM package spits out at outputs. While preparing input data for a projection model, I ran a single fishery's catch history and the outputs for MaxLength, AgeMat, VonBertK, and Temp were all NAs (this didn't seem like a problem since we don't actually use any of those in the PT model for projections).
When I add catch history for three more fisheries to the same inputs used (same SciName, SpeciesCat, SpeciesGroup, and CommName) and ran the gum package, these outputs actually contain values for MaxLength, AgeMat, and VonBertK (Temp is still NA).
Is there a reason that these life history characteristics would be filled when using the second set of inputs (with more than 1 fishery), but not the first set (with only 1 fishery)? I'm mostly trying to understand this in order to answer a question that we received from the researchers in Cuba using the GUM package.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: