Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(24)
The parents listed in Table 1 were used to produce different types of crosses.
The parental fertilization proportion was similar for both types of crosses, suggesting that there is no mechanism to avoid selfing.
In both types of crosses females could fail to produce hatching eggs either because they, or their mate, were unfertile.
The frequency of hermaphrodites in the two types of crosses is also non-significant (chi-square 1.127, DF = 1, P = 0.288).
Offspring with both parental mtDNA types are the majority in both types of crosses, averaging 83.5% (chi-square 0.047, DF = 1, P = 0.828).
Additionally to the F1 fitness components, we compared the parental fertilization proportion –i.e. the proportion of sexual females being diapausing egg-producers– between both types of crosses, in order to explore if there were signs of inbreeding avoidance.
Similar(36)
Two types of cross-section channel geometries were used.
Unfortunately, these types of crossed signals can exacerbate an already stressful, delicate situation.
Governments may play an important part is setting the stage for these types of cross-country innovation projects.
A large body of research has revealed several new types of cross-sensory interactions.
Two types of cross sections were selected with nominal thicknesses of 0.60, 0.80, and 0.95 mm.
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