I need brief easy explaination about the results section and the figures form th

Question

I need brief easy explaination about the results section and the figures form this article I don't understand it.

article link:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1819/20152524

Results:

Females that previously fed more non-kin had more donors and they received more food. The number of non-kin fed by a female in previous years predicted the average number of donors per experimental trial (rank-transformed response: R2 ¼ 0.43, p ¼ 0.008). More donors per trial led to more food received overall (Spearman’s rank correlation: r ¼ 0.59, p ¼ 0.025). The total food received by a female during treatment trials was predicted by its prior propensity to feed nonkin females (R2 ¼ 0.48, p ¼ 0.006), but not non-kin males (R2 ¼ 0.12, p ¼ 0.23), related males (R2 ¼ 0.02, p ¼ 0.60) or related females (R2 ¼ 0.07, p ¼ 0.38). Stepwise regression chose ‘number of female non-kin previously fed’ as the chief determinant of sharing success while excluding other numbers of previously fed bats. Minimum BIC also selected ‘times tested’, so we included it in the model (adj. R2 ¼ 0.60, F1,1 ¼ 11.8, p ¼ 0.0064; figure 2). The model confirmed that sharing success was predicted by the number of previously fed female non-kin ( p ¼ 0.002) but not the number of times the bat was tested in prior years ( p ¼ 0.09). Targeted donors were not immediately replaced by other groupmates in a trial. Subjects received less food when their targeted donor, rather than a control bat, was removed from the donor pool (paired t13 ¼ 22.7, one-sided p ¼ 0.0089). A decline in food received (mean ¼ 272 s, 95% confidence interval (CI) ¼ 55 –489 s) was detectable only when the targeted donor was first removed and not during other fasting rounds. During this same time, we did not detect a change in the number of donors (mean ¼ 20.36, 95% CI ¼ 20.84 to 0.13 bats). Across all trials, bats were fed by an average of 2.6 donors (95% CI ¼ 2.3–2.9). After three weeks with no sharing between targeted partners, the mean food given by targeted donors did not decrease (figure 3; mean ¼ 220.68 s, 95% CI ¼ 2177 to þ136 s, t10 ¼ 20.29, p ¼ 0.77) nor did the donor’s contribution to the subject’s total food received (mean ¼ þ18%, 95% CI ¼ 234% to þ70%, paired t-test with arcsinetransformed proportions: t10 ¼ 0.78, p ¼ 0.45); however, this lack of a difference was not due to sharing rebounding to near its original level across all donors. Rather, after the treatment donors tended to provide either a much higher or lower percentage of their partner’s total food gain, i.e. a bimodal response, with a higher variance in donor contributions to total food received (figure 4; Levene’s test: F1,31 ¼ 17.4, p ¼ 0.0002). The donor’s contributions to food 2000 1500 1000 500 0 no. non-kin females fed total food received (s) during treatment 0 2 4 6 8 10 Figure 2. Donations to unrelated females predict success when primary donors are removed. The number of non-kin females previously fed by a subject during 2010– 2014 predicts the total food received during the experimental treatment period. Model fit is improved by controlling for the number of times the subject was tested (circle size, see the electronic supplementary material). (Online version in colour.) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 food received (s) pre during post Figure 3. Mean food received during experiment. Mean and 95% CIs for seconds of food received in total (black) and from targeted donors (grey) during the pre-treatment, treatment and post-treatment periods. rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc. R. Soc. B 282: 20152524 3 Downloaded from http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on February 23, 2016 received decreased to 0% in five of 11 cases and increased to near 100% in four cases (figure 4; electronic supplementary material, figure S3).

Explanation / Answer

answers:

Explanation graph A :     Changes in targeted donor contribution to total food from pre-treatment period to post treatment period

Blue line indicates bats paired with non-kin targeted donors

Red line indicates bats paired with maternal kin targeted donors

Treated donor have higher or lower percentage of their partners total food gain ie., biomodal response with higher variance in donor contributions of total food received.

The donor contributions food received decreased to 0 % five cases and increased to near 100% in four cases.

Explanation of Graph B : 95% Cis for seconds of food received in total (black) and from targeted donors (grey) during pre-treatment , treatment and post treatment period

The mean food given by targeted donor did not decrease

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.