TABLE 4.
Summary table of the best‐fitting glmm models of fruit set and seed set of the two plant species
| Plant | Response var. | AIC | Effects | df | χ 2 | p‐Value | Estimates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S. alba | Proportion of flowers that gave fruits | 2,793 | Year | 1 | 31.1 | 2.5e−08 | 0.51 ± 0.09 (2018) |
| Habitat | 1 | 65.0 | 7.3e−16 | 1.37 ± 0.20 (urb.) | |||
| Flowering_period | 2 | 3.6 | 0.17 | −0.28 ± 0.12 (adv.)|NS (del.) | |||
| Habitat × Flowering_period | 2 | 36.0 | 1.5e−08 | 0.73 ± 0.17 (urb. adv.)|−0.39 ± 0.20 (urb. del.) | |||
| Number of seeds per fruit | 999 | Habitat | 1 | 6.6 | 0.011 | 0.18 ± 0.07 (urb.) | |
| Flowering_period | 2 | 7.6 | 0.022 | 0.19 ± 0.08 (adv.)|0.21 ± 0.08 (del.) | |||
| L. corniculatus | Number of fruits per plant | 2,369 | Dry mass of the plant | 1 | 138.8 | <2e−16 | 0.31 ± 0.03 |
| Habitat | 1 | 4.4 | 0.036 | NS (urb.) | |||
| Flowering_period | 2 | 632.2 | <2e−16 | −1.84 ± 0.10 (adv.)|−0.97 ± 0.08 (del.) | |||
| Habitat × Flowering_period | 2 | 77.6 | <2e−16 | 0.92 ± 0.10 (urb. adv.)|0.17 ± 0.10 (urb. del.) | |||
| Number of seeds per fruit | 1,233 | Habitat | 1 | 0.3 | 0.59 | NS (urb.) | |
| Flowering_period | 2 | 26.0 | 2.2e−06 | 0.35 ± 0.10 (adv.)|0.28 ± 0.08 (del.) | |||
| Habitat × Flowering_period | 2 | 5.9 | 0.052 | −0.25 ± 0.13 (urb. adv.)|NS (urb. del.) |
For each term, chi‐square and p‐value of the type III Wald chi‐square tests are presented, as well as the estimates of each coefficient (±SE) (“urb.” = urban; “adv.” = advanced; “del.” = delayed; rural habitat, normal flowering period, and year 2017 were taken as references).