This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: ish.means.ars in the graph are means +1al. E. 990;onrepresentrhe1993). Inpopulationn(the two treatments.Shown a
S 1 bars Reeding t atesifference intfwo-population studies, differf
differences between The b
*fish chemicalmffectb(e confounded chemical
Different letters above each bar indicate that there are significant bre ighly significant indicates a significant <ffect of fish by other
ences aetween + 1 SE.
hmeans population pairs e ay
P e 0.001).
populations withifferences between mhe longest (Fig. 4). These
on feeding rates within a population (P < 0.05), *** indicates a
d fish survived t eans.
sources of variation rather than selective differences or gene
0 the predator-avoidance behaviors m SE
results indicate that.05) than without fish (n = 133, x = 1.013, ea- = 0.03; F highly significant fish chemical effect (P < 0.001).
flow. In fish did not tshe present reduce its nalyzed rateultiple popcontrast, ignificantly study a feeding m in response
sured are related t= 3.82, df = w,13, P redators because popu- significant
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 01/13/2014 for the course BIONB 2210 taught by Professor Seeley during the Fall '10 term at Cornell.
- Fall '10