[Babase] missing tdates in cycles
Stephanie Combes
babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:09:48 -0400
Jeanne,
For Alto's, please check if 1988 also falls into the same category, as
well as Hook's 1991 and 1992. There are many dates missing there also.
Also, I think your revision of repstats rules will solve a lot of missing
problems. Many of the dates that "disappeared" when trying to add repro
info to the points fell away because a cycle would have a tdate but no
ddate and the subsequent cycle would have no tdate but would have a ddate.
This created a gap in repstat, where it's obvious that if the focal was
taken during that time, she was cycling. So I'm hopeful that the new rule
will help.
So, I don't have other time periods, but there's a least one female that
bothers me: Limau in 1990. She matures in Jan. 1990. In cycles, her first
cycle has a tdate in Jan and ddate in March. But, to me, she should have a
ddate in Feb. and a new tdate to go with the March ddate. Please check.
And actually, while you have the notebook pulled - could you continue to
look at Limau for much of that year? There are times were no tdate was
assigned, but probably could have been. For example, in April she is flat
on the 8th and size one on the 10th, but no tdate is in cycles.
All for now,
steph
--On Monday, July 12, 2004 10:21 AM -0400 Jeanne Altmann
<altj@princeton.edu> wrote:
> Steph, we dealt with the two major batches--1989 and 1990--but, as you
> suggested, some others may be scorable. If you give me a list of those
> to check, I'll fit them in each day/week. At some point, if all seem
> unscorable to me, then we might quit, but you're probably right that I
> missed some and should give it a try.
> jeanne
>
> At 11:21 AM 5/5/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>> Hi all -
>> Just to get everyone up to speed: While using repstats to add
>> reproductive state info to each point sample for the focal female, I
>> couldn't add repro info for about 10% of the point samples. After some
>> more digging, it seems that much of the problem is due to missing tdates
>> in cycles.
>> Now, I've done some checking on the missing tdates. Here's what it
>> looks like to me: For Alto's group (or branches thereof), I think we
>> might want to do some rechecking of cycles in 1988 and 1989. For
>> example, in 1989 we are missing 210 different female days (with March
>> being the only month where we aren't missing anything). There are other
>> years with missing info with 2 likely explanations: (1)sparse data (say
>> in December) and/or (2) potential irregularity on the part of the
>> female. I say this because we are missing a lot of info in 1990, but
>> it's mostly due to 4 females who matured that year. I'm not so worried
>> about these other years.
>>
>> Hook's: I'm worried about a bigger chunk of time here. There are lots
>> of missing female days of data from 1988-1993. In some years, there
>> are days each month (for the whole year for the majority of the females
>> in the group) missing. While some months here and there have sparse
>> data, to me, it seems like we are missing many more tdates than we
>> should be (need Jeanne to check on this). As an example, Limau in
>> 1990. We have ddates in cycles for almost every month, but no tdates.
>> There are several months where it seems like we could have tdates.
>> Keep in mind here, though, that I haven't checked every case for every
>> year - so there may be cases where there's a simple explanation (i.e.
>> nothing in cycles because she was pregnant - but then why am I not
>> getting a "P" from repstats? Karl?)
>>
>> Overall: Most of the missing tdates seem to be from pre-Babase days.
>>
>> Next: what to do? I think we should think about cycles first. But
>> then, we might want to think about repstats. In terms of Repstats, it
>> can't give me reproductive state info because of the missing tdates.
>> Also, in some cases we miss info because repstats works from tdate to
>> tdate. So, there are cases where we have full cycle info for a female
>> (tdate to ddate), but no subsequent tdate - so we repstats doesn't give
>> us anything.
>>
>> Let me if know if I need to clarify...
>> steph
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Babase mailing list
>> Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>> http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>
> _______________________________________________
> Babase mailing list
> Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
> http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase