-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Not always getting same results as Natalie from bipm() #36
Comments
Ok, here's the deal: In natalie's original code, she calculates mean worker mass as the mean of the predicted masses of the hypothetical workers (~0.148) wkr_mass_mean <- mean(wkr_mass_f(wkr_size_1)) She uses the same mean mass for calculating pollen needed to produce 1 gram of worker poln_per_wkrmass <- poln_per_cell / wkr_mass_mean AND larval recruitment wkr_larv <- daily_poln_return / (poln_per_wkrmass * wkr_mass_mean) Meaning that the mean worker mass just canceled out in this equation. Then, after a phone conversation, Natalie told me that the mean worker mass should be the observed mean mass, not the mean mass of hypothetical workers. The observed mean is ~0.125. I think that observed mean is only for the pollen per gram of worker estimation not for the larval recruitment calculation. So, new equation: poln_per_wkrmass <- poln_per_cell / 0.1254111 Now, the other confusion that I have is why isn't the worker mass in the denominator of the larval recruitment equation a vector of worker masses of different sizes? The equation in the manuscript is written as: fx = p / pwg * yx where p is daily pollen return, pwg is the amount of pollen needed to make 1 gram of worker mass, and yx is the mass of the worker of size x. In the code, p ( |
I think at this point, I probably am not going to be including Natalie's IPM in this package. |
This is documented in the tests on the ipm branch. I just want to have a space to keep notes here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: