Table 6. Summary of the effect of pikas on quantifiable response variables.
| Response/Experiment | 3 v 4 | 7 v 8 | K | B | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Litter | - | - | |||
| Bare soil | + | ||||
| Erosion | + | + | |||
| Live cover | + | ||||
| Cardamine | |||||
| Carex | - | ||||
| Heteropappus | + | - | |||
| Kobresia | - | ||||
| Leymus | - | - | |||
| Oxytropis | |||||
| Poa | |||||
| Potentilla | - | - | + | + | |
| Stipa | + | - | + | - | |
| Thermopsis | + |
Compared are livestock exclosure experiments with and without pika reduction, 2009–2013, Village Five, Gouli Township, Dulan County, Qinghai Province, China. Positive responses (indicated by +) symbols represent significantly positive (P < 0.025) effects of pika presence on the variable; negative (-) symbols represent significantly negative effects of pika presence on the variable. Thus as illustrated in this table, responses are the reverse of those presented in the text, which describe mixed-effect models testing effects of pika reduction. Table cells are blank where no significant effect was found. Pikas were reduced in experiments denoted by italic font; pikas were uncontrolled in experiments denoted by bold font.