1 / 11

Results

Results. Figure 1. Table 1. Biovolume of Food vs Thoracic Beats in D. magna One Way Analysis of Variance Thursday, February 02, 2006, 4:26:10 PM Group Name N Missing Mean Std Dev SEM Mean TB High Micro 4 0 190.500 39.233 19.617 Mean TB Low Micro 4 0 220.200 68.091 34.045

lani-lawson
Télécharger la présentation

Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Results

  2. Figure 1.

  3. Table 1 Biovolume of Food vs Thoracic Beats in D. magna One Way Analysis of Variance Thursday, February 02, 2006, 4:26:10 PM Group Name N Missing Mean Std Dev SEM Mean TB High Micro 4 0 190.500 39.233 19.617 Mean TB Low Micro 4 0 220.200 68.091 34.045 Mean TB High Nano 4 0 147.600 11.758 5.879 Mean TB Low Nano 4 0 198.300 19.751 9.876 The differences in the mean values among the treatment groups are not great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability; there is not a statistically significant difference (P = 0.140). Though there is no significant difference between the Biovolume level of food and the number of thoracic beats in D. magna, there was a trend observed where the Daphnia performed a greater number of thoracic beats at the lower concentrations of food. Also, there was a trend where the number of thoracic beats was greater when in concentrations of Nanocloropsys.

  4. Figure 2. Post Abdominal Rejection vs Food Concentration for D. magna

  5. One Way Analysis of Variance Tuesday, February 07, 2006, 1:57:21 PM Data source: Nanno & MC Data in zool811 Mic vs TB Normality Test: Failed (P < 0.050) Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance on Ranks Tuesday, February 07, 2006, 1:57:21 PM Data source: Nanno & MC Data in zool811 Mic vs TB Group N Missing Median 25% 75% Micro PAR lo 4 0 1.667 1.167 2.333 Micro PAR hi 4 0 2.333 1.333 3.500 Nanno PAR lo 4 0 1.000 0.667 1.833 Nanno PAR hi 4 0 2.500 1.333 6.167 H = 2.789 with 3 degrees of freedom. (P = 0.425) The differences in the median values among the treatment groups are not great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability; there is not a statistically significant difference (P = 0.425)

  6. Post Abdominal Rejection at Low and High Food Concentrations There is no significance between the post abdominal reflexes (PAR) at the food concentrations tested, however, one allegedly present trend was noted: there were fewer PAR’s in the low concentrated substrates.

  7. One Way Analysis of Variance Thursday, February 02, 2006, 4:25:23 PM Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance on Ranks Thursday, February 02, 2006, 4:25:23 PM Data source: Data 1 in ComparisonTBHIGHLOW Group N Missing Median 25% 75% Mean TB High Micro 4 0 186.000 160.200 220.800 Mean TB Low Micro 4 0 222.000 165.600 274.800 Mean TB High Nano 4 0 150.000 138.000 157.200 Mean TB Low Nano 4 0 192.600 186.600 210.000 H The differences in the median values among the treatment groups are not great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability; there is not a statistically significant difference (P = 0.139)

  8. t-test Thursday, February 02, 2006, 4:23:48 PM Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test Thursday, February 02, 2006, 4:23:48 PM Data source: Data 1 in ComparisonTBHIGHLOW Group N Missing Median 25% 75% Mean TB Low Micro 4 0 222.000 165.600 274.800 Mean TB Low Nano 4 0 192.600 186.600 210.000 T = 19.000 n(small)= 4 n(big)= 4 P(est.)= 0.885 P(exact)= 0.886 The difference in the median values between the two groups is not great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability; there is not a statistically significant difference (P = 0.886)

  9. t-test Thursday, February 02, 2006, 4:22:37 PM Group Name N Missing Mean Std Dev SEM Mean TB High Micro 4 0 190.500 39.233 19.617 Mean TB High Nano 4 0 147.600 11.758 5.879 Difference 42.900 t = 2.095 with 6 degrees of freedom. (P = 0.081) 95 percent confidence interval for difference of means: -7.209 to 93.009 The difference in the mean values of the two groups is not great enough to reject the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability. There is not a statistically significant difference between the input groups (P = 0.081).

More Related