Skip to main content
. 2013 Nov 5;6(3):306–314. doi: 10.1159/000355211

Table 3.

Relationship between priming and larval size

χ2 DF p
A
 Overall model – survival 44.3514 19 0.0008
 Treatment 27.9444 4 <0.0001
 Size class 1.2688 1 0.2600
 Plate, treatment 11.5185 10 0.3186
 Treatment*size class
Contrasts
3.3722 4 0.4976
 Medium vs. naïve (PBS) 1.8233 0.1769
 Medium vs.Btt SN 26.7661 <0.0001
 Medium vs.Btk SN 2.5733 0.1087
 Medium vs.Bt 407cry 3.8637 0.0493

B
Overall model – growth 311.1827 19 <0.0001
Treatment 264.9723 4 <0.0001
Size class 7.0428 1 0.0080
Plate, treatment 49.0640 10 <0.0001
Treatment*size class
Contrasts
8.6540 4 0.0704
 Medium vs. naïve (PBS) 174.9389 <0.0001
 Medium vs.Btt SN 68.4564 <0.0001
 Medium vs.Btk SN 4.4715 0.0345
 Medium vs.Bt 407cry 0.4229 0.5155

C
Overall model – survival 35.0160 9 <0.0001
Treatment 24.3653 4 <0.0001
Size prechallenge 1.1885 1 0.2756
Treatment*size prechallenge
Contrasts
5.5757 4 0.2332
 Medium vs. naive (PBS) 1.4213 0.2331
 Medium vs.Btt SN 22.7727 <0.0001
 Medium vs.Btk SN 1.8990 0.1681
 Medium vs.Bt 407cry 1.9463 0.1629
A

GLM testing for the effect of priming treatment and size class on survival; experimental plate (nested within treatment) was also included into the model.

B

GLM testing for the effect of priming treatment and size class on growth; experimental plate (nested within treatment) was also included into the model.

C

GLM testing for the effect of priming treatment and size before challenge on survival.