216
WILLIAM STREIFER
0 . 2 1
I
, ,
o’oO.O
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.30 0. 351- P
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
m’/ m
FIG. 5. (a) The age dependence of the density function Eq. (IV-17). (b) The mam
dependence of the density function Eq. ( N - 1 7 ) .
where A is a constant which results from the integration over a’ (see
Appendix A).
It is important to note that the mass distribution of neonates has the
same form as r] at t as required by assumption (4). Actually to determine
K in this example, a straightforward integration of ~ ( 0 ,
m, t ) over m
would have to be performed (see Eqn (27)). A discussion of this is
included in Appendix A. More realistically, K should follow directly
from the formulation of the birth submodel.
It is also interesting to observe the effect of modifying assumption
(6) in the above example. If the food supply a t t’ were inversely proportional to the total biomass,
WILLIAM STREIFER
0 . 2 1
I
, ,
o’oO.O
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.30 0. 351- P
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
m’/ m
FIG. 5. (a) The age dependence of the density function Eq. (IV-17). (b) The mam
dependence of the density function Eq. ( N - 1 7 ) .
where A is a constant which results from the integration over a’ (see
Appendix A).
It is important to note that the mass distribution of neonates has the
same form as r] at t as required by assumption (4). Actually to determine
K in this example, a straightforward integration of ~ ( 0 ,
m, t ) over m
would have to be performed (see Eqn (27)). A discussion of this is
included in Appendix A. More realistically, K should follow directly
from the formulation of the birth submodel.
It is also interesting to observe the effect of modifying assumption
(6) in the above example. If the food supply a t t’ were inversely proportional to the total biomass,