Back to search
2411.05502

Infection Pressure on Fish in Cages

William Waites, Philip Gillibrand, Thomas Adams, Rek Bell, Duncan Guthrie, Tróndur Kragesteen, Crawford Revie, Meadhbh Moriarty

wrongmedium confidence
Category
math.DS
Journal tier
Specialist/Solid
Processed
Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM

Audit review

The paper’s master-equation ODE for n≥1 omits the detachment outflow term − n γ_n F_n(t): it prints dF_n/dt = β_{n−1} C F_{n−1} − β_n C F_n + (n+1) γ_{n+1} F_{n+1} (Eq. (6)), which breaks conservation of the total number of fish across compartments; the n=0 line correctly includes γ_1 F_1 − β_0 C F_0, but the general n≥1 line lacks the balancing loss to n−1. This is inconsistent with the preceding attachment/detachment rules (4)–(5) and the stated interpretation of C(t) = Vρ(t) as exogenous free-copepod abundance, and would cause ∑_n F_n to increase spuriously under detachment flows (a clear modeling error) . The candidate solution restores the missing − n γ_n F_n term, derives the conservative mean-field system, proves telescoping conservation of ∑_n F_n, and correctly specializes the stationary recursions for the two parameter-reduction cases the paper itself proposes (uniform β,γ and β0≠βacc with γ constant) .

Referee report (LaTeX)

\textbf{Recommendation:} major revisions

\textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid

\textbf{Justification:}

The modeling framework is useful and practically motivated, and the parameter reductions are sensible for data-fitting. However, the printed ODE for n≥1 misses the detachment outflow term, a critical error that invalidates conservation and contradicts the rule-based description. With this corrected and small clarifications (conservation proof, truncation boundary condition, explicit statement of counts vs. probabilities), the paper would be sound and valuable to the community.