Skip to Main Content
Table 2.

Results of the ANCOVAs used to test the effect of ethanol concentration on the marginal value of food containing different sugars for female and male Egyptian fruit bats

Females
Males
Sourced.f.MSF-ratioPd.f.MSF-ratioP
A. Fructose–sucrose         
   Ethanol 2138.06 5.36 0.038 4090.64 9.76 0.006 
   DEE 1142.01 2.86 0.114 480.82 1.15 0.298 
   Station 275.56 0.69 0.519 309.05 0.74 0.543 
   Error 13 398.78   18 419.06   
B. Fructose–glucose         
   Ethanol 1462.83 6.16 0.028 2457.14 4.28 0.05 
   DEE 218.60 0.92 0.355 8.41 0.02 0.905 
   Ethanol×DEE – – – – 3050.68 5.31 0.034 
   Station 94.69 0.40 0.679 661.33 1.15 0.357 
   Error 13 237.507   17 574.61   
C. Sucrose–glucose         
   Ethanol 2715.05 7.70 0.016 8085.20 18.85 <0.001 
   DEE 1955.05 5.55 0.035 65.58 0.15 0.70 
   Station 39.02 0.11 0.896 123.50 0.29 0.833 
   Error 13 352.47   18 428.88   
Females
Males
Sourced.f.MSF-ratioPd.f.MSF-ratioP
A. Fructose–sucrose         
   Ethanol 2138.06 5.36 0.038 4090.64 9.76 0.006 
   DEE 1142.01 2.86 0.114 480.82 1.15 0.298 
   Station 275.56 0.69 0.519 309.05 0.74 0.543 
   Error 13 398.78   18 419.06   
B. Fructose–glucose         
   Ethanol 1462.83 6.16 0.028 2457.14 4.28 0.05 
   DEE 218.60 0.92 0.355 8.41 0.02 0.905 
   Ethanol×DEE – – – – 3050.68 5.31 0.034 
   Station 94.69 0.40 0.679 661.33 1.15 0.357 
   Error 13 237.507   17 574.61   
C. Sucrose–glucose         
   Ethanol 2715.05 7.70 0.016 8085.20 18.85 <0.001 
   DEE 1955.05 5.55 0.035 65.58 0.15 0.70 
   Station 39.02 0.11 0.896 123.50 0.29 0.833 
   Error 13 352.47   18 428.88   

We did independent analyses for each pair-wise comparison of sugars (A,fructose vs sucrose; B, fructose vs glucose; C, sucrose vs glucose), and for each sex. In all comparisons the factor Ethanol(ethanol concentration) was significant. MS, mean square; DEE, estimated daily energy expenditure. Significant values, P<0.05, are presented in bold

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal