Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(8)
There were no bite lengths > 21, while the null model showed bite lengths up to 48.
How does this difference reflect in the distributions of bite lengths over time?
Next, we store the bite lengths in a vector, and we define this vector as the phenotype of an individual.
Considering the first definition – the sum of bite lengths – the explanation is that under strong direct selection, individuals with large bites are strongly selected for and reproduce.
Also, for σ = 1.0 and 5.0 bite lengths in the interval [ 20, 40] were less present in case of local feedback.
Therefore in this study we do not focus on evolution as an optimization process of resource processing (i.e. maximizing bite lengths).
Similar(52)
The straight blade design required the least torque, average power, peak power, specific energy and effective specific energy at 375 500 rpm which targeted for a small bite length for a fine soil tilth.
For σ = 0.2 not only bite length, but also cycle length had clearly stagnated.
Thus per individual we established for 64 resources its corresponding bite length and summed these lengths.
With respect to fitness, we find that in both models the difference between maximum bite and median bite is large, and median bite length increases hardly.
For instance, for σ = 5.0, if local feedback was present cycle length was 5, which equaled a bite length of 12.8, while the null model had an average bite of 64/3 = 21.3.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com