Table 1. Clam garden effect on density and biomass.

	Fixed Effect		Random Effect
Response variable	Beach Type		Site (Beach Type)
Density	z	p	Variance	StdDev
L. staminea (All)	–2.24	0.03*	0.60	0.78
S. giganteus	–2.25	.03*	2.38	1.54
V. philippinarum	–0.69	0.49	4.66	2.16
Macoma spp.	0.05	0.96	1.51	1.23
TOTAL clam	–1.01	0.32	0.53	0.73
L. staminea (1–13 mm)	–2.49	0.01*	0.61	0.78
L. staminea (14–26 mm)	–2.76	<0.01*	0.77	0.87
L. staminea (27–39 mm)	–2.11	0.04*	0.73	0.86
L. staminea (40–52 mm)	–1.06	0.29	1.12	1.06
L. staminea (53–65 mm)	0.18	0.86	3.70	1.92
Biomass	t	p	Residual
L. staminea	–1.16	0.26	0.10
S. giganteus	–1.77	0.09	0.24
V. philippinarum	–1.23	0.24	0.03
Macoma spp.	1.41	0.17	0.04
TOTAL clam	–0.20	0.85	0.33

The effect of clam gardens (Beach Type) on density and biomass (per survey transect, 0.027 m³) of L. staminea (littleneck clam), S. giganteus (butter clam), V. philippinarum (Japanese littleneck clam), Macoma spp (macoma clams) and total clams. * designates significant p-values (p≤0.05).