Skip to content

[Question]: Code review for growth #156

@Rick-Methot-NOAA

Description

@Rick-Methot-NOAA

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
  • demonstrate reasonable range of param valuesclean-up a
  • 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.

Metadata

Metadata

Type

No type

Projects

Status

No status

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions