Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Jul 11.
Published in final edited form as: Evolution. 2011 Sep 20;66(2):402–418. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01440.x

Table 1.

Watershed, habitat, and interaction effects on ecological and morphological variables in general linear models. For morphological traits correlated with body size (gill raker length and dorsal and pelvic spine lengths), results are for allometrically standardized trait sizes. Estimates of variance explained are the proportion of the total variance based on sums of squares (SS): SS effect / SS total.

Variables Watershed Habitat Interaction Total Var. explained
Proportion of limnetic prey F F5.449 = 7.829 F1.449 = 9.257 F5.449 = 4.012 0.48
Var. Explained 0.18 0.21 0.09
P < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
δ13C F F5.449 = 1085.06 F1.449= 796.07 F5.449 = 205.91 0.75
Var. Explained 0.39 0.28 0.07
P < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Trophic position F F5.449 = 10.794 F1.449 = 8.3 F5.449 = 0.8666 0.63
Var. Explained 0.34 0.26 0.03
P < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Relative warp 1a F F5.458 = 20.495 F1.458 = 549.778 F5.458 = 10.316 0.61
Var. Explained 0.09 0.47 0.04
P < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Gill raker length F F5.458 = 9.106 F1.458= 10.698 F5.458 = 11.811 0.20
Var. Explained 0.08 0.02 0.10
P < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001
Gill raker number F F5.431= 13.709 F1.431 = 259.986 F5.431 = 19.128 0.50
Var. Explained 0.08 0.30 0.11
P < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Pelvic spine length F F5.458 = 6.335 F1.458 = 0.470 F5.458 = 6.783 0.13
Var. Explained 0.06 0.00 0.06
P < 0.001 0.493 < 0.001
Dorsal spine length F F5.458 = 8.284 F1.458 = 0.103 F5.458 = 7.977 0.15
Var. Explained 0.08 0.00 0.07
P < 0.001 0.749 < 0.001
Plate number F F5.457 = 26.469 F1.457 = 0.282 F5.457 = 35.273 0.40
Var. Explained 0.17 0.00 0.23
P < 0.001 0.595 < 0.001
a

When including centroid size as a covariate, the full model explains 71% of the variation and all terms were significant. The variance explained by the habitat and watershed terms did not change, but variation explained by the watershed*habitat interaction was reduced to 2.7%. In addition, centroid size explained 11% of the variation and the centroid size by watershed interaction explained 1% of the variation.