Search alternatives:
significant go » significant co (Expand Search), significant gap (Expand Search), significant _ (Expand Search)
main decrease » gain decreased (Expand Search), small decrease (Expand Search), point decrease (Expand Search)
mean decrease » a decrease (Expand Search)
go based » bio based (Expand Search), _ based (Expand Search), 1 based (Expand Search)
significant go » significant co (Expand Search), significant gap (Expand Search), significant _ (Expand Search)
main decrease » gain decreased (Expand Search), small decrease (Expand Search), point decrease (Expand Search)
mean decrease » a decrease (Expand Search)
go based » bio based (Expand Search), _ based (Expand Search), 1 based (Expand Search)
-
1
Mean persistence (±SE) of GO and GO-GA NPs on <i>Callosobruchus maculatus.</i>
Published 2025Subjects: -
2
Significant GO terms enriched based on the DEGs in control vs. noise groups.
Published 2024“…<p>Significant GO terms enriched based on the DEGs in control vs. noise groups.…”
-
3
Significant GO terms enriched based on the DEGs in control vs. noise groups.
Published 2024“…<p>Significant GO terms enriched based on the DEGs in control vs. noise groups.…”
-
4
-
5
-
6
Post-effect of GO and GO-GA NPs on progeny production of <i>Callosobruchus maculatus.</i>
Published 2025Subjects: -
7
-
8
Toxicity of GO and GO-GA NPs on <i>C. maculatus</i> adults after 24h exposure.
Published 2025Subjects: -
9
PT<sub>50</sub> values of GO and GO-GA NPs against <i>Callosobruchus maculatus.</i>
Published 2025Subjects: -
10
-
11
-
12
Mean values of participants’ heart rate.
Published 2023“…Additionally, a motivational decrease was observed for the high motivation group due to the interruption. …”
-
13
Mean values of participants’ heart rate.
Published 2023“…Additionally, a motivational decrease was observed for the high motivation group due to the interruption. …”
-
14
-
15
-
16
-
17
-
18
The main effects of PRGDP and Gi on SWB.
Published 2024“…Key findings include: (1) In temporal relationships, a 46.70% increase in GDP per capita implies a 0.38 increase in subjective well-being, while a 0.09 increase in the Gini coefficient means a 1.47 decrease in subjective well-being. (2) In spatial relationships, for every 46.70% increase in GDP per capita, subjective well-being rises by 0.51; however, this relationship is buffered by unfair distribution, and GDP per capita no longer significantly affects subjective well-being when the Gini index exceeds 0.609. …”
-
19
-
20