Table 3.

The effects of chub age (A), site (S; invaded versus uninvaded) and year (Y; 2008 vs 2011; Rother and Chad Brook only) on chub fork length (L), and mass (M)

Model	River	Term	a (±SE)	Test statistic	p	d.f.	R 2 adj
L = aA + aS + aY	Rother	Full model	–	32.43	<0.001	31	75.3 %
		A	31.06 (±3.68)	8.44	<0.001	–	–
		S	8.67 (±20.48)	0.42	0.675	–	–
		Y	−8.80 (±8.40)	−1.05	0.303	–	–
L = aA + aS + aY	Chad Brook	Full model	–	55.80	<0.001	35	82.5 %
		A	28.63 (±3.16)	9.06	<0.001	–	–
		S	−39.60 (±10.90)	−3.63	<0.001	–	–
		Y	6.76 (±4.38)	4.38	0.133	–	–
L = aA + aS	Cherwell	Full model	–	507.30	<0.001	203	83.3 %
		A	32.57 (±1.02)	31.83	<0.001	–	–
		S	−0.71 (±3.19)	0.22	0.824	–	–
L = aA + aS	Evenlode	Full model	–	975.90	<0.001	299	86.7 %
		A	36.48 (±1.01)	36.09	<0.001	–	–
		S	−41.16 (±3.32)	−12.40	<0.001	–	–
M = aA + aS + aY	Rother	Full model	–	23.22	<0.001	31	68.4 %
		A	135.43 (±19.46)	6.96	<0.001	–	–
		S	158.98 (±108.27)	1.47	0.153	–	–
		Y	−46.39 (±44.39)	−1.05	0.305	–	–
M = aA + aS + aY	Chad Brook	Full model	–	55.60	<0.001	35	82.4 %
		A	96.35 (±11.49)	8.38	<0.001	–	–
		S	−171.11 (±39.64)	−4.32	<0.001	–	–
		Y	−4.08 (±15.94)	−0.26	0.800	–	–
N = aL + aS + aY	Rother	Full model	–	3.73	0.023	31	20.9 %
		L	0.002 (±0.002)	0.72	0.479	–	–
		S	−0.457 (±0.354)	−1.29	0.208	–	–
		Y	0.138 (±0.188)	0.73	0.469	–	–
N = aL + aS + aY	Chad Brook	Full model	–	3.60	0.024	35	18.2 %
		L	0.005 (±0.003)	1.60	0.119	–	–
		S	0.634 (±0.298)	2.13	0.041	–	–
		Y	−0.199 (±0.136)	−1.47	0.151	–	–

We also tested the effects of chub fork length, site, and year on chub baseline corrected δ¹⁵N (N) for the Rother and Chad Brook. Test statistics were F and t for full model and individual terms respectively