# Kevin Matthew McKay week 2

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
 Revision as of 14:36, 24 January 2013 (view source) (answered 1st part of assignment)← Previous diff Revision as of 14:43, 24 January 2013 (view source) (added links)Next diff → Line 8: Line 8: *When "r" was set at 10, the population of cells seemed to stabilize at around 11.  The nutrient level decreased to around 0/ *When "r" was set at 10, the population of cells seemed to stabilize at around 11.  The nutrient level decreased to around 0/ *As "r" was increased, the quickness of the populations move to carrying capacity (all around 11 cells) increased.  The line on the plot became steeper quicker, and then leveled out. *As "r" was increased, the quickness of the populations move to carrying capacity (all around 11 cells) increased.  The line on the plot became steeper quicker, and then leveled out. + *[[Image:Test1.fig|r=10]] + *[[Image:Test2.fig|r=50 ]] + *[[Image:Test3.fig|r=100 ]] + *[[Image:Test4.fig|r=1000 ]] + *[[Image:Test5.fig|r=1]]

## Revision as of 14:43, 24 January 2013

• user:Kevin Matthew McKay
• week 2 assignment page
• I tested all of the parameters at different values, but was seemingly able to find a defined carrying capacity when isolating the variable parameter "r" or net growth rate for testing
• For a very small level or "r", (1) , there was a gradual increase in cell population as time went on. No carrying capacity was reached.
• When "r" was set at 10, the population of cells seemed to stabilize at around 11. The nutrient level decreased to around 0/
• As "r" was increased, the quickness of the populations move to carrying capacity (all around 11 cells) increased. The line on the plot became steeper quicker, and then leveled out.
• Image:Test1.fig
• Image:Test2.fig
• Image:Test3.fig
• Image:Test4.fig
• Image:Test5.fig