Table 3.
Results from the four mixed‐effects models used to estimate individual lake stability, and explore between‐lake patterns in stability
| Variable | DCA 1 South | DCA 2 South | DCA 1 North | DCA 2 North |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effect sizes (β) | ||||
| Latitude | 0.04 (−0.02, 0.1) | −0.08 (−0.15, 0) | −0.02 (−0.1, 0.06) | −0.06 (−0.14, 0.02) |
| Size | 0 (−0.06, 0.05) | 0.08 (0.02, 0.14) | −0.01 (−0.08, 0.06) | 0.10 (0.03, 0.16) |
| Richness | −0.15 (−0.23, −0.06) | −0.07 (−0.17, 0.02) | −0.26 (−0.36, −0.15) | −0.16 (−0.25, −0.06) |
| Alkalinity | 0.02 (−0.06, 0.1) | −0.06 (−0.15, 0.03) | 0.09 (0, 0.17) | −0.01 (−0.08, 0.06) |
| Total phosphorus | −0.04 (−0.13, 0.04) | 0.09 (−0.02, 0.19) | 0.27 (0.12, 0.42) | −0.07 (−0.19, 0.07) |
| Between‐lake variance in stability | 0.07 (0.04, 0.10) | 0.12 (0.08, 0.17) | 0.09 (0.06, 0.14) | 0.07 (0.04. 0.10) |
In this table, we present results of effects on the heterogeneous residual variances, used to study the drivers of community stability (inverse of variation in detrended correspondence analysis [DCA] scores). Models were performed separately for DCA axes 1 and 2 and for the two ecoregions (north and south). We present mean and 95% credible intervals. We also depict in bold those estimates where the 95% credible intervals did not overlap zero.