Calculating Logistic Growth Rate

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 reply · 2K views
andre6051
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I have a logistic growth problem. I know this because there is an upper limit of approximately 21,000 people. I need to calculate growth rate. Would it be something as simple as taking two populations and dividing them to get the rate (X2-X1/X1) to obtain it or is there an equation I am missing? I feel like the growth rate is harder to find than that. Plus, for some reason, the number shot up in 2015 and I don't know what to do. The only info I have is below. Thanks!

Example

X Y
44 2010
61 2011
79 2012
208 2013
326 2014
6663 2015
 
Physics news on Phys.org
andre6051 said:
I have a logistic growth problem. I know this because there is an upper limit of approximately 21,000 people. I need to calculate growth rate. Would it be something as simple as taking two populations and dividing them to get the rate (X2-X1/X1) to obtain it or is there an equation I am missing? I feel like the growth rate is harder to find than that. Plus, for some reason, the number shot up in 2015 and I don't know what to do. The only info I have is below. Thanks!

Example

X Y
44 2010
61 2011
79 2012
208 2013
326 2014
6663 2015

Hi andre6051! Welcome to MHB! (Smile)

It looks like Y is a year and X increases exponentially.
So the relevant equation would be $X=AB^Y$ so that $\frac {X_2}{X_1} = \frac{AB^{Y_2}}{AB^{Y_1}} = B^{Y_2 - Y_1}$.
For successive years that means $B = \frac {X_2}{X_1}$.

It also means that $\log X = \log A + Y \log B$.
Typically we would find a linear regression between $\log X$ and $Y$ to figure out the relation.

Then again, as you already noticed, in 2015 the number shot up, causing an outlier.
We should get more information why that is, since it may mean we can't treat it as a logistic growth problem.
Can it be that the last X should really be, say, 663? Maybe there is a typo...