Ecological Archives M080-005-A5

Jon D. Witman, Margarita Brandt, and Franz Smith. 2010. Coupling between subtidal prey and consumers along a mesoscale upwelling gradient in the Galápagos Islands. Ecological Monographs 80:153–177.

Appendix E. ANOVA tables from analysis of barnacle recruitment in 2002, 2003, and 2004.

2002

TABLE E1. ANOVA table of log x + 1 transformed barnacle recruitment in 2002. The ANOVA model explained 61.7% of the variation in the data (240 df total). Planned contrasts comparing the recruitment of barnacles among upwelling groups indicated that recruitment was higher in the strong (SUP) than the weak (WUP) upwelling sites (SUP vs. WUP, F ratio = 113.77, P < 0.0001, and that recruitment in the intermediate upwelling group (IUP) was higher than in the WUP group (IUP vs. WUP, F ratio = 58.09, P < 0.0001). All contrasts with 1, 407 df.

 

SS

df

F ratio

P

Depth (D)

7.751

1

82.163

< 0.0001

Upwelling (U)

11.457

2

60.721

< 0.0001

Site[U]

8.18

9

9.645

< 0.0001

D × U

0.155

2

0.824

0.4396

D × Site[U]

4.677

9

5.508

< 0.0001

Residual

20.378

216

   

 

2003

TABLE E2. ANOVA of log x + 1 transformed barnacle recruitment in 2003. The ANOVA model explained 81.4% of the variation in the data (551 df total). Planned contrasts comparing the recruitment of barnacles among upwelling groups indicated that recruitment was higher in the strong upwelling group (SUP) than either the intermediate (IUP) or weak (WUP) upwelling groups (SUP vs. IUP, F ratio = 168.17, P < 0.0001; SUP vs. WUP,  F ratio = 1385.39, P < 0.0001) and that recruitment in the IUP group was higher than in the WUP group (IUP vs. WUP, F ratio = 416.57, P < 0.0001). All contrasts with 1, 407 df.

 

SS

df

F ratio

P

Treatment (T)

0.0014

2

4.230

0.0152

Depth (D)

0.0620

1

371.789

< 0.0001

Upwelling (U)

0.2327

2

697.459

< 0.0001

Site[U]

0.0320

9

21.326

< 0.0001

T × D

0.0002

2

0.816

0.4429

U × T

0.0001

4

0.180

0.9484

U × D

0.0360

2

107.931

< 0.0001

U × D × T

0.0007

4

1.152

0.3316

T × Site[U]

0.0446

18

1.485

0.0908

D × Site[U]

0.0151

9

10.100

< 0.0001

T × D × Site[U]

0.0034

18

1.1589

0.2928

Location [TDSU]

0.0299

72

2.4901

< 0.0001

Residual

0.0679

407

   

 

2004

TABLE E3. ANOVA of log x + 1 transformed barnacle recruitment in 2004. The ANOVA model explained 85.7% of the variation in the data (475 df total). The predation treatment had 2 levels: fenced and open plates. Planned contrasts comparing barnacle recruitment of among upwelling groups indicated that recruitment was higher in the strong upwelling group (SUP) than either the IUP or weak WUP upwelling groups (SUP vs. IUP, F ratio = 186.71, P < 0.0001; SUP vs. WUP, F ratio = 1077.21, P < 0.0001) and that recruitment in the IUP group was higher the WUP group (IUP vs. WUP, F ratio = 253.41, P < 0.0001). All contrasts with 1, 379 df.

 

SS

df

F ratio

P

Treatment (T)

0.002

1

0.875

0.3501

Depth (D)

0.083

1

256.533

< 0.0001

Upwelling (U)

0.350

2

538.607

< 0.0001

Site[U]

0.017

9

61.429

< 0.0001

T × D

0.001

1

3.363

0.0674

U × T

0.000

2

0.808

0.4460

U × D

0.009

2

14.643

< 0.0001

U × D × T

0.002

2

4.435

0.0125

T × Site[U]

0.003

9

1.178

0.3072

D × Site[U]

0.005

9

18.640

< 0.0001

T × D × Site[U]

0.008

9

2.740

0.0041

Location [TDSU]

0.005

48

3.220

< 0.0001

Residual

0.1232

379

   

[Back to M080-005]