Table 6.
|
|
|
Treatment |
Control |
|
|
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Comparison | Site | Date | Samples | Nymphs (SD) | Samples | Nymphs (SD) | Weight | Effect size |
1 | RI | 6/6–6/21/02 | 15 | 15.6 (0.8) | 15 | 36.9 (1.8) | 6.7 | −0.98 |
2 | RI | 6/25–7/1/02 | 15 | 16.2 (0.7) | 15 | 39.2 (2.1) | 6.7 | −0.95 |
3 | RI | 7/8–7/12/02 | 15 | 11.3 (0.5) | 15 | 35.3 (2.0) | 6.6 | −1.05 |
4 | RI | 7/19–7/26/02 | 15 | 8.4 (0.4) | 15 | 21.3 (1.1) | 6.6 | −1.04 |
5 | CT | 5/20/02 | 16 | 45 (5) | 14 | 53 (3) | 7.4 | −0.22 |
6 | CT | 6/3/02 | 16 | 29 (2) | 14 | 59 (3) | 6.7 | −0.93 |
7 | CT | 6/17/02 | 16 | 13 (1) | 14 | 75 (5) | 6.2 | −1.28 |
8 | CT | 7/1/02 | 16 | 22 (1) | 14 | 26 (2) | 7.4 | −0.28 |
9 | CT | 7/15/02 | 16 | 16 (1) | 14 | 20 (3) | 7.4 | −0.21 |
10 | NY | 5/16–7/25/02 | 29 | 9.1 (0.4) | 30 | 25.0 (1.1) | 14.0 | −0.63 |
11 | NJ | 5/19–5/26/02 | 25 | 20 (1) | 20 | 79 (5) | 14.0 10.2 |
−0.84 |
12 | NJ | 5/29–5/31/02 | 25 | 40 (2) | 20 | 139 (8) | 10.0 | −0.93 |
13 | NJ | 6/1–6/5/02 | 25 | 40 (2) | 20 | 147 (11) | 10.3 | −0.78 |
14 | NJ | 6/7–6/11/02 | 25 | 53 (3) | 20 | 165 (8) | 9.8 | −1.05 |
15 | MD | 6/9/2003 | 15 | 89 (7) | 15 | 215.4 (11.4) | 6.9 | −0.87 |
16 | MD | 6/12/2003 | 15 | 85 (4) | 15 | 192.0 (10.5) | 6.9 | −0.87 |
17 | MD | 6/17/2003 | 15 | 113 (6) | 15 | 218.3 (11.8) | 7.0 | −0.74 |
18 | MD | 6/23/2004 | 15 | 90 (5) | 15 | 178.9 (9.4) | 7.0 | −0.78 |
SD, standard deviation.