Predictions & Data for this entry

Model: abj climate: BSk, BWk migrate: Mp phylum:
COMPLETE = 2.5 ecozone: THp food: biCi, biHl, biD class:
MRE = 0.059 habitat: 0iFp, 0iFm, 0iFl gender: D order:
SMSE = 0.012 embryo: Fh reprod: O family:

Zero-variate data

Data Observed Predicted (RE) Unit Description Reference
am 4380 4445 (0.01477) d life span TurkErdo2002
Lp 20.9 19.93 (0.04649) cm fork length at puberty for females TurkErdo2002
Lpm 16.9 16.56 (0.02041) cm fork length at puberty for males TurkErdo2002
Li 46.7 48.66 (0.04197) cm ultimate fork length fishbase
Wwb 0.0026 0.002494 (0.04086) g wet weight at birth TurkErdo2002
Ri 98.24 96.36 (0.01916) #/d reprod rate for FL 40.2 cm TurkErdo2002

Uni- and bivariate data

Data Figure Independent variable Dependent variable (RE) Reference
tL_f Data for females, males time since birth fork length (0.06107) TurkErdo2002
tL_m Data for females, males time since birth fork length (0.08237) TurkErdo2002
tW_f time since birth wet weight (0.07902) TurkErdo2002
tW_m time since birth wet weight (0.07964) TurkErdo2002

Pseudo-data at Tref = 20°C

Data Generalised animal Capoeta capoeta Unit Description
v 0.02 0.02402 cm/d energy conductance
kap 0.8 0.8991 - allocation fraction to soma
kap_R 0.95 0.95 - reproduction efficiency
p_M 18 73.31 J/d.cm^3 vol-spec som maint
k_J 0.002 0.002 1/d maturity maint rate coefficient
kap_G 0.8 0.8018 - growth efficiency

Discussion

  • Males are assumed to differ from females by {p_Am} and E_Hp only
  • tL and tW data suggests an increasing food density, which is taken into account
  • mod_1: males have equal state variables at b, compared to females

Bibliography

Citation