Daniel S. Gruner. 2004. Attenuation of top-down and bottom-up forces in a complex terrestrial community. Ecology 85:3010–3022.

Appendix E. Tables showing bottom-up and top-down effect sizes for arthropod trophic levels and taxonomic categories.

Table E1. Natural log response ratios, or effect sizes, and 95% confidence intervals for arthropod trophic levels, spiders including and excluding A. riparia, and taxonomic and size-based categories of bird prey and non-prey, which are further divided into primary consumers of productivity (detritivores and herbivores) and secondary consumers (carnivores).

	Density			Biomass
Category	Fertilization	Cage	Both	Fertilization	Cage	Both
All arthropods	0.78 (0.32)	0.49 (0.34)	0.98 (0.51)	-0.06 (0.45)	0.20 (0.37)	0.63 (0.53)
Detritivores	0.78 (0.47)	0.22 (0.49)	0.86 (0.65)	-0.32 (0.56)	-0.21 (0.51)	0.49 (0.70)
Herbivores	1.17 (0.84)	0.49 (0.98)	1.18 (0.52)	0.98 (0.37)	1.14 (0.40)	1.13 (0.86)
Predators	0.51 (0.57)	1.42 (0.71)	1.45 (0.83)	-0.10 (0.37)	0.93 (0.70)	1.00 (0.53)
All spiders	0.06 (0.69)	2.13 (0.78)	1.07 (1.06)	0.08 (0.41)	1.29 (0.80)	1.21 (0.62)
A. riparia	-1.14 (1.31)	3.27 (1.18)	3.04 (1.48)	-2.26 (1.38)	3.54 (1.11)	2.28 (1.42)
Other spiders	0.31 (0.74)	-0.22 (0.78)	0.87 (0.39)	0.16 (0.39)	-0.28 (0.47)	1.01 (0.68)
Tourists	-0.10 (0.76)	0.00 (1.33)	0.35 (1.21)	0.95 (1.20)	0.37 (1.29)	0.12 (0.89)
Non-prey	0.81 (0.46)	0.44 (0.48)	0.98 (0.55)	-0.25 (0.49)	-0.2 (0.42)	0.52 (0.65)
Non-prey (1o)	0.85 (0.47)	0.24 (0.49)	0.90 (0.65)	-0.25 (0.56)	-0.21 (0.52)	0.50 (0.69)
Non-prey (2o)	0.21 (0.70)	1.73 (0.81)	1.84 (1.03)	-0.39 (0.57)	-0.01 (0.81)	0.78 (0.77)
Prey	0.54 (0.51)	0.76 (0.67)	0.96 (0.39)	0.60 (0.36)	1.24 (0.44)	1.11 (0.54)
Prey (1o)	0.63 (0.83)	0.31 (0.95)	0.85 (0.54)	0.89 (0.50)	1.22 (0.46)	1.10 (0.87)
Prey (2o)	0.29 (0.67)	1.56 (0.76)	1.29 (0.64)	0.03 (0.58)	1.29 (0.77)	1.13 (0.61)

   Notes: Log response ratios and CIs are calculated using equations in Hedges et al. (1999), and are presented for all factorial comparisons with the control. Boldface entries represent log ratios with CIs non-overlapping with zero.

Table E2. Natural log response ratios, or effect sizes, and 95% confidence intervals for arthropod trophic levels, spiders including and excluding A. riparia, and taxonomic and size-based categories of bird prey and non-prey, which are further divided into primary consumers of productivity (detritivores and herbivores) and secondary consumers (carnivores).

	Density		Biomass
Category	Resources	Birds	Resources	Birds
All arthropods	0.61 (0.46)	-0.30 (0.57)	0.24 (0.55)	-0.48 (0.47)
Detritivores	0.71 (0.56)	-0.12 (0.71)	0.26 (0.73)	-0.35 (0.71)
Herbivores	0.90 (0.49)	-0.14 (0.68)	0.33 (0.91)	-0.53 (0.79)
Predators	0.14 (1.15)	-1.15 (0.73)	0.02 (0.85)	-1.01 (0.60)
All spiders	-0.05 (1.67)	-2.07 (0.87)	-0.05 (0.97)	-1.21 (0.69)
A. riparia	-0.25 (2.17)	-3.58 (1.37)	-1.28 (1.99)	-3.69 (1.60)
Other spiders	*	*	*	*
Tourists	0.15 (1.04)	-0.24 (1.04)	0.42 (1.14)	0.34 (1.11)
Non-prey	0.65 (0.48)	-0.26 (0.61)	0.30 (0.67)	-0.34 (0.67)
Non-prey (1o)	0.75 (0.56)	-0.11 (0.72)	0.30 (0.71)	-0.32 (0.70)
Non-prey (2o)	0.12 (1.52)	-1.68 (0.91)	0.37 (0.85)	-0.64 (0.79)
Prey	0.32 (0.57)	-0.56 (0.48)	0.08 (0.79)	-0.83 (0.59)
Prey (1o)	0.57 (0.48)	-0.25 (0.57)	0.22 (0.92)	-0.62 (0.80)
Prey (2o)	-0.15 (1.04)	0.16 (2.10)	-0.12 (0.97)	-1.19 (0.69)

   Notes: Log response ratios and CIs are calculated using equations in Hedges et al. (1999), and are presented by pooling data from fertilized and caged treatments into main effects. Data were pooled only when there was no significant fertilization × cage interaction, and the inverse of the cage effect was taken to assess the effects in the presence of birds. Boldface entries represent log ratios with CIs non-overlapping with zero.

 

Literature cited

Hedges, L. V., J. Gurevitch, and P. S. Curtis. 1999. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150–1156.