Ecological Archives E086-161-A2

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

Appendix B (Table B1). Effect of nectar treatment (high vs. low gelsemine), floral morph (pin vs. thrum), and their interaction on components of bee preference in 2002.

 
 

MANOVA

 

Proportion flowers probed

Time per flower

Bee Species

Factor

Wilks’ lambda

F

df

SS

F

SS

F

Bombus
bimaculatus

Nectar

0.76

7.83 **

1

6.18

13.61 ***

2.04

5.93 *

Morph

1.00

0.07

1

0.05

0.12

0.02

0.05

N × M

1.00

0.02

1

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.03

Error

 
 

50

22.69

 

17.16

 

Habropoda
laboriosa

Nectar

0.70

12.48 ****

1

2.46

6.16 *

10.78

19.53 ****

Morph

0.93

2.23

1

0.34

0.84

2.01

3.65 W

N × M

0.98

0.70

1

0.23

0.57

0.46

0.84

Error

 
 

59

23.61

 

32.58

 

Osmia
lignaria

Nectar

0.69

13.77 ****

1

0.11

0.19

10.15

27.08 ****

Morph

0.97

0.80

1

0.02

0.04

0.57

1.53

N × M

0.87

4.54

1

5.03

9.01 **

0.01

0.03

Error

 
 

62

34.64

 

23.25

 

Apis
mellifera

Nectar

0.82

4.85 *

1

3.60

7.75 **

3.66

6.21 *

Morph

0.95

1.17

1

1.08

2.32

0.09

0.15

N × M

0.97

0.75

1

0.12

0.25

0.40

0.67

Error

 
 

46

21.38

 

27.07

 

Xylocopa
virginica

Nectar

0.89

4.44 *

1

1.44

5.80 *

0.36

3.47

Morph

0.89

4.31 *

1

0.04

0.16

0.89

8.64 **

N × M

0.98

0.91

1

0.43

1.72

0.01

0.09

Error

 
 

74

18.33

 

7.65

 

   Notes: The high gelsemine treatment used 0.5% 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.

† P < 0.07; * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001; **** P < 0.0001



[Back to E086-161]