Table 2.

Comparison of protein–carbohydrate consumption points for species that were nearest neighbors in nutritional space

Species comparison	df	Exact F	Prob > F
M. bivittatus (2) vs. M. differentialis (3)	2, 98	5.82	0.004
M. bivittatus (2) vs. M. foedus (6)	2, 98	7.46	0.001
M. flavidus (5) vs. M. foedus (6)	2, 98	10.09	<0.001
M. flavidus (5) vs. M. sanguinipes (7)	2, 98	7.52	0.004
M. femurrubrum (4) vs. M. sanguinipes (7)	2, 98	3.53	0.033
M. angustipennis (1) vs. M. sanguinipes (7)	2, 98	0.88	0.417
M. angustipennis (1) vs. M. femurrubrum (4)	2, 98	3.96	0.022

Protein–carbohydrate consumption points for species that were nearest neighbors in nutritional space were compared by using specified contrast statements after a significant overall species effect (MANOVA: F_12,198 = 19.68, P < 0.0001). The number in parentheses after each species refers to the number assigned to that species in Fig. 1. All nearest-neighbor comparisons were significantly different from one another, except for M. angustipennis (1) vs. M. sanguinipes (7).