Table 2.
Post-hoc comparisons for significant effects of the light type (darkness, HPS, and LED) and predation cue (present/absent) on food consumption (A and B) and movement (C and D) of amphipods. The main models are shown in Table 1
| Response variable | Comparison: Predation cue absent vs. present | Comparisons between light conditions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predation cue | ||||||
| Absent | Present | |||||
| A | Consumption (cue × light interaction) |
Darkness | 0.004* | Darkness vs. HPS | 0.001* | 0.140 |
| HPS | 0.036 | Darkness vs. LED | 0.007* | 0.746 | ||
| LED | 0.546 | HPS vs. LED | 0.374 | 0.087 | ||
| B | Handling time (cue × light interaction) |
Darkness | 0.099 | Darkness vs. HPS | 0.437 | 0.456 |
| HPS | 0.096 | Darkness vs. LED | <0.001* | 0.475 | ||
| LED | 0.009* | HPS vs. LED | <0.001* | 0.992 | ||
| C | Movement time (cue × light interaction) |
Darkness | 0.048 | Darkness vs. HPS | <0.001* | 0.019* |
| HPS | 0.587 | Darkness vs. LED | <0.001* | 0.105 | ||
| LED | 0.044 | HPS vs. LED | 0.460 | 0.450 | ||
| D | Time in shelter (cue × light interaction) |
Darkness | 0.873 | Darkness vs. HPS | 0.023* | 0.706 |
| HPS | 0.080 | Darkness vs. LED | <0.001* | 0.766 | ||
| LED | <0.001* | HPS vs. LED | 0.012* | 0.935 | ||
Asterisks indicate significant differences taking sequential Bonferroni corrections into account (3 comparisons for different light types and 3 comparisons between light types within each predation cue treatment).