Table 1.
N | R 2 | F | d.f. | P | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Canal diameter (combined) |
358 |
0.83 |
|
|
|
Species |
|
|
175.4131 |
1, 354 |
<.0001 |
SL |
|
|
732.5361 |
1, 354 |
<.0001 |
Species x SL |
|
|
77.8231 |
1, 354 |
<.0001 |
Canal diameter (SO) |
184 |
0.85 |
|
|
|
Species |
|
|
128.5339 |
1, 180 |
<.0001 |
SL |
|
|
391.6134 |
1, 180 |
<.0001 |
Species x SL |
|
|
36.1964 |
1, 180 |
<.0001 |
Canal diameter (MD) |
174 |
0.83 |
|
|
|
Species |
|
|
62.1329 |
1, 170 |
<.0001 |
SL |
|
|
369.4595 |
1, 170 |
<.0001 |
Species x SL |
|
|
43.2358 |
1, 170 |
<.0001 |
|
N
|
R
2
|
F
|
d.f. |
P
|
Neuromast length (combined) |
389 |
0.61 |
|
|
|
Species |
|
|
0.0775 |
1, 385 |
0.7809 |
SL |
|
|
494.8616 |
1, 385 |
<.0001 |
Species x SL |
|
|
3.7681 |
1, 385 |
0.0530 |
Neuromast length (SO) |
194 |
0.69 |
|
|
|
Species |
|
|
6.0854 |
1, 190 |
0.0145 |
SL |
|
|
346.0935 |
1, 190 |
<.0001 |
Species x SL |
|
|
0.4571 |
1, 190 |
0.4998 |
Neuromast length (MD) |
195 |
0.73 |
|
|
|
Species |
|
|
5.1958 |
1, 191 |
0.0237 |
SL |
|
|
405.6425 |
1, 191 |
<.0001 |
Species x SL |
|
|
7.987 |
1, 191 |
0.0052 |
|
N
|
R
2
|
F
|
d.f. |
P
|
Neuromast width (combined) |
389 |
0.89 |
|
|
|
Species |
|
|
179.7582 |
1, 385 |
<.0001 |
SL |
|
|
1548.252 |
1, 385 |
<.0001 |
Species x SL |
|
|
135.6519 |
1, 385 |
<.0001 |
Neuromast width (SO) |
194 |
0.9 |
|
|
|
Species |
|
|
96.0182 |
1, 190 |
<.0001 |
SL |
|
|
809.9263 |
1, 190 |
<.0001 |
Species x SL |
|
|
71.6976 |
1, 190 |
<.0001 |
Neuromast width (MD) |
195 |
0.91 |
|
|
|
Species |
|
|
104.6486 |
1, 191 |
<.0001 |
SL |
|
|
916.1915 |
1, 191 |
<.0001 |
Species x SL | 79.312 | 1, 191 | <.0001 |
Analysis was carried out for supraorbital (SO) and mandibular (MD) canals together (combined) or individually in Tramitichromis and Aulonocara. SL = Standard length (fish size) in mm. All data were found to be normal. Significance = P <0.05. The Johnson-Neyman procedure was used to determine the region of non-significance for fish size for ANCOVAs with significant interaction terms (indicating heterogeneity of slopes, see text and Table 3 for additional details). See Figure 10 and Table 2 for ANOVA results and individual regressions.