Figure 2 Model flowchart: (1) Look for a resource; (2) determine whether there are one or more resources in the ... Figure 2 Model flowchart: (1) Look.

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.

Figure 1 (a) Predicted dispersal success of hatchling turtles as a function of the interaction between hatchling body ... Figure 1 (a) Predicted dispersal.

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 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 We consider a scenario where the distributions of signals under safe or dangerous situations mean that a ... Figure 1 We consider a scenario where.

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 3 Doctors leaving (Matthews, 2013, p.13.)

Figure 1 Data-selection process

Figure 1 Flow diagram detailing the systematic review process.

Figure 1 Multivariable-adjusted predictors of PAC

Figure 1 Schematic representation of the experimental design.

Figure 1 Mechanism of mortality benefit associated with radial access

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.

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.

Figure 1 The probability of sighting a Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) is significantly higher in the morning than ... Figure 1 The probability of sighting.

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 ...

Figure 1 (a) The distribution of paternity amongst 84 hatchlings sampled at a HDS on the western coastline of Little ... Figure 1 (a) The distribution.

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.

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.

x-axis, post-partum days. Closed ...

Fig. 1. A flowchart of cohort participants screened, enrolled and followed-up between 1 July 2015 and 31 May Fig. 1. A flowchart of cohort participants.

Fig. 1 Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematous at the lower limbs

Fig. 1 Flow chart of included patients for analyses

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 Immunohistochemistry for human cell differentiation molecules in samples of the right ventricular septum from ... Figure 1 Immunohistochemistry.

Figure 1. Results of search based on the PRISMA statement.14

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. 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

Fig. 1 Statistics of the main characters’ dialogues.

Figure 1 Patient selection.

The figure shows the fraction of ...

Figure 1 Grant agencies and charitable foundations supporting Plan S.

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.

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. Overall response rates in wild-type versus RAS and RAS/BRAF mutations detected by nanofluidic digital PCR ... Figure 1. Overall response rates.

Presentation transcript:

Figure 2 Model flowchart: (1) Look for a resource; (2) determine whether there are one or more resources in the ... Figure 2 Model flowchart: (1) Look for a resource; (2) determine whether there are one or more resources in the detection distance; (3) move one unit of space according to a random or correlated random walk; (4) determine whether all of the resources in the detection distance are either the last or second to last flower visited; (5) randomly choose one resource which was not visited recently; (6) travel to flower using a straight-line approach; (7) handle resource. 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/about_us/legal/notices) Behav Ecol, Volume 29, Issue 4, 19 April 2018, Pages 885–893, https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary058 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

Figure 1 Role of resource layout for testing the significance of spatial memory use in trapline foraging. (Points ... Figure 1 Role of resource layout for testing the significance of spatial memory use in trapline foraging. (Points represent resources and arrows represent foraging movements.) (a) In a completely random null model, there is an equal probability of visiting any resource point (P<sub>1</sub>=P<sub>2</sub>=P<sub>3</sub>=P<sub>4</sub>=P<sub>5</sub>). However, more distant resources are less likely to be encountered by chance due to realistic forager movements (P<sub>3</sub> < P<sub>1</sub>, P<sub>2</sub>, P<sub>4</sub>, P<sub>5</sub>). Null models which do not incorporate differential probabilities of resource visitation due to spatial layouts may lead to high type I error. (b) Null models which randomize travel distances and turn angles may lead to high type II error when foragers consistently utilize uniform traplines. Strong traplining may result in a decreased range of turning angles and travel distances, which may lead to a large number of sequence repeats in null model sequences. 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/about_us/legal/notices) Behav Ecol, Volume 29, Issue 4, 19 April 2018, Pages 885–893, https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary058 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

Figure 6 Sensitivity analysis of the determinism (DET) level required to reject our spatially explicit null model with ... Figure 6 Sensitivity analysis of the determinism (DET) level required to reject our spatially explicit null model with 95% confidence within the parameter space most relevant to the experimental setup in Lihoreau et al. (2012a) dataset. We examined 900 sequences each with a length of 80 flowers. 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/about_us/legal/notices) Behav Ecol, Volume 29, Issue 4, 19 April 2018, Pages 885–893, https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary058 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

Figure 3 Effect of sequence predictability on the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (where H0: ... Figure 3 Effect of sequence predictability on the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (where H<sub>0</sub>: absence of traplining behavior and H<sub>1</sub>: presence of traplining) for the proposed NetLogo model and 2 existing null models. The determinism values (i.e. level of sequence predictability) corresponding to the percent chance of repeating a past transition are shown on the secondary x-axis. For each of the 1700 hypothetical sequences, we ran each of the three null models 99 times, for a total of 504900 runs. We found that the random model is more likely to reject the null hypothesis for low levels of traplining (potential Type I error), while the sample randomization model is more likely to fail to reject the null hypothesis for intermediate levels of traplining (potential Type II error). 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/about_us/legal/notices) Behav Ecol, Volume 29, Issue 4, 19 April 2018, Pages 885–893, https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary058 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

Figure 4 (a) Minimum determinism (DET) levels required to reject the null model with 95% confidence using a completely ... Figure 4 (a) Minimum determinism (DET) levels required to reject the null model with 95% confidence using a completely random null model, our spatially explicit null model, and a sample randomization null model. We used the models to analyze 2 sources of empirical Bombus foraging data, including experienced and inexperienced foraging sequences from Lihoreau et al. 2012a. (Error bars are 95% binomial CI) (b) The corresponding determinism level of empirical Bombus sequences (calculated with a minimum trapline length of 4 resources), where each bar represents an individual bee. 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/about_us/legal/notices) Behav Ecol, Volume 29, Issue 4, 19 April 2018, Pages 885–893, https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary058 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

Figure 5 (a) Sensitivity analysis of the effect of forager sight distance and type of correlated random walk on the ... Figure 5 (a) Sensitivity analysis of the effect of forager sight distance and type of correlated random walk on the determinism (DET) level required to reject our spatially explicit null model with 95% confidence. (b) The corresponding DET levels of inexperienced or experienced Bombus terrestris foraging sequences from Lihoreau et al. 2012a (calculated with a minimum trapline length of 6 resources). 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/about_us/legal/notices) Behav Ecol, Volume 29, Issue 4, 19 April 2018, Pages 885–893, https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary058 The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.