Forums36
Topics41,080
Posts559,314
Members18,576
|
Most Online3,612 Jan 10th, 2023
|
|
9 members (Dave Davidson1, H20fwler, bemdh8, FishinRod, John Kruid, Sunil, Bill Cody, catscratch, nvcdl),
634
guests, and
358
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,541 Likes: 282
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
|
OP
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,541 Likes: 282 |
PFF I did not want to put the stats as they get confusing. The chatrs/tests were based on 120 hour tests. One % natural morts were assumed and the rest were predation. Here is the method used.
An analysis was performed on the daily prey counts to generate bluegill instantaneous mortality rates. We performed a simple linear regression on each treatment with loge(number of bluegills remaining + 1) as the dependent variable and time (h) as the independent variable. Bluegill instantaneous mortality (Z) was derived from the regression under the premise that slope = -Z (Van Den Avyle and Hayward 1999). In the absence of fishing mortality, all mortality is considered natural. A higher value of Z indicates a greater mortality rate, which in turn is directly related to the foraging success of the predator. The resulting slopes of the regression lines were tested for heterogeneity using the general linear model (ANOVA). Significance for all comparisons was set at a @ 0.05.
|
|
|
Moderated by Bill Cody, Bruce Condello, catmandoo, Chris Steelman, Dave Davidson1, esshup, ewest, FireIsHot, Omaha, Sunil, teehjaeh57
|
|