From eb97dad2e4306ff3c651afe84e29e6628a43d526 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Holden Rohrer <hr@hrhr.dev>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 22:21:57 -0500
Subject: was running out of space on right col

---
 poster/analysis.tex | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

(limited to 'poster/analysis.tex')

diff --git a/poster/analysis.tex b/poster/analysis.tex
index 3d47ea7..db0ee02 100644
--- a/poster/analysis.tex
+++ b/poster/analysis.tex
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+\spacing=110
 The patterns created by antlion groups are emergent: they don't exhibit top-down structure like a highly regular tiled or even consistent polymorphism across trials.
 However, the antlions (myrmeleon immaculatus) did cluster somewhat (remaining close to each other despite available space, in some cases) but regardless maintained sufficient area to capture food, either of the cannibalistic or regular sort.
 These patterns likely developed, at least in the short terms these antlions were studied, by slow movement of the pits across the trial area, either by live migration or abandonment of old pits (which often occurred).
@@ -28,4 +29,3 @@ This is a protection mechanism against predators, and makes sense for the indivi
 Cannibalism is partially an accidental behavior, but could certainly have some evolutionary implications: if the food supply runs low, antlions will move more and more antlions will be consumed by their peers to make up for the food supply.
 Furthermore, the increased surface density under more dense conditions, simulated by a small trial area, (rather than constant density with increasing reclusivity) means that antlions use population density as a proxy for food density because in nature, it would mean the area can support sufficient surface-dwellers.
 Antlions' behavior in the artifically constrained trial areas models closely their behavior in densely populated, constantly recycling nurseries, which explains the lack of highly regular structure.
-
-- 
cgit 

