-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
Open
Labels
EPIC:GROWTH_M25code reviewgrowthin progressThis is being worked on in a branchThis is being worked on in a branchquestionFurther information is requestedFurther information is requested
Description
work on issue #155 exposed a few questionable code lines and possible discrepancies between the various approaches to growth. A code review of get_growth2 and get_growth3 seems warranted.
- With Linf_decay == -999, the plus group growth uses a decay rate of 0.2 and goes out to 1 * nages. With a positive value for Linf_decay, SS3 uses that value and goes out to 3 * nages.
- clarify usage of Linf_decay and its effect on updating size in the plus group in time series; add option -997.
- find that the value of t was not properly updated before calling growth3, which caused incorrect values for size in the plus group
- document where season duration (VBK_seas) is changed and test by comparing annual, to two 6-month season, to season as year with 6 month season. Do that test for vonB and Richards
- run models with null param values to match vonB
- find small discrepancy in plus group with seas-as-years, after year with time-vary Linf and only for growth1 model.
- demonstrate reasonable range of param values
- clean-up and improve echoinputs in biofxn routine
- consider making Gompertz growth a separate function
- Add FATAL warning if AFIX2 input value is > nages. Otherwise, incorrect Linf values are calculated and used.
Reactions are currently unavailable
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
EPIC:GROWTH_M25code reviewgrowthin progressThis is being worked on in a branchThis is being worked on in a branchquestionFurther information is requestedFurther information is requested
Type
Projects
Status
No status