# Kevin Matthew McKay week 2

(Difference between revisions)
 Revision as of 15:43, 24 January 2013 (view source) (added links)← Previous diff Revision as of 15:45, 24 January 2013 (view source) (added title)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. + ==Tests 1-5 r values:10, 50, 100, 1000, 1== *[[Image:Test1.fig|r=10]] *[[Image:Test1.fig|r=10]] - *[[Image:Test2.fig|r=50 ]] + *[[Image:Test2.fig|r=50]] - *[[Image:Test3.fig|r=100 ]] + *[[Image:Test3.fig|r=100]] - *[[Image:Test4.fig|r=1000 ]] + *[[Image:Test4.fig|r=1000]] *[[Image:Test5.fig|r=1]] *[[Image:Test5.fig|r=1]]

## Revision as of 15:45, 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.