Clone of Clone of Lab 5 Exercise 3
Is the effect of demographic stochasticity bigger at low or high abundances? low populations are more susceptible. The smaller the population, the greater the risk of extinction resulting from fluctuations caused by demographic stochasticity.
In-class exercise 2, 3-5-18.
[shared, don’t modify]
patch rates p(e/i) are variables informed by rates e/i for Internal Colonization model
ΔF = i•f(1-f) – pe(f)
pi = i•F
Internal Colonization metapopulation model
4b. Change the Age 1 mortality rate to 0.3. Run the simulation starting with 75 individuals, all in Age class 1. What happens? Is this a stochastic model? If not, why does it look like it has a random component?
No. It shows no randomness whether initial Age 1 population is 75 or 1000. Setting the time stamp to 0.1 eliminates the appearance of randomness.
Clone of Clone of Lab 3, Exercise 4: age-structured models in InsightMaker
Clone of Lab 1 Assignment Exponential Growth
4b. Change the Age 1 mortality rate to 0.3. Run the simulation starting with 75 individuals, all in Age class 1. What happens? Is this a stochastic model? If not, why does it look like it has a random component?
No. It shows no randomness whether initial Age 1 population is 75 or 1000. Setting the time stamp to 0.1 eliminates the appearance of randomness.
Clone of Clone of Lab 3, Exercise 4: age-structured models in InsightMaker
Clone of Clone of Exercise 3
3b. Is the current population viable, under the criteria listed above? That is, is there a less than 5% risk of extinction over a 50-year time frame? Hint: use the Sensitivity Testing tool to run 500 replicates. Visualize the 95% quantile. For a viable population the 95% quantile should stay above 0 (extinction) up to at least year 50 of the simulation.
Clone of Lab 5, Exercise 3b (Minimum Viable Population)
Clone of Lab 5 Exercise 3
Population model for lab 1
Clone of Blank Model
