Table 1. Sample sizes in Amsalem et al.’s experiment.
The table highlights that sample sizes were low and uneven, that certain colonies are over-represented in particular hydrocarbon treatments, and that the naïve and experienced treatments used mixed-colony or single-colony groups of workers, respectively. Note that we give the sample size in terms of the number of colony fragments, which is appropriate for the colony-level variables ‘egg number’ and ‘latency to egg laying’. For response variables measured at the level of individual workers (i.e., presence of ‘ready-to-lay’ eggs, length of terminal oocycte, and oocyte resorption) the sample sizes are c. 3-fold higher, because each colony fragment contained three workers.
| Colony | Total n | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | Mix of 1–3 colonies | |||
| Control | Experienced | 8 | 2 | – | 3 | 1 | 3 | 6 | – | 23 |
| C23 High | Experienced | 8 | – | – | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | – | 20 |
| C23 Low | Experienced | – | – | – | – | 5 | 1 | 4 | – | 10 |
| C25 High | Experienced | 10 | – | – | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | – | 23 |
| C25 Low | Experienced | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | – | 21 |
| C27 High | Experienced | 7 | – | – | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | – | 20 |
| C27 Low | Experienced | – | – | – | – | 4 | 2 | 4 | – | 10 |
| Average | 8.2 | 1.5 | 1 | 2.6 | 3.7 | 1.9 | 4.3 | 18.1 | ||
| Control | Naïve | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 16 | 16 |
| C23 High | Naïve | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 6 | 6 |
| C23 Low | Naïve | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 4 | 4 |
| C25 High | Naïve | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 13 | 13 |
| C25 Low | Naïve | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 12 | 12 |
| C27 High | Naïve | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 6 | 6 |
| C27 Low | Naïve | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 6 | 6 |
| Average | 9.0 | 9.0 | ||||||||