Ecological Archives E096170A2
Erin L. Kurten, S. Joseph Wright, Walter P. Carson. 2015. Hunting alters seedling functional trait composition in a Neotropical forest. Ecology 96:1633–1642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/141735.1
Appendix B. Tables of statistical results and figure of community mean wood density for tree species.
For details of statistical methods, see “Methods” in the main text. Tables and figures include tree and liana species in all analyses, unless otherwise noted. The “intercept” estimate parameter, where given, is the control treatment of the exclosure experiment and is the reference state for all other model parameters.
Table B1. The percentage of total individuals and species for which trait data was available for testing predictions.

Exclosure Trait Coverage 

Hunting Comparison Trait Coverage 

Trait 
Individuals 
Species 

Individuals 
Species 
Seed dispersal agent 
94.9% 
88.0% 

90.2% 
91.4% 
Dry seed mass 
84.3% 
61.8% 

65.1% 
59.9% 
Leaf toughness 
84.9% 
67.9% 

56.1% 
65.6% 
Wood density 
90.1% 
77.9% 

79.8% 
78.5% 
Growth form 
97.6% 
74.8% 

88.3% 
87.8% 
LMA 
86.7% 
67.9% 

62.6% 
66.3% 
Table B2. GLM results for proportion of individuals with hunted dispersal agents.
Fixed effects 
Estimate ± Std. Err. 
z value 
p value 
Intercept (control) 
0.323 ± 0.031 
10.56 
< 0.001 
Vertebrate reduction 
0.256 ± 0.039 
6.59 
< 0.001 
Driver 
0.580 ± 0.038 
15.45 
< 0.001 
Vertebrate reduction × Driver 
1.194 ± 0.049 
24.12 
< 0.001 
Table B3. GLM results for proportion of individuals with both hunted and nonhunted dispersal agents.
Fixed effects 
Estimate ± Std. Err. 
z value 
p value 
Intercept (control) 
1.57 ± 0.040 
38.906 
< 0.001 
Vertebrate reduction 
0.277 ± 0.050 
5.591 
< 0.001 
Driver 
0.209 ± 0.048 
4.333 
< 0.001 
Vertebrate reduction × Driver 
0.503 ± 0.062 
8.042 
< 0.001 
Table B4. GLM results for proportion of individuals with nonhunted dispersal agents.
Fixed effects 
Estimate ± Std. Err. 
z value 
p value 
Intercept (control) 
0.370 ± 0.031 
11.94 
< 0.001 
Vertebrate reduction 
0.468 ± 0.041 
11.61 
< 0.001 
Driver 
0.825 ± 0.040 
20.64 
< 0.001 
Vertebrate reduction × Driver 
1.64 ± 0.052 
31.66 
< 0.001 
Table B5. GLM results for proportion of individuals with climbing growth forms (lianas).
Fixed effects 
Estimate ± Std. Err. 
z value 
p value 
Intercept (control) 
0.945 ± 0.035 
27.313 
< 0.001 
Vertebrate reduction 
0.344 ± 0.045 
7.608 
< 0.001 
Driver 
0.480 ± 0.044 
10.907 
< 0.001 
Vertebrate reduction × Driver 
1.756 ± 0.057 
30.983 
< 0.001 
Table B6. LM results for mean log(seed dry mass).
Fixed effects 
Estimate ± Std. Err. 
t value 
p value 
Intercept (control) 
2.486 ± 0.183 
13.603 
< 0.001 
Vertebrate reduction 
0.383 ± 0.258 
1.481 
0.148 
Driver 
0.597 ± 0.251 
2.377 
0.023 
Vertebrate reduction × Driver 
0.504 ± 0.348 
1.452 
0.156 
Table B7. LM results for mean wood density.
Fixed effects 
Estimate ±Std. Err. 
t value 
p value 
Intercept (control) 
0.566 ± 0.008 
73.559 
< 0.001 
Vertebrate reduction 
0.007 ± 0.011 
0.603 
0.551 
Driver 
0.024 ± 0.011 
2.317 
0.027 
Vertebrate reduction × Driver 
0.044 ± 0.015 
2.993 
0.005 
Table B8. LM results for mean LMA.
Fixed effects 
Estimate ± Std. Err. 
t value 
p value 
Intercept (control) 
59.15 ± 1.71 
34.632 
< 0.001 
Vertebrate reduction 
0.95 ± 2.42 
0.394 
0.696 
Driver 
1.44 ± 2.35 
0.612 
0.545 
Vertebrate reduction × Driver 
0.62 ± 3.25 
0.190 
0.851 
Table B9. LM results for mean log(laminar toughness).
Fixed effects 
Estimate ± Std. Err. 
t value 
p value 
Intercept (control) 
6.131 ± 0.032 
191.2 
< 0.001 
Vertebrate reduction 
0.021 ± 0.045 
0.473 
0.640 
Driver 
0.119 ± 0.044 
2.706 
0.011 
Vertebrate reduction × Driver 
0.097 ± 0.061 
1.587 
0.122 
Table B10. Effects of vertebrate exclosure on functional traits and effects of hunting on functional traits, analyzed separately. Significant results are in bold text.
Response variable 
Exclosure Experiment 
Hunting Comparison 
Proportion of individuals with 


Hunted dispersal agents 
P < 0.001 
P < 0.001 
Mixed dispersal agents 
P < 0.001 
P < 0.001 
Nonhunted dispersal agents 
P < 0.001 
P < 0.001 
Climbing growth forms 
P < 0.001 
P < 0.001 
Community mean 


Seed mass 
P < 0.001 
P = 0.685 
Wood density 
P = 0.308 
P = 0.003 
LMA 
P = 0.622 
P = 0.887 
Leaf toughness 
P = 0.448 
P = 0.141 
Fig. B1. Responses of seedling community mean wood density to vertebrate reduction caused by (A) exclosures and (B) hunting, for tree species only. The heavy horizontal lines represent medians, boxes represent first and third quartiles, and whiskers represent extreme values. Lowercase letters distinguish groups that are significantly different from one another, where a twoway analysis of exclosure and hunting data together identified a significant interaction between main effects.