Assumption:
C. finmarchicus uses a similar mechanism for dormancy across its range in the NW Atlantic

At warmer temperature (or higher cumulative T) the copepods develop proportionally faster than they grow, thus they are unable to accumulate as high a % of lipids.

The % of ingested food that can be accumulated increases as the concentration of food increases (Hakanson 1984 L+O).

I seem to have them waking up, just a little bit early…..I also don’t quite have that second bump later on, likely it’s the climatology I’m using to force the model…or some slight parameter tweaking…..but I am prety encouraged by this.

The abundance graph is hiding up underneath the real data…drag my fig down if you want to see it….but since my model is somewhat artificially capped at 1000 individuals, I am not sure how much stock to put in the absolute relative numbers.

This now has the same parameters as the RIM station on next graph.

My females here seem to be waking up a bit early.

I am also not catching that second bolus of animals around 275.

What I am showing here is on year three.

On year 2, actually, it looks lore like the real data. Which is interesting.

My conclusion is that if forcing stays the same, year after year, the population becomes a little more stretched out, I.e. not such synchronus cohorts.

BUT, when things change from year to year, this tends to drive the population back towards cohorts. (the tails of the pop dist. Get trimmed).

At least, this is my hypothesis.

This version now has exactly the same parameters as the AG station, so they are identical copepods.

Hey hey!!! Not so bad!!!!  I wish there was earlier data (the real data).

Also, not sure why the difference around day 100, in the real data, there is a large bolus of n3-6. What is up with that?