Table 5.
Costs of thick camellia pericarps.
| Regression: No. of fruits | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fruit weight (g) | Pericarp weight (g) | Pericarp thickness | DBH | |||||||||
| Locality | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Coef. | SE | t | P | Coef. | SE | t | P |
| Fukagawa (FK) | 61.71 | 38.28 | 55.51 | 37.05 | 0.194 | 0.164 | 1.2 | 0.2448 | 0.342 | 0.164 | 2.1 | 0.0442 |
| Shiratani (SR) | 107.30 | 49.24 | 103.29 | 47.78 | 0.086 | 0.181 | 0.5 | 0.6380 | 0.186 | 0.181 | 1.0 | 0.313 |
| Kawahara (KW) | 156.60 | 46.20 | 149.31 | 43.95 | - 0.169 | 0.101 | - 1.7 | 0.0981 | 0.503 | 0.101 | 5.0 | < 0.0001 |
| Ohko-rindoh (OK) | 95.46 | 29.80 | 92.47 | 29.07 | 0.214 | 0.174 | 1.2 | 0.2290 | 0.207 | 0.174 | 1.2 | 0.243 |
The mean weight of camellia fruits and pericarps are shown for each locality. The potential tradeoff between pericarp thickness and the number of fruits were tested by the regression analyses, in which individual tree size (i.e. DBH) was controlled. All response and explanatory variables were z-standardized before regression analyses.