Unable to configure growth rate for consumers.

[iago-lito]

As it turns out, the motivation for #170 was not exactly convincing, but the problem remains that mixotrophy is disallowed in the package today.

Is there a strong reason we should not allow consumers to have an autonomous growth rate? If so, what is it?

My original argument there: #170 (comment)

[ismael-lajaaiti]

I don't see strong reasons to not allow consumers to have an autonomous growth rate, but I also don't see strong reason to incorporate this feature ASAP, as it seems to be a feature not needed by the current active users of the package (for now). In brief, we should probably add it to our TODO list, but it should have a low priority probably.

[iago-lito]

Yup, it's currently deep down the backlog, not waking up anytime soon ;)

[andbeck]

As @xiaoxiao pointed out, mixotrophy has a formal definition and is not simply making consumers with autonomous growth…. It’s a mix… ;-) I think we have a few things to complete before adding a new type of consumer? But in favour overall. Wait till we start talking about microbial networks and cross feeding.

…

On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 at 07:19, Iago-lito ***@***.***> wrote: As it turns out, the motivation for #170 <#170> was not exactly convincing, but the problem remains that mixotrophy is disallowed in the package today. Is there a strong reason we should not allow consumer to have an autonomous growth rate? If so, what is it? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#175>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAYXBEJUIZJ3NUAQZ2SMKV32XTHGPAVCNFSM6AAAAAB2LJVOBCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSHE3DQNBWGMYTSOA> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***> [image: iago-lito]*iago-lito* created an issue (econetoolbox/EcologicalNetworksDynamics.jl#175) <#175> As it turns out, the motivation for #170 <#170> was not exactly convincing, but the problem remains that mixotrophy is disallowed in the package today. Is there a strong reason we should not allow consumer to have an autonomous growth rate? If so, what is it? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#175>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAYXBEJUIZJ3NUAQZ2SMKV32XTHGPAVCNFSM6AAAAAB2LJVOBCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSHE3DQNBWGMYTSOA> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[NULL-271828]

I recently came across a model that fits very well with this issue we're discussing：
Kondoh, Michio. "Foraging adaptation and the relationship between food-web complexity and stability." Science 299.5611 (2003): 1388-1391. In this paper, the authors' model assigns an intrinsic growth rate to consumers, but this article was dissed by this paper:
Brose, Ulrich, Richard J. Williams, and Neo D. Martinez. "Comment on" Foraging adaptation and the relationship between food-web complexity and stability"." Science 301.5635 (2003): 918-918.
For your information.