Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content
Fig. 2 | Movement Ecology

Fig. 2

From: Physical and biological effects on moths’ navigation performance

Fig. 2

Success rate of navigating males in the wind tunnel bioassays involving combinations of three biophysical factors: the flow (undisturbed or disturbed), the quality of the females emitting the odor (high or low), and the availability of odors (no-choice and choice). x-axis: The treatment (denoted by ‘T’), different combinations of the flow characteristics, the odor quality, and the availability of odor sources. y-axis: % of successful males (among all participating males) reaching an odor source. The vertical cylinder denotes the in-line disturbed flow 0.2 m upwind of the odor source, and its absence denotes the Offset source. In the choice treatments, the males’ success rate in locating the two sources is shown as stacked bars. The success rate (%) of all 14 combinations was compared using the two-sided Fisher exact test for multiple comparisons (α = 5%) and post hoc comparison of Holm’s sequential Bonferroni procedure. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences at the adjusted Holm’s-Bonferroni p-values. In each of the five-choice treatments, a within-comparison between the two odors was done using G-test goodness of fit (α = 5%, DF = 1). **, ***, and **** indicate statistical significance at 0.01, 0.001, and 0.0001, correspondingly

Back to article page