Ecological Archives A022-051-A2

Lauren M. Porensky, Kurt J. Vaughn, and Truman P. Young. 2012. Can intraspecific spatial aggregation increase multi-year coexistence by creating temporal priority? Ecological Applications 22:909–936.

Appendix B. Statistical tables and a figure showing subordinate patterns in aggregated plots over all three years.

TABLE B1. Analysis of total cover by aggregation treatment (df = 1,17), year (df = 2,34) and the treatment × year interaction (df = 2,34) for each species. F ratios and p values (in parentheses) are presented and significant results are bolded.

Focal Species

Aggregation (A)

Year (Y)

A × Y

Grindelia camporum

6.33
(0.02)

86.14
(<0.0001)

1.02
(0.4)

Stipa pulchra

32.15
(<0.0001)

106.04
(<0.0001)

12.84
(<0.0001)

Elymus spp.

0.05
(0.8)

33.74
(<0.0001)

0.21
(0.8)

Calandrinia ciliata

0.39
(0.5)

142.75
(<0.0001)

13.11
(<0.0001)

Melica californica

13.70
(0.002)

2.52
(0.1)

7.30
(0.002)

Trifolium bifidum

3.63
(0.07)

62.90
(<0.0001)

10.65
(0.0005)

Trifolium willdenovii

4.45
(0.05)

37.22
(<0.0001)

5.71
(0.007)

 

TABLE B2. Analysis of aggressive species cover and density by distance (df = 1,24) from the originally planted wedge, location within sector (inner vs. outer subplot, df = 1,24), the distance × location interaction (df = 1,24), year (df = 1,48) and all interactions with year (df =1,48). F ratios and p values (in parentheses) are presented and significant results are bolded.

Species

Response

Distance (D)

Location (L)

D × L

Year (Y)

D × Y

L × Y

D × L × Y

Grindelia camporum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cover

6.21
(0.02)

12.77
(0.002)

2.15
(0.16)

0.52
(0.5)

3.21
(0.08)

11.51
(0.001)

0.01
(0.9)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Density

2.43
(0.13)

4.91
(0.04)

33.08
(<0.0001)

12.01
(0.001)

1.00
(0.3)

7.19
(0.01)

0.88
(0.4)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stipa pulchra

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cover

75.23
(<0.0001)

42.89
(<0.0001)

0.34
(0.6)

17.54
(0.0001)

5.69
(0.02)

0.22
(0.6)

9.87
(0.003)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Density

37.89
(<0.0001)

28.17
(<0.0001)

0.90
(0.4)

24.56
(<0.0001)

4.78
(0.03)

2.76
(0.1)

1.23
(0.3)

 

TABLE B3. Analysis of subordinate species cover by distance from aggressive species (df = 1,11), location within sector (inner vs. outer subplot, df = 1,11), the distance × location interaction (df = 1,11), year (df = 1,44) and all interactions with year (df = 44). F ratios and p values (in parentheses) are presented and significant results are bolded.

Subordinate

Aggressive

Distance (D)

Location (L)

D × L

Year (Y)

D × Y

L × Y

D × L × Y

Calandrinia ciliata

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G. camporum

0.03
(0.9)

8.17
(0.02)

1.01
(0.3)

118.74
(<0.0001)

2.23
(0.1)

4.38
(0.02)

0.33
(0.7)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N. pulchra

<0.01
(0.98)

10.69
(0.008)

0.27
(0.6)

62.75
(<0.0001)

2.96
(0.06)

2.27
(0.1)

1.04
(0.4)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Melica californica

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G. camporum

19.21
(0.001)

22.25
(0.0005)

0.18
(0.7)

5.55
(0.007)

1.82
(0.2)

6.77
(0.003)

13.68
(<0.0001)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N. pulchra

0.06
(0.8)

6.07
(0.03)

0.14
(0.7)

1.77
(0.2)

0.14
(0.9)

9.97
(0.0003)

0.17
(0.8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trifolium bifidum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G. camporum

6.02
(0.03)

0.09
(0.8)

0.01
(0.9)

32.31
(<0.0001)

2.58
(0.09)

1.34
(0.3)

0.23
(0.8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N. pulchra

0.59
(0.6)

0.03
(0.9)

1.14
(0.3)

29.77
(<0.0001)

0.35
(0.7)

2.17
(0.1)

0.3
(0.7)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trifolium willdenovii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G. camporum

0.04
(0.8)

0.01
(0.9)

1.3
(0.3)

18.29
(<0.0001)

0.01
(0.99)

0.03
(0.97)

0.61
(0.5)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N. pulchra

<0.01
(0.99)

0.13
(0.7)

0.22
(0.6)

20.42
(<0.0001)

0.1
(0.9)

0.12
(0.9)

0.1
(0.9)

 

FigB1
 

   FIG. B1. Spatial patterns of subordinate species relative to aggressive species in aggregated plots. Mean cover (± 1 SE) of subordinate species as a function of time, location within sector (inner vs. outer subplot), and distance from G. camporum (planted in an adjacent sector vs. planted in a non-adjacent sector).
[Back to A022-051]