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’ |
F |
df |
SS |
F |
SS |
F |
Bombus |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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