Table 1.
Diet pairings for each species plus MANOVA results comparing protein–carbohydrate consumption on the two treatments
| Species | Diet combinations | df | Exact F | Prob > F |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M. angustipennis | (a) p7:c35 + p35:c7 | 2, 13 | 1.79 | 0.205 |
| (b) p7:c35 + p28:c14 | ||||
| M. bivittatus | (a) p7:c35 + p35:c7 | 2, 14 | 3.71 | 0.051 |
| (b) p7:c35 + p28:c14 | ||||
| M. differentialis | (a) p7:c35 + p35:c7 | 2, 16 | 1.98 | 0.171 |
| (b) p7:c35 + p28:c14 | ||||
| M. femurrubrum | (a) p7:c35 + p35:c7 | 2, 5 | 1.54 | 0.301 |
| (b) p7:c35 + p28:c14 | ||||
| M. flavidus | (a) p7:c35 + p35:c7 | 2, 12 | 0.49 | 0.626 |
| (b) p7:c35 + p28:c14 | ||||
| M. foedus | (a) p14:c28 + p35:c7 | 2, 9 | 0.79 | 0.482 |
| (b) p7:c35 + p28:c14 | ||||
| M. sanguinipes | (a) p7:c35 + p35:c7 | 2, 16 | 0.51 | 0.612 |
| (b) p7:c35 + p28:c14 |
Each species was tested on two treatments, and each treatment contained a pair of food dishes with different diets. The diets differed from one another in their protein (p) and digestible carbohydrate (c) content (e.g., p7:c35 = 7% protein and 35% carbohydrate, expressed on a dry mass basis). If each species is actively regulating protein–carbohydrate intake, no significant difference in protein–carbohydrate consumption should be observed.