Search alternatives:
largest decrease » largest decreases (Expand Search), marked decrease (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
increase grid » increase i (Expand Search)
largest decrease » largest decreases (Expand Search), marked decrease (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
increase grid » increase i (Expand Search)
-
61
Data_Sheet_1_Root System Scale Models Significantly Overestimate Root Water Uptake at Drying Soil Conditions.PDF
Published 2022“…We analyze this problem using a finite volume scheme and investigate the impact of grid size on the RSS model results. At dry conditions, the cumulative RWU was overestimated by up to 300% for the coarsest soil grid of 4.0 cm and by 30% for the finest soil grid of 0.2 cm, while the computational demand increased from 19 s to 21 h. …”
-
62
Scheme of g-λ model with larger values λ.
Published 2024“…The findings suggest that when λ is respectively equal to 4.19, 8.57, 10, and 12.15, the peak particle velocity (PPV) of the transmitted waves is significantly close to the incident wave amplitude. Furthermore, when λ is fixed, the energy transmission coefficient increases with the incident wave amplitude but decreases with the incident wave frequency. …”
-
63
Gallbladder fossa parameters in livers with gallbladders, segregated by sex.
Published 2021Subjects: -
64
-
65
-
66
-
67
-
68
Comparison of gallbladder fossa parameters in livers from cadavers with and without gallbladders.
Published 2021Subjects: -
69
-
70
-
71
-
72
-
73
-
74
-
75
-
76
Single-Line scheme of Ajinde 62-node grid.
Published 2025“…<div><p>In distribution grids, excessive energy losses not only increase operational costs but also contribute to a larger environmental footprint due to inefficient resource utilization. …”
-
77
Spatial information is significantly decreased in dCA1 and vCA1 in APP/PS1 mice.
Published 2024“…The spatial information in dCA1 was significantly larger than circularly shuffled spike trains with similar mean firing rates for C57BL/6 mice (mean ± std: empirical = 0.132 ± 0.048, shuffled = 0.124 ± 0.035, p < 0.001, two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, n<sub>empirical</sub> = 305 units from 5 recording sessions, n<sub>shuffled</sub> = 30500 simulated units from 5 recording sessions), but not for APP/PS1 mice (mean ± std: empirical = 0.128 ± 0.051, shuffled = 0.123 ± .047, p = 0.39, two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, n<sub>empirical</sub> = 180 units from 4 recording sessions, n<sub>shuffled</sub> = 18000 simulated units from 4 recording sessions). …”
-
78
-
79
-
80