Skip to main content

Table 5 Costs of thick camellia pericarps.

From: Natural selection drives the fine-scale divergence of a coevolutionary arms race involving a long-mouthed weevil and its obligate host plant

     

Regression: No. of fruits

 

Fruit weight (g)

Pericarp weight (g)

Pericarp thickness

DBH

Locality

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Coef.

SE

t

P

Coef.

SE

t

P

Fukagawa (FK)

61.71

38.28

55.51

37.05

0.194

0.164

1.2

0.2448

0.342

0.164

2.1

0.0442

Shiratani (SR)

107.30

49.24

103.29

47.78

0.086

0.181

0.5

0.6380

0.186

0.181

1.0

0.313

Kawahara (KW)

156.60

46.20

149.31

43.95

- 0.169

0.101

- 1.7

0.0981

0.503

0.101

5.0

< 0.0001

Ohko-rindoh (OK)

95.46

29.80

92.47

29.07

0.214

0.174

1.2

0.2290

0.207

0.174

1.2

0.243

  1. The mean weight of camellia fruits and pericarps are shown for each locality. The potential tradeoff between pericarp thickness and the number of fruits were tested by the regression analyses, in which individual tree size (i.e. DBH) was controlled. All response and explanatory variables were z-standardized before regression analyses.