Changes between Version 2 and Version 3 of EwEugDealingWithDynamicInstabilityInEcosimEcospace


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2010-11-21 23:28:29 (9 years ago)
Author:
shermanl
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • EwEugDealingWithDynamicInstabilityInEcosimEcospace

    v2 v3  
    1 == 3.4 Dealing with dynamic instability in Ecosim/Ecospace == 
     1== 3.4 Dealing with dynamic instability in Ecosim / Ecospace == 
    22We commonly see several types of dynamic instability following small perturbations in fishing mortality rates (to get away from initial Ecopath equilibrium): 
    33 
     
    55 1. System simplification (loss of biomass pools due to competition/predation effects);[[BR]] 
    66 1. Stock-recruitment instabilities (cyclic or erratic changes in recruitment and stock size for split pool groups);[[BR]] 
    7  1. Numerical ‘chatter’ in time solutions (mainly in Ecospace). 
     7 1. Numerical 'chatter' in time solutions (mainly in Ecospace). 
    88 
    99Such patterns are not particularly common in fisheries time series, so unless you have data to support a cyclic prediction, you should probably adjust the model parameters to get rid of it. 
     
    1111Predator-prey and simplification effects can usually be eliminated by reducing the predation vulnerability parameters (Ecosim [[Vulnerabilities flow control.htm|Vulnerabilities form]], set values to 4 or less). 
    1212 
    13 We know of at least four common mechanisms that can decrease the vulnerability parameters so as to create stabilizing and the appearance of ‘ratio-dependent’ or ‘bottom-up’ control of consumption rates: 
     13We know of at least four common mechanisms that can decrease the vulnerability parameters so as to create stabilizing and the appearance of 'ratio-dependent' or 'bottom-up' control of consumption rates: 
    1414 
    1515 1. Risk-sensitive prey behaviours: Prey may spend only a small proportion of their time in foraging arenas where they are subject to predation risk, otherwise taking refuge in schools, deep water, littoral refuge sites, etc.;[[BR]] 
    16  1. Risk-sensitive predator behaviours (the ‘three to tango’ argument):Especially if the predator is a small fish, it may severely restrict its own range relative to the range occupied by the prey, so that only a small proportion of the prey move or are mixed into the habitats used by it per unit time; in other words, its predators may drive it to behave in ways that make its own prey less vulnerable to it;[[BR]] 
     16 1. Risk-sensitive predator behaviours (the 'three to tango' argument):Especially if the predator is a small fish, it may severely restrict its own range relative to the range occupied by the prey, so that only a small proportion of the prey move or are mixed into the habitats used by it per unit time; in other words, its predators may drive it to behave in ways that make its own prey less vulnerable to it;[[BR]] 
    1717 1. Size-dependent graduation effects: Typically a prey pool represents an aggregate of different prey sizes, and a predator  can take only some limited range of sizes, limited vulnerability can represent a  process of prey graduation into and out of the vulnerable size range due to growth. Size effects may of course be associated with distribution (predator-prey spatial overlap) shifts as well;[[BR]] 
    18  1. Passive, differential spatial depletion effects: Even if neither prey or predator shows active behaviours that create foraging arena patches, any physical or behavioural processes that create spatial variation in encounters between ''i'' and ''j'' will lead to local depletion of'' i'' in high risk areas and concentrations of i in partial predation ‘refuges’ represented by low risk areas.  ‘Flow’ between low and high risk areas (''v,,ij,,'') is then created by any processes that move organisms. 
     18 1. Passive, differential spatial depletion effects: Even if neither prey or predator shows active behaviours that create foraging arena patches, any physical or behavioural processes that create spatial variation in encounters between ''i'' and ''j'' will lead to local depletion of'' i'' in high risk areas and concentrations of i in partial predation 'refuges' represented by low risk areas.  'Flow' between low and high risk areas (''v,,ij,,'') is then created by any processes that move organisms. 
    1919 
    2020These mechanisms are so ubiquitous that any reader with aquatic natural history experience might wonder why anyone would ever assume a mass-action, random encounter model (vulnerabilities = 100 in Vulnerabilities form) in the first place. 
    2121 
    22 Methods for dealing with stock-recruitment instability are discussed in the help section on [[Using Ecosim to study compensation.htm|using Ecosim to study compensation]]. Generally the simplest solutions are to check (and reduce if needed) cannibalism rates, set higher foraging time adjustment rates (Ecosim [[Group info.htm|Group info]] form) for juvenile pools and reduce vulnerabilities of prey to juvenile fishes ([[Vulnerabilities flow control.htm|Vulnerabilities form]]). 
     22Methods for dealing with stock-recruitment instability are discussed in the help section on [EwEugUsingEcosimToStudyCompensationInRecruitmentRelationships using Ecosim to study compensation]. Generally the simplest solutions are to check (and reduce if needed) cannibalism rates, set higher foraging time adjustment rates ([EwEugGroupInfo Ecosim Group info form]) for juvenile pools and reduce vulnerabilities of prey to juvenile fishes ([EwEugVulnerabilitiesFlowControl Vulnerabilities form]). 
    2323 
    24 Numerical instabilities (chatter, oscillations of growing amplitude) occur mainly in Ecospace. They are avoided in Ecosim by only doing time dynamic integration of change for pools that can change relatively slowly.  In Ecospace, the only remedy for chatter is to reduce the prediction time step (from 12/year default value, sometimes very low values such as 0.05 year are required for stability).  In extreme cases, it might be necessary to ‘fool’ Ecosim/Ecospace by implicitly moving to a shorter time step for all dynamics, which you can do by dividing every Ecopath input time rate (''P/B, Q/B'') with the same factor. 
     24Numerical instabilities (chatter, oscillations of growing amplitude) occur mainly in Ecospace. They are avoided in Ecosim by only doing time dynamic integration of change for pools that can change relatively slowly.  In Ecospace, the only remedy for chatter is to reduce the prediction time step (from 12/year default value, sometimes very low values such as 0.05 year are required for stability).  In extreme cases, it might be necessary to 'fool' Ecosim / Ecospace by implicitly moving to a shorter time step for all dynamics, which you can do by dividing every Ecopath input time rate (''P/B, Q/B'') with the same factor.