[Babase] Vumbi consort data in interact and parts

Susan Alberts babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:29:14 -0500


--============_-1134565140==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

Thanks for the update on this.

Leaving the rule as 4 years does risk including males that are, say, 
4.2 years and don't have enlarged testes in the consort records. And 
it will also risk EXcluding Lodge Group males that consort at 3.8 
years and do have enlarged testes.  However, neither of these is very 
likely as we've seen from the data -- males just really don't consort 
until they are big enough to fight other males, regardless of whether 
they have testes -- very occassionally a juv male will "practice" 
consorting but we can filter most of those out in the field with the 
4 year rule. So the overal error rate we are talking about with the 
4-yr rule is very small.

However, in principle I like the suggestion of including males in the 
MCE records only after their matured date -- this is conceptually 
cleaner. The problem with this currently is that males who immigrate 
as subadults or adults don't have matured dates but do consort, so 
there is no easy filter to create in babase to insure that only males 
with enlarged testes get included.

POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION: We could institute a plan of having not only 
an  "adult by" date for each male in biograph but also a "subadult 
by" date -- we've discussed the first but not the second. This would 
make it easy to create the necessary filter. Perhaps we should do so 
when Karl arrives here today or tomorrow.

S



>Hi all,
>
>Susan, the two males younger than 4 that have Cs in Interact are PNT c SUM on
>6/2/81 and VUM c HEI on 29/3/87 (the one that Karen emailed about). 
>PNT's consort
>date in Biograph does NOT reflect this consort - his consort date is 
>9/2/86.  VUM
>does not yet have a consort date in Biograph.
>
>Jeanne asked me to check the age at maturation for males to see if any matured
>before age 4.  There were 5 males that reached testicular 
>enlargement before age 4
>- all from Lodge group.  In fact, when the males are ordered by age 
>at maturation,
>the first 16 are all from Lodge.  The youngest non-Lodge male to 
>mature was WEU at
>age 4.4.  Should the rule for inclusion in MCEs be that the males 
>should be 4 years
>old or have reached testicular enlargement, whichever comes first?
>
>The five that reached testicular enlargement before age 4 did NOT 
>come up in the
>query I did of males with MCEs before age 4 - in other words, none 
>of the males
>that had MCEs before age 4 in Interact were in there because they had already
>reached maturation.
>
>Jeanne checked the monitoring guide about the age at which males are 
>females are
>first put on the maturational check sheets.  It currently says that 
>both males and
>females should start being checked at age 4 - there is nothing that 
>indicates that
>individuals from Lodge or other such groups should start being 
>checked at age 3.
>Do you want to add this?
>
>So I will go ahead and delete all MCEs where the males were not yet 
>age 4, or the
>females had not yet reached menarche.  We can decide about the rules 
>for inclusion
>in MCEs, whether this is added to the valinter program, or done as 
>periodic checks
>like this.
>
>Daphne
>
>Susan Alberts wrote:

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Susan Alberts, Assistant Professor 
Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham NC 27708 
phone 919-660-7272  fax 919-660-7293
--============_-1134565140==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
 --></style><title>Re: [Babase] Vumbi consort data in interact and
parts</title></head><body>
<div>Thanks for the update on this.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Leaving the rule as 4 years does risk including males that are,
say, 4.2 years and don't have enlarged testes in the consort records.
And it will also risk EXcluding Lodge Group males that consort at 3.8
years and do have enlarged testes.&nbsp; However, neither of these is
very likely as we've seen from the data -- males just really don't
consort until they are big enough to fight other males, regardless of
whether they have testes -- very occassionally a juv male will
&quot;practice&quot; consorting but we can filter most of those out in
the field with the 4 year rule. So the overal error rate we are
talking about with the 4-yr rule is very small.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>However, in principle I like the suggestion of including males in
the MCE records only after their matured date -- this is conceptually
cleaner. The problem with this currently is that males who immigrate
as subadults or adults don't have matured dates but do consort, so
there is no easy filter to create in babase to insure that only males
with enlarged testes get included.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><b>POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION:</b> We could institute a plan of
having not only an&nbsp; &quot;adult by&quot; date for each male in
biograph but also a &quot;subadult by&quot; date -- we've discussed
the first but not the second. This would make it easy to create the
necessary filter. Perhaps we should do so when Karl arrives here today
or tomorrow.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>S</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Hi all,<br>
<br>
Susan, the two males younger than 4 that have Cs in Interact are PNT c
SUM on<br>
6/2/81 and VUM c HEI on 29/3/87 (the one that Karen emailed about).&nbsp;
PNT's consort<br>
date in Biograph does NOT reflect this consort - his consort date is
9/2/86.&nbsp; VUM<br>
does not yet have a consort date in Biograph.<br>
<br>
Jeanne asked me to check the age at maturation for males to see if any
matured<br>
before age 4.&nbsp; There were 5 males that reached testicular
enlargement before age 4<br>
- all from Lodge group.&nbsp; In fact, when the males are ordered by
age at maturation,<br>
the first 16 are all from Lodge.&nbsp; The youngest non-Lodge male to
mature was WEU at<br>
age 4.4.&nbsp; Should the rule for inclusion in MCEs be that the males
should be 4 years<br>
old or have reached testicular enlargement, whichever comes first?<br>
<br>
The five that reached testicular enlargement before age 4 did NOT come
up in the<br>
query I did of males with MCEs before age 4 - in other words, none of
the males<br>
that had MCEs before age 4 in Interact were in there because they had
already<br>
reached maturation.<br>
<br>
Jeanne checked the monitoring guide about the age at which males are
females are<br>
first put on the maturational check sheets.&nbsp; It currently says
that both males and<br>
females should start being checked at age 4 - there is nothing that
indicates that<br>
individuals from Lodge or other such groups should start being checked
at age 3.<br>
Do you want to add this?<br>
<br>
So I will go ahead and delete all MCEs where the males were not yet
age 4, or the<br>
females had not yet reached menarche.&nbsp; We can decide about the
rules for inclusion<br>
in MCEs, whether this is added to the valinter program, or done as
periodic checks<br>
like this.<br>
<br>
Daphne<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Susan Alberts wrote:</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>-- 
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<span
></span>~~~~~~~<br>
Susan Alberts, Assistant Professor&nbsp;<br>
Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham NC
27708&nbsp;<br>
phone 919-660-7272&nbsp; fax 919-660-7293</div>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1134565140==_ma============--