Sentence examples for mean tibia length from inspiring English sources

Over 14 generations, we produced mean tibia length increases of 9-13%, while mean body mass was unchanged, in selectively bred mice and random-bred controls.

Although mean tibia length was 2.7 cm lower in SCP, this could not be shown to be significantly different from TD at group level (p = 0.08).

For tibia length, the average selection differential across generations and lines is ~2% of the mean tibia length in a given generation.

This would have produced tibiae that are ~7-10% longer than the observed change in mean tibia length, i.e. a total increase of 17-21% over the population mean at F02.

To test for the linearity of the selection response in tibia length, we regressed mean tibia length on its cumulative selection differential using linear only and linear plus quadratic terms [ 11, 21].

When the observed Longshanks means for tibia length in each generation are plotted against the cumulative selection differentials, the result is a significantly linear response for tibia length in the direction of selection.

The animal models were run as linear regressions, with mean-standardized tibia length and body mass as dependent variables, age at measurement and litter size as continuous variables (covariates) and sex and animal ID as fixed effects.

An ANCOVA with female ID as random factor revealed that 37% of the variation in copulation duration was explained by the mean tibia-patella length of the males in that small males mated longer than large males (F1,52 = 5.78, p = 0.021) while neither the trial number (1-6) (F5,57 = 0.31, p = 0.9) nor the pedipalp used (F1,52 = 0.03, p = 0.86) were relevant.

In each line, cube root body mass and tibia length were first mean-standardized to facilitate comparisons of selection and evolvability estimates for continuous traits with different means and variances [ 26].

Results: Aortic banding resulted in a 22% increase in heart weight to tibia length ratio after 15w (mean ± SEM sham vs banded, 2.85 ± 0.06 vs 3.47 ± 0.26, p < 0.01).

Results of the ANCOVA for differences in the means of cube root body mass and tibia length as a function of the three categorical factors (generation, line and sex), and their interactions.