Ecological Archives E086-161-A3

Lynn S. Adler and Rebecca E. Irwin. 2005. Ecological costs and benefits of defenses in nectar. Ecology 86:2968–2978.

Appendix C (Table C1). Effect of nectar treatment (high vs. low alkaloid), floral morph (pin vs. thrum), and their interaction on components of bee preference in 2004.

   

MANOVA

  

Proportion flowers probed

Time per flower

Bee Species

Factor

Wilks’ lambda

F

df

SS

F

SS

F

Habropoda
laboriosa

Nectar

0.95

0.86

1

0.00

0.00

0.39

1.74

Morph

0.96

0.70

1

0.01

0.02

0.30

1.35

N × M

0.85

2.88 †

1

0.59

1.28

1.18

5.31 *

Error
 
 

34

15.73
 

7.55
 

Osmia
lignaria

Nectar

0.72

3.55 *

1

1.96

5.42 *

1.85

2.23

Morph

0.78

2.51

1

1.62

4.48 *

0.76

0.92

N × M

0.92

0.81

1

0.62

1.71

0.01

0.01

Error
 
 

19

6.86
 

15.78
 

Apis
mellifera

Nectar

0.48

6.04 *

1

1.74

4.90 *

11.00

12.87 **

Morph

.83

1.16

1

0.24

0.67

2.17

2.53

N × M

0.84

1.02

1

0.04

0.12

1.78

2.08

Error
 
 

12

4.25
 

10.26
 

Xylocopa
virginica

Nectar

0.87

2.00

1

2.36

3.40 W

0.08

0.34

Morph

0.97

0.38

1

0.48

0.69

0.05

0.19

N × M

0.78

3.67 *

1

1.65

2.39

1.50

6.18 *

Error
 
 

27

18.72
 

6.58
 

   Notes: The high gelsemine treatment used 0.025% gelsemine. Xylocopa are nectar robbers while all others visit flowers legitimately. In the Factor column, N × M denotes nectar treatment by floral morph interaction. Bold type indicates MANOVA or univariate analyses that are significant at P < 0.05. Bombus bimaculatus visits were not analyzed in 2004 due to low sample size (six plants visited).

† P < 0.08; * P =< 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001; **** P < 0.0001


[Back to E086-161]