Do I understand this correctly? You're thinking that without good numbers of YP (a small-medium sized predator) in the mix, that the top-end predator would quickly overpopulate? I.e., the YP don't function just as forage, but also as a control on YOY SMB (the apex predator)?
That's not were I was headed. I was simplifying the whole equation by removing a ton of variables. Staring with reproduction of the game fish which seems to contain the bulk of unpredictable variables. Without reproduction, it's kinda like having a field of heifers (no bulls). So long as you can grow enough grass/corn (forage critters) you can more easily predict their weight gain and adjust the population according as they mature in size and intake requirements. Not that this becomes a simple endeavor, but much more "thinkable". This may not be a part of your ultimate goal, but it does simplify the theory.
A basic example (with some holes I'm sure)...
Stock minnows, scuds, and PK shrimp at first along with the appropriate habitat and spawning structures. Give them time to seed the pond.
Then, add the YP, but all the same sex. Add the SMB (same sex) at the same time or thereafter so that the YP can get out ahead of being SMB food. Ultimately, you could just add one species of game fish or many so longs as they could not inner breed.
Now, all you have to do is equate the "put and take" of the game fish to balance the natural forage production.
Some holes that I can think of...
1.) Sourcing larger game fish for future ladder stocking that will not be snacks for the established grown populations or predicting the fingerling stocking numbers that allow for some predation (is that a word?), but ensure the proper survival rates.
2.) Guaranteeing same sex species.
3.) Adjusting game fish populations as the biomass increases due to individual fish size so that the forage base does not overpopulate or diminish into extinction.
I believe you could apply more successful mathematical theory to this scenario, but it may not fit into your available ambition if you are looking at a more "hands off" BOW. You would at least be less insane! LOL
EDIT: I hope that I am not overemphasizing the "math" portion as you have mentioned. I was hoping to get some math lessons out of this thread, all the while, realizing the impossible correct outcome by nature. Just the same, I hope that the point I am trying to make shows how the complexity of a managed BOW can be greatly simplified by removing the reproduction factor from the "equation". Not that it makes it simple.
OH, it was not your mention of the word "math" that made me lose my mind...that happened years ago.
