Table 2.
Taxon | Empirical results |
Null model results |
Test whether empirical ≠ null |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Slope | SE | t | P | r2 | Slope | SE | F | df | P | |
Three-spine stickleback | 0.401 | 0.043 | 9.32 | <0.001 | 0.906 | 0.229 | 0.037 | 9.25 | 1,18 | 0.007 |
Eurasian perch | 0.424 | 0.034 | 12.55 | <0.001 | 0.908 | 0.212 | 0.070 | 7.42 | 1,32 | 0.010 |
Whelk | 0.331 | 0.042 | 7.84 | 0.004 | 0.953 | 0.209 | 0.017 | 7.13 | 1,6 | 0.037 |
Brazilian savannah frogs | 0.217 | 0.027 | 8.05 | <0.001 | 0.915 | 0.076 | 0.035 | 10.22 | 1,12 | 0.008 |
Anolis lizards | 0.003 | 0.001 | 3.56 | 0.038 | 0.809 | n/a* | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
The slope (with SE) is given for both the actual regression relationship and the null relationship based on sampling effects. The t, P, and r2 values are for the empirical regression alone; the F and P values are given for the TNW source interaction term in a general linear model comparing the slopes of the empirical and null relationships (″source″). A significant interaction term indicates that the empirical and null slopes differ.
*n/a, not applicable. Note that the Anolis lizard relationship uses a different metric for diet variation, so it is not comparable with the other cases. In addition, raw data are not available for the Anolis comparison, so resampling was not possible.