Sentence examples for differences in capture from inspiring English sources

In conclusion, we have shown clear differences in capture success for different types of target patterning in this study.

We also show differences in capture attempt rates between different target types, but we find no differences in learning rates between target types.

There were no differences in capture success, body size, or sex ratio among treatments before or after salvage logging, but abundance varied among years.

A variety of fish behaviors can cause capture probability to vary across individuals or over time, such as dominance hierarchies, escaping capture or persistent individual differences in capture probability due to activity or aggression; yet knowing exactly which behaviors may affect capture probability is generally unknown.

We found significant differences in capture age between the behavioral groups of the backcross, again confirming the relationships between foraging onset and food collection biases.

There are significant differences in capture age between the behavior groups (POLLEN, BOTH, NECTAR and EMPTY; one-way ANOVA: F 3, 541) = 14.49, n = 545, p<0.0001; Fig. 2B).

Because of the differences in capturing food and consuming energy, a major trend in theoretical work on predator-prey dynamics has been launched so as to derive more realistic models and functional responses and understand the interactions among the predators and the preys such as Lotka-Volterra type [1, 2], Holling type [3], Beddington-DeAngelis type [4, 5] and so on.

Although more forest bats were captured per night in forest fragments and low-management coffee (Table S1), differences in captures across land-use types only approached significance (D = 6.780, df = 3, p = 0.079).

They were harder to catch in tanks than controls, but this was the result of the enrichment itself: once the enrichment was removed there was no difference in capture times.

Increased roughness correlated with increased capture, while the conjugation of anti-EpCAM to the nanoroughened surface was not shown to make a significant difference in capture for increasingly roughened surfaces.

There was no difference in capture success for the background matching and disruptive targets (F(1) = 0.14, P = 0.704), or between the banded and camouflaged prey (F(1) = 1.56, P = 0.213).