Figure 1 Female receptivity in the Playback Experiment

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Figure 1 Experimental arena to study female locations in response to a green LED. The LED was switched on in the LED ... Figure 1 Experimental arena to.

Advertisements

Figure 1 Waveforms of example stimuli illustrating how within-individual variation was manipulated. Invariant signals ... Figure 1 Waveforms of example.

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the.

Figure 1 Survival plot showing the detection rate of experimental hosts as the proportion butterflies still searching ... Figure 1 Survival plot showing.

Figure 1 Movement of 10 individuals during the last 5000 time steps of 2 example simulations, without (a) or with (b) ... Figure 1 Movement of 10 individuals.

Figure 4 ROMs have a morph-specific effect relative to active aggression but not display behavior in dominant males. ... Figure 4 ROMs have a morph-specific.

Figure 1 Fecal egg counts (eggs per gram = epg) (A through C) and corresponding infection probabilities estimated by ... Figure 1 Fecal egg counts (eggs.

Figure 1 Data-selection process

Figure 1 Flow diagram detailing the systematic review process.

Figure 1 Schematic representation of the experimental design.

Figure 1 Mechanism of mortality benefit associated with radial access

Figure 1. Medicaid receipt and ACA favorability

Figure 1 Relationships between probability of prey discard and each parameter explored. To show the most robust ... Figure 1 Relationships between probability.

Figure 5 The effect of the spider color morph encountered by honeybees in Experiment 2 on the proportion of honeybees ... Figure 5 The effect of the spider.

Fig. 1. Relative potency ratios of 13 active ingredients used against a fall armyworm population collected in Puerto ... Fig. 1. Relative potency ratios.

Figure 1 Stegodyphus dumicola build retreats and 2-dimensional capture webs on (a) trees and (b) fences, 2 very ... Figure 1 Stegodyphus dumicola build.

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the.

Figure 1 Mean (±SE) egg investment in female zebra finches shortly after a second injection with either tetanus toxoid ... Figure 1 Mean (±SE) egg investment.

Figure 1 The Kaplan–Meier curves of time to death post first hospitalization. hosp, hospitalization. Unless provided in the caption above, the following.

AHA: American Heart Association; ALT: ...

Figure 1. Serum ceftazidime concentrations following intravenous administration. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies.

Figure 1 A dot plot illustrating the correlation between the yearly absolute risk difference for both MACE and major ... Figure 1 A dot plot illustrating.

Figure 1 (A) Distributions of model (prey; dashed line) and Mimic (predator; solid line) cue values, showing ... Figure 1 (A) Distributions of model (prey;

Source: Figure created by the author based on data ...

Figure 1 Maternal relatedness between calves and non-calf unit members correlates with babysitting rate. Relatedness ... Figure 1 Maternal relatedness.

bDMARD: biologic DMARD.

Figure 2 Boxplots indicating male (top) and female (bottom) mate preferences for native (positive numbers) or foreign ... Figure 2 Boxplots indicating.

Black: diagnosis ... Black: diagnosis from any department; grey: diagnosis at a rheumatology department. Unless provided in the caption above, the following.

RCTs: randomized controlled ...

Fig. 1 MRI aspect of an osteitis of the left acetabulum at baseline (A), 3 months (B), 1 year (C) and 2 years later, ... Fig. 1 MRI aspect of an osteitis.

Figure 2 (a) Color hexagon calculated for the stimuli used in the experiment, centered on the background; following ... Figure 2 (a) Color hexagon calculated.

Figure 1 Mean ± standard error proportions of (a) courtship and (b) copulation by female-male type pairing. Error bars ... Figure 1 Mean ± standard error.

Take home figure The protective role of CNP/NPR-B/NPRC.

Figure 1 The difference between dominance scores of individual male native Gehyra dubia (n = 10) and introduced male ... Figure 1 The difference between.

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the.

Fig. 1 Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematous at the lower limbs

Fig. 1 Flow chart of included patients for analyses

Figure 1 (A) Proportion of major prey types found in the diet of 9–10-day-old pied flycatcher nestlings in the Drenthe ... Figure 1 (A) Proportion of major.

Fig. 1 Flow chart for selection of study subjects

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Figure 1 Relationships between pair indices of dance performance (joint entropy or mutual information) and the past ... Figure 1 Relationships between.

Figure 1. Percentage of Pacific and European children completing all components of B4SC in 2013 and 2015 Figure 1. Percentage of Pacific and European.

Figure 1 MIC test strips showing reversion of daptomycin resistance of isolate 5 passaged in vitro. This figure ... Figure 1 MIC test strips showing reversion.

Figure 1. Trunk and leg fat over study period. LS, log transformed.

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Fig. 1 Kaplan-Meier plot presenting no difference in progression to RA in patients with clinically suspect ... Fig. 1 Kaplan-Meier plot presenting no difference.

Figure 1. Oncoprint of selected pathogenic alterations detected in ctDNA. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the.

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the.

Fig. 1 A network representation of top 100 co-occurring terms

Figure 1 Changes in average first serve speed (km/h) over age in women (dark gray; online version red) and men (light ... Figure 1 Changes in average first.

Fig. 1 Statistics of the main characters’ dialogues.

Figure 1 Patient selection.

Figure 1 Grant agencies and charitable foundations supporting Plan S.

Figure 1 Pace-of-life should mediate behavior

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Fig. 1 Schematic subcategorization of AAV in three clinically relevant disease categories defined by clinical ... Fig. 1 Schematic subcategorization of.

Figure 3. Key words and phrases from narrative text by classification category. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to.

Fig. 1: World distribution of field sampling locations of Aedes aegypti and Aedes mascarensis screened for Wolbachia ... Fig. 1: World distribution of.

Figure 1 Percentage of male and female helpers in different categories

Figure 1: Trade shares of South Korea's major trading partners (% of South Korea's total trade in goods) Figure 1: Trade shares of South Korea's major.

Figure 1. Kaplan Meier curves showing crude product limit survival estimates and 95% confidence intervals for time to ... Figure 1. Kaplan Meier curves.

Figure 1. Parenting Evaluations by Parenting Style, Education, and Vignette Parent Gender. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright.

Figure 1. Measuring respondent unhappiness with their child marrying someone from the other party and happiness with ... Figure 1. Measuring respondent.

Figure 1 ABCDE of primary prevention.2

Figure 1. Forest plot of lung cancer mortality in LDCT trials.

Figure 1. Evolutionary process of a policy field.

Table 2. Mean noise level results for hand dryers in dBA

Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier curves showing the impact of the different pretreatment HIV-1 drug resistance categories on the ... Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier curves.

Presentation transcript:

Figure 1 Female receptivity in the Playback Experiment Figure 1 Female receptivity in the Playback Experiment. Panel a is a graph of the mean number of displays (±SE) ... Figure 1 Female receptivity in the Playback Experiment. Panel a is a graph of the mean number of displays (±SE) organized by female state to show univariate comparisons. Significance (as indicated by *) is extracted from model comparisons. Panel b is a graph of the interaction between mating status and hunger status, showing the mean number of displays (±SE) of virgin (black) and mated (light gray) females when well-fed and food-deprived. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.comThis article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) Behav Ecol, Volume 30, Issue 1, 13 December 2018, Pages 27–38, https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary172 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

Figure 2 Latency to begin courtship for males in the Silk Experiment, represented by a survivorship curve. The maximum ... Figure 2 Latency to begin courtship for males in the Silk Experiment, represented by a survivorship curve. The maximum proportion for a given category is representative of the total proportion of individuals that engaged in courtship. Panel a represents a comparison of male response to virgin or mated females and panel b represents the interaction between male rearing and female mating status, comparing the differences in response to virgin or mated females across male rearing treatments. For the legend: “Field + Mated” represents a trial where a field-reared male was exposed to silk from a mated female, etc. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.comThis article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) Behav Ecol, Volume 30, Issue 1, 13 December 2018, Pages 27–38, https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary172 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

Figure 3 Male courtship vigor in the Silk Experiment, represented by the mean number of cheliceral strikes per ... Figure 3 Male courtship vigor in the Silk Experiment, represented by the mean number of cheliceral strikes per courtship bout (±SE) and organized in Panel a by female state and male rearing to show univariate comparisons. Significance (as indicated by *) is extracted from model comparisons. Panel b is a graph of the interaction between male rearing and female mating status, showing the mean response (±SE) of field-reared males when exposed to silk from virgin (black) and mated (light gray) females Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.comThis article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) Behav Ecol, Volume 30, Issue 1, 13 December 2018, Pages 27–38, https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary172 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

Figure 4 Panel a shows the latency for males to begin courting in the Live Mating Experiment, comparing the ... Figure 4 Panel a shows the latency for males to begin courting in the Live Mating Experiment, comparing the differences in response to virgin or mated females across male rearing treatments. Panel b shows the latency for females to display receptivity in the Live Mating Experiment, comparing mated and virgin females overall. The maximum proportion for a given category is representative of the total proportion of individuals who responded. For the legend in Panel a: “Field + Mated” represents a trial where a field-reared male was exposed to silk from a mated female, etc. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.comThis article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) Behav Ecol, Volume 30, Issue 1, 13 December 2018, Pages 27–38, https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary172 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

Figure 5 Panel a shows male courtship vigor in the Live Mating Experiment, represented by the mean number of ... Figure 5 Panel a shows male courtship vigor in the Live Mating Experiment, represented by the mean number of cheliceral strikes per courtship bout (±SE) and organized by female state and male rearing to show univariate comparisons. Significance (as indicated by *) is extracted from model comparisons. Panel b shows the latency for a pair to begin copulation, represented by a survivorship curve comparing pairs which included field-reared males or lab-reared males. The maximum proportion for a given category is representative of the total proportion of pairs that copulated in that category. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.comThis article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) Behav Ecol, Volume 30, Issue 1, 13 December 2018, Pages 27–38, https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary172 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

Figure 6 Female receptivity in the Live Mating Experiment Figure 6 Female receptivity in the Live Mating Experiment. Panel a is a graph of the mean number of displays (±SE) ... Figure 6 Female receptivity in the Live Mating Experiment. Panel a is a graph of the mean number of displays (±SE) organized by female state and male rearing to show univariate comparisons. Significance (as indicated by *) is extracted from model comparisons. Panel b is a graph of the interaction between male rearing and mating status, showing the mean response (±SE) of virgin (black) and mated (light gray) females in relation to the rearing status of their matched male. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.comThis article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) Behav Ecol, Volume 30, Issue 1, 13 December 2018, Pages 27–38, https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary172 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.