TABLE 2

Effects of treatment, line type (MA or control), and their interaction on viability

Lines includedTreatmentLine typeTreatment × line type
ExperimentGenerationF (d.f.1, d.f.2)PF (d.f.1, d.f.2)PaF (d.f.1, d.f.2)P
127QN4.29 (2, 5.62)0.0745.63 (1, 8.89)0.0211.99 (2, 5.62)0.22
QN + SD3.80 (2, 6.31)0.0837.81 (1, 13.2)0.0082.35 (2, 6.31)0.17
231QN2.31 (2, 2.71)0.264.20 (1, 4.48)0.0511.50 (2, 2.71)0.36
QN + SD2.69 (2, 3.64)0.196.14 (1, 6.07)0.0242.35 (2, 3.64)0.22
133QN9.33 (1, 3.28)0.04910.98 (1, 12.3)0.0033.30 (1, 3.28)0.16
QNb6.45 (1, 2.52)0.1014.00 (1, 21.3)0.0012.28 (1, 2.52)0.24
235QN3.97 (1, 3.96)0.127.50 (1, 8.93)0.0121.53 (1, 3.96)0.28
QN + SD1.65 (1, 4.35)0.2611.49 (1, 24.8)0.0010.30 (1, 4.35)0.61
  • Results of Satterthwaite approximate F-tests (Littell et al. 1996) are shown.

  • a Probability values for line type were halved to produce a one-tailed test of the prediction that MA lines should have lower viability than controls.

  • b Model with no constraint on control correlations (see text).