HIERARCHAL INDUCTIVE PROCESS MODELING AND ANALYSIS ...

∴ a 23 = 4.5.10 −4 ≤ F (t) ≤ ∞ (29)
As was the case for Nitrate, Iron is bounded below by Parameter 23.
This
concludes the analysis of Model B.
Models A and B are the two good fit models under a .5 reMSE which came
up the most frequently throughout the 31 experiments.
Our analysis has shown
that the structure of the equations for phytoplankton and detritus produce similar
dynamics and bounds for both models; on the other hand where iron and nitrate
were bounded above with a parameter in Model A they were bounded below by
a parameter value in Model B . Also, the structure and bounds for zooplankton
had much more variations. For instance, the bounds for Model A implied that the
zooplankton population will go to extinction whereas bounds for Model B indicated
that the population has an upper bound at the carrying capacity K. This simple
observation led me to look more into the zooplankton dynamic, to do so I chose to
select the model with the lowest reMSE from experiment 6. In this experiment HIPM
was provided observations for both phytoplankton and zooplankton dynamics. This
was not a random choice since phytoplankton is the dynamic we are trying to model
and zooplankton is the state variable demonstrating the most variability in structure
and having potentially the most restrictive power out of all state variables, based on
computational results. This model will be presented as Model C.
56