does phylogeny predict sensitivity to ammonia in freshwater animals...

36
OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals? 1 Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals using USEPA Ammonia Criteria Data? Technical Memo April 28, 2016 Version 1.2 Submitted by: David C. Richards, Ph.D. OreoHelix Consulting Moab, UT 84532 email: [email protected] phone: 406.580.7816 Submitted to: Jordan River Farmington Bay Water Quality Council Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Upload: others

Post on 30-Aug-2021

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

1

Phylum

Class

Order

Family

Genus

Species

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals using USEPA Ammonia Criteria Data?

Technical Memo

April 28, 2016

Vers ion 1.2

Submitted by:

David C. Richards, Ph.D.

OreoHelix Consulting

Moab, UT 84532

email: [email protected]

phone: 406.580.7816

Submitted to:

Jordan River Farmington Bay Water Quality Council

Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Page 2: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

2

Introduction A debate is occurring between ecologists and to a lesser extent, regulators as to whether phylogeny,

functional traits, or the environmental conditions in which an organism evolved in is more predictive of

sensitivities to human caused stressors. Reliance on these unresolved relationships could have

important implications for regulators and the regulated community. EPA bases its entire Recalculation

Procedure on “The underlying premise …. that taxonomy1 has value in predicting sensitivity “(USEPA

2013a). EPA also based its entire AQUATIC LIFE AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR AMMONIA –

FRESHWATER 2013 document on this premise (USEPA 2013b). The assumption that taxonomy is

important or useful in predicting sensitivity of freshwater animals to ammonia (NH3) has not been

tested, as far as I know (but see Blomberg et al. 2003 and Losos 2008). In this brief and cursory analysis,

I statistically examine this assumption.

Statistical Analyses Sensitivities of 69 freshwater animals to NH3 (Species Mean Acute Values (mg TAN/L)) listed in Table 3.

“Ranked Genus Mean Acute Values” page 27 in USEPA (2013b) document were statistically compared.

Each species in the table was first placed into its taxonomic group from genus, family, order, class, and

phylum using the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS; www.itis.gov) recommended by

USEPA. Simple ANOVAs were computed for each of the species toxicity values as the response variable

and the taxonomic grouping as categorical predictor variables at the phylum, class, order, and family

levels (N = 4 different ANOVAs). Genus level comparisons were not made because most genera had only

one species listed in Table 3 and useful ANOVAs could not be made. Contrasts and multiple pairwise

comparisons (Bonferroni adjusted) were then made for each of the ANOVA results . These results

included; mean contrast values, standard errors of contrasts, T test statistic, p-value of the T test

statistic, and 95% upper and lower confidence intervals of the contrast means. Finally, a percent similar

value was calculated by dividing the number of non-significant comparisons by the total number of

comparisons for each of the four taxonomic groupings. This percent similar value shows how there were

no significant differences between comparisons within a taxonomic grouping (e.g. Family) regardless of

its next higher taxonomic level. For example, the Family level percent similar value includes the family

level comparison of whether Elmidae (riffle beetles) were significantly different than Cyprinidae

(minnows) to NH3 sensitivity of for example at the Order level, the percent similar value includes

comparisons of whether Trichoptera were more similarly sensitive to NH3 than Anura (frogs).

1 EPA slightly confuses taxonomy with phylogeny. Taxonomy is defined as ‘the science or technique of classification’, whereas phylogeny is defined as ‘the development or evolution of a particular group of organisms’.

Page 3: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

3

Results There was very little evidence of phylogenetic effects on NH3 sensitivity for any of the four taxonomic

groupings analyzed (Table 1, Appendices 1-4). If the premise that taxonomy has value in predicting

sensitivity had any validity, then it should have been most obvious at the phylum level. This was not the

case. Only two phyla level comparisons differed significantly: Chordata (animals with backbones, e.g.

fish, frogs, etc.) vs. Arthropoda (animals without backbones but with exoskeletons and segmented legs

e.g. insects, crayfish, etc.) and Mollusca (snails and bivalves) vs. Arthropoda. The other phyla level

comparisons (N = 8) were not significantly different. For example, there was no significant difference in

NH3 sensitivity found between Chordata and Annelida (segmented worms) nor between Platyhelminthes

(flatworms e.g. Planaria sp.) and Chordata. All comparisons can be found in Appendices 1-4.

Table 1. Percent similar pairwise comparisons of within taxonomic groupings to sensitivity to NH3

(based on USEPA 2013b Table 3).

Total Number of comparisons

Number of comparisons that were significantly different

Number of comparisons that were not significantly different

Percent Similar

Phylum 10 2 8 80% Class 36 7 29 81%

Order 378 36 342 90%

Family 780 25 755 97%

Discussion These analyses were not sophisticated phylogenetic distance comparisons but simple ANOVA and

pairwise comparisons. More analyses are recommended using the entire datasets found in USEPA

(2013b) document including chronic toxicity values comparisons and using more informative methods.

More importantly, these analyses did not take into consideration the extreme variability found between

species within a genus which can be orders of magnitude. These analyses also did not examine the

extreme variability (experimental error) reported by EPA between tests on the same species. For

example, in EPA (2013b) Appendix 1 “Acute Toxicity of Ammonia to Aquatic Animals”, Total Ammonia

(mgTAN/L) adjusted to pH7 and 200C values for the water flea, Ceriodaphnia dubia ranged from 35.72 to

152.9, a 4.82 times difference. This experiment- based- error- associated variability can magnify

throughout the criterion development process and potentially result in NH3 toxicity values that are very

imprecise. Given the findings of this preliminary analysis and the large variability in sensitivities, even

between tests on the same species, NH3 criteria values proposed by USEPA could be considered

unsound and should be used with skepticism by regulators.

Page 4: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

4

Literature Cited Blomberg, S. P., Garland Jr. T, and A. R. Ives. 2003. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data:

behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57: 717-745.

Losos, J. B. 2008. Phylogenetic niche conservatism, phylogenetic signal and the relationship between

phylogenetic relatedness and ecological similarity among species. Ecology Letters 11: 995-1007.

USEPA 2013a. Revised deletion process for the site-specific recalculation procedure for aquatic life

criteria. EPA-823-R-13-001.

USEPA. 2013b. Aquatic life ambient water quality criteria for ammonia-freshwater. EPA 822-R-13-001

Appendices

Appendix 1. Phylum level comparisons of NH3 sensitivities (mg TAN/L) (from EPA 2013b, Table 3). Shaded

taxa are significantly different at p < 0.05.

Phylum Contrast Std. Error t p

95% CI

lower

95% CI

upper

1 Chordata vs Arthropoda -253.6319 46.21786 -5.49 0.00 -386.5336 -120.7303

2 Mollusca vs Arthropoda -303.4205 53.75447 -5.64 0.00 -457.994 -148.847

3 Arthropoda vs Annelida 171.8388 112.8108 1.52 1.00 -152.5541 496.2316

4 Chordata vs Annelida -81.79319 109.701 -0.75 1.00 -397.2436 233.6573

5 Mollusca vs Annelida -131.5817 113.083 -1.16 1.00 -456.7572 193.5938

6 Platyhelminthes vs Annelida -82.3 212.7181 -0.39 1.00 -693.9811 529.3811

7 Platyhelminthes vs Arthropoda -254.1388 188.0181 -1.35 1.00 -794.7936 286.5161

8 Mollusca vs Chordata -49.78855 46.87824 -1.06 1.00 -184.5892 85.01207

9 Platyhelminthes vs Chordata -0.5068084 186.1688 0 1.00 -535.844 534.8304

10 Platyhelminthes vs Mollusca 49.28174 188.1815 0.26 1.00 -491.843 590.4065

Appendix 2. Class level comparisons of NH3 sensitivities (mg TAN/L) (from EPA 2013b Table 3). Shaded taxa

are significantly different at p < 0.05.

Class Contrast Std. Error t p 95% CI lower

95% CI upper

1 Insecta vs Actinopterygii 354.7195 61.05084 5.81 0.00 153.2107 556.2284

Page 5: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

5

2 Insecta vs Bivalvia 420.785 68.58525 6.14 0.00 194.4075 647.1625

3 Malacostraca vs Bivalvia 361.1425 73.89132 4.89 0.00 117.2515 605.0335

4 Malacostraca vs Actinopterygii 295.077 66.95667 4.41 0.001 74.075 516.0791

5 Insecta vs Amphibia 386.4875 102.8779 3.76 0.011 46.92132 726.0537

6 Insecta vs Gastropoda 358.348 95.24641 3.76 0.011 43.9708 672.7252

7 Insecta vs Branchiopoda 335.6417 89.79917 3.74 0.012 39.244 632.0393

8 Malacostraca vs Amphibia 326.845 106.4887 3.07 0.102 -24.63939 678.3294

9 Malacostraca vs Gastropoda 298.7055 99.1356 3.01 0.121 -28.50866 625.9197

10 Malacostraca vs Branchiopoda 275.9992 93.91422 2.94 0.151 -33.98093 585.9793

11 Insecta vs Clitellata 275.63 114.4719 2.41 0.652 -102.2044 653.4644

12 Amphibia vs Actinopterygii -31.76797 90.90184 -0.35 1 -331.8052 268.2692

13 Bivalvia vs Actinopterygii -66.06546 48.81827 -1.35 1 -227.1986 95.06767

14 Branchiopoda vs Actinopterygii 19.07787 75.78376 0.25 1 -231.0595 269.2152

15 Clitellata vs Actinopterygii 79.08953 103.8418 0.76 1 -263.6581 421.8372

16 Gastropoda vs Actinopterygii -3.628463 82.16547 -0.04 1 -274.8298 267.5729

17 Trepaxonemata vs Actinopterygii -3.210465 175.9058 -0.02 1 -583.8178 577.3969

18 Bivalvia vs Amphibia -34.2975 96.12427 -0.36 1 -351.5722 282.9772

19 Branchiopoda vs Amphibia 50.84583 112.249 0.45 1 -319.6512 421.3429

20 Clitellata vs Amphibia 110.8575 132.8148 0.83 1 -327.5206 549.2356

21 Gastropoda vs Amphibia 28.1395 116.6525 0.24 1 -356.8924 413.1714

22 Trepaxonemata vs Amphibia 28.5575 194.4209 0.15 1 -613.1623 670.2773

23 Branchiopoda vs Bivalvia 85.14333 81.97505 1.04 1 -185.4295 355.7161

24 Clitellata vs Bivalvia 145.155 108.4428 1.34 1 -212.7792 503.0892

25 Gastropoda vs Bivalvia 62.437 87.90845 0.71 1 -227.72 352.594

26 Trepaxonemata vs Bivalvia 62.855 178.6605 0.35 1 -526.8448 652.5548

27 Clitellata vs Branchiopoda 60.01167 122.9626 0.49 1 -345.8476 465.8709

28 Gastropoda vs Branchiopoda -22.70633 105.2989 -0.22 1 -370.2634 324.8507

29 Trepaxonemata vs Branchiopoda -22.28833 187.8284 -0.12 1 -642.2485 597.6719

30 Gastropoda vs Clitellata -82.718 126.9952 -0.65 1 -501.8876 336.4516

31 Malacostraca vs Clitellata 215.9875 117.7277 1.83 1 -172.5931 604.5681

32 Trepaxonemata vs Clitellata -82.3 200.7971 -0.41 1 -745.0653 580.4653

33 Trepaxonemata vs Gastropoda 0.4179977 190.4928 0 1 -628.3364 629.1724

34 Malacostraca vs Insecta -59.6425 82.48581 -0.72 1 -331.9011 212.6161

35 Trepaxonemata vs Insecta -357.93 182.383 -1.96 1 -959.9165 244.0565

36 Trepaxonemata vs Malacostraca -298.2875 184.4439 -1.62 1 -907.0763 310.5013

Page 6: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

6

Appendix 3. Order level comparisons of NH3 sensitivities (mg TAN/L) (from EPA 3013b, Table 3). Shaded

taxa are significantly different at p < 0.05.

Order Contrast Std. Error t p 95% CI lower

95% CI upper

1 Trichoptera vs Anura 903.5575 164.9834 5.48 0 235.9918 1571.123

2 Trichoptera vs Cladocera 852.7117 159.3891 5.35 0 207.7819 1497.641

3 Decapoda vs Cypriniformes 556.6864 94.51766 5.89 0 174.2434 939.1294

4 Diptera vs Cypriniformes 633.1531 112.0842 5.65 0 179.6315 1086.675

5 Trichoptera vs Cypriniformes 887.2531 153.1361 5.79 0 267.6246 1506.882

6 Perciformes vs Decapoda -544.7898 93.8826 -5.8 0 -924.6631 -164.9164

7 Salmoniformes vs Decapoda -552.1763 97.13961 -5.68 0 -945.2284 -159.1243

8 Unionoida vs Decapoda -609.2127 92.4092 -6.59 0 -983.1243 -235.3012

9 Perciformes vs Diptera -621.2564 111.5492 -5.57 0 -1072.613 -169.8996

10 Salmoniformes vs Diptera -628.643 114.3039 -5.5 0 -1091.146 -166.1399

11 Unionoida vs Diptera -685.6794 110.312 -6.22 0 -1132.03 -239.3286

12 Trichoptera vs Perciformes 875.3564 152.745 5.73 0 257.3107 1493.402

13 Trichoptera vs Salmoniformes 882.743 154.7682 5.7 0 256.5109 1508.975

14 Unionoida vs Trichoptera -939.7794 151.8438 -6.19 0 -1554.179 -325.38

15 Decapoda vs Anura 572.9908 112.7051 5.08 0.001 116.9566 1029.025

16 Diptera vs Anura 649.4575 127.7956 5.08 0.001 132.3633 1166.552

17 Decapoda vs Cladocera 522.145 104.3447 5 0.002 99.93937 944.3506

18 Diptera vs Cladocera 598.6117 120.4869 4.97 0.002 111.0906 1086.133

19 Trichoptera vs Hygrophila 839.5933 170.3941 4.93 0.002 150.1344 1529.052

20 Trichoptera vs Amphipoda 799.4 170.3941 4.69 0.005 109.9411 1488.859

21 Trichoptera vs Cyprinodontiformes 847.52 180.7303 4.69 0.005 116.2384 1578.802

22 Unionoida vs Coleoptera -681.1794 151.8438 -4.49 0.01 -1295.579 -66.78001

23 Trichoptera vs Neotaenioglossa 932.35 208.6894 4.47 0.011 87.93875 1776.761

24 Trichoptera vs Sorbeocncha 925.96 208.6894 4.44 0.013 81.54875 1770.371

25 Trichoptera vs Odonata 796 180.7303 4.4 0.014 64.71841 1527.282

26 Hygrophila vs Diptera -585.4933 134.7084 -4.35 0.017 -1130.558 -40.42821

27 Verenoida vs Trichoptera -905.14 208.6894 -4.34 0.018 -1749.551 -60.72875

28 Hygrophila vs Decapoda -509.0267 120.4869 -4.22 0.027 -996.5477 -21.5056

29 Tricladida vs Trichoptera -875 208.6894 -4.19 0.03 -1719.411 -30.58875

30 Cypriniformes vs Coleoptera -628.6531 153.1361 -4.11 0.041 -1248.282 -9.024644

31 Trichoptera vs Siluriformes 852.1 208.6894 4.08 0.044 7.688756 1696.511

32 Diptera vs Amphipoda 545.3 134.7084 4.05 0.05 0.2348749 1090.365

33 Perciformes vs Coleoptera -616.7565 152.745 -4.04 0.051 -1234.802 1.289297

34 Salmoniformes vs Coleoptera -624.143 154.7682 -4.03 0.052 -1250.375 2.089119

Page 7: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

7

35 Diptera vs Cyprinodontiformes 593.42 147.5657 4.02 0.054 -3.66893 1190.509

36 Trichoptera vs Acipenseriformes 837.8 208.6894 4.01 0.056 -6.611247 1682.211

37 Trichoptera vs Haplotaxida 824.3 208.6894 3.95 0.07 -20.11125 1668.711

38 Trichoptera vs Ephemeroptera 669.9333 170.3941 3.93 0.074 -19.52556 1359.392

39 Coleoptera vs Anura 644.9575 164.9834 3.91 0.08 -22.60818 1312.523

40 Decapoda vs Amphipoda 468.8333 120.4869 3.89 0.085 -18.68773 956.3544

41 Trichoptera vs Plecoptera 802.1 208.6894 3.84 0.1 -42.31124 1646.511

42 Decapoda vs Cyprinodontiformes 516.9533 134.7084 3.84 0.102 -28.11179 1062.018

43 Neotaenioglossa vs Diptera -678.25 180.7303 -3.75 0.135 -1409.532 53.0316

44 Coleoptera vs Cladocera 594.1117 159.3891 3.73 0.147 -50.81805 1239.041

45 Trichoptera vs Oligochaeta 778 208.6894 3.73 0.147 -66.41125 1622.411

46 Sorbeocncha vs Diptera -671.86 180.7303 -3.72 0.152 -1403.142 59.4216

47 Trichoptera vs Lumbriculida 775.8 208.6894 3.72 0.152 -68.61125 1620.211

48 Trichoptera vs Scorpaeniformes 772.3 208.6894 3.7 0.161 -72.11125 1616.711

49 Odonata vs Diptera -541.9 147.5657 -3.67 0.176 -1138.989 55.18893

50 Verenoida vs Diptera -651.04 180.7303 -3.6 0.221 -1382.322 80.2416

51 Neotaenioglossa vs Decapoda -601.7833 170.3941 -3.53 0.278 -1291.242 87.67557

52 Sorbeocncha vs Decapoda -595.3933 170.3941 -3.49 0.313 -1284.852 94.06557

53 Odonata vs Decapoda -465.4333 134.7084 -3.46 0.355 -1010.498 79.63179

54 Tricladida vs Diptera -620.9 180.7303 -3.44 0.377 -1352.182 110.3816

55 Trichoptera vs Gasterosteiformes 713 208.6894 3.42 0.401 -131.4112 1557.411

56 Hygrophila vs Coleoptera -580.9934 170.3941 -3.41 0.409 -1270.452 108.4655

57 Trichoptera vs Isopoda 611.9 180.7303 3.39 0.441 -119.3816 1343.182

58 Verenoida vs Decapoda -574.5733 170.3941 -3.37 0.461 -1264.032 114.8856

59 Siluriformes vs Diptera -598 180.7303 -3.31 0.56 -1329.282 133.2816

60 Cyprinodontiformes vs Coleoptera -588.92 180.7303 -3.26 0.654 -1320.202 142.3616

61 Diptera vs Acipenseriformes 583.7 180.7303 3.23 0.714 -147.5816 1314.982

62 Neotaenioglossa vs Coleoptera -673.75 208.6894 -3.23 0.716 -1518.161 170.6612

63 Sorbeocncha vs Coleoptera -667.36 208.6894 -3.2 0.786 -1511.771 177.0512

64 Tricladida vs Decapoda -544.4333 170.3941 -3.2 0.793 -1233.892 145.0256

65 Coleoptera vs Amphipoda 540.8 170.3941 3.17 0.845 -148.6589 1230.259

66 Haplotaxida vs Diptera -570.2 180.7303 -3.15 0.894 -1301.482 161.0816

67 Amphipoda vs Acipenseriformes 38.4 170.3941 0.23 1 -651.0589 727.8589

68 Anura vs Acipenseriformes -65.7575 164.9834 -0.4 1 -733.3232 601.8082

69 Cladocera vs Acipenseriformes -14.91166 159.3891 -0.09 1 -659.8414 630.0181

70 Coleoptera vs Acipenseriformes 579.2 208.6894 2.78 1 -265.2112 1423.611

71 Cypriniformes vs Acipenseriformes -49.45307 153.1361 -0.32 1 -669.0815 570.1754

72 Cyprinodontiformes vs Acipenseriformes -9.719994 180.7303 -0.05 1 -741.0016 721.5616

73 Decapoda vs Acipenseriformes 507.2333 170.3941 2.98 1 -182.2256 1196.692

Page 8: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

8

74 Ephemeroptera vs Acipenseriformes 167.8667 170.3941 0.99 1 -521.5922 857.3256

75 Gasterosteiformes vs Acipenseriformes 124.8 208.6894 0.6 1 -719.6112 969.2113

76 Haplotaxida vs Acipenseriformes 13.5 208.6894 0.06 1 -830.9112 857.9112

77 Hygrophila vs Acipenseriformes -1.793327 170.3941 -0.01 1 -691.2522 687.6656

78 Isopoda vs Acipenseriformes 225.9 180.7303 1.25 1 -505.3816 957.1816

79 Lumbriculida vs Acipenseriformes 62 208.6894 0.3 1 -782.4112 906.4112

80 Neotaenioglossa vs Acipenseriformes -94.55 208.6894 -0.45 1 -938.9612 749.8613

81 Odonata vs Acipenseriformes 41.8 180.7303 0.23 1 -689.4816 773.0816

82 Oligochaeta vs Acipenseriformes 59.8 208.6894 0.29 1 -784.6112 904.2113

83 Perciformes vs Acipenseriformes -37.55643 152.745 -0.25 1 -655.6022 580.4893

84 Plecoptera vs Acipenseriformes 35.7 208.6894 0.17 1 -808.7113 880.1112

85 Salmoniformes vs Acipenseriformes -44.943 154.7682 -0.29 1 -671.1751 581.2891

86 Scorpaeniformes vs Acipenseriformes 65.5 208.6894 0.31 1 -778.9112 909.9112

87 Siluriformes vs Acipenseriformes -14.3 208.6894 -0.07 1 -858.7113 830.1112

88 Sorbeocncha vs Acipenseriformes -88.16 208.6894 -0.42 1 -932.5712 756.2513

89 Tricladida vs Acipenseriformes -37.2 208.6894 -0.18 1 -881.6112 807.2113

90 Unionoida vs Acipenseriformes -101.9794 151.8438 -0.67 1 -716.3788 512.42

91 Verenoida vs Acipenseriformes -67.34 208.6894 -0.32 1 -911.7512 777.0713

92 Anura vs Amphipoda -104.1575 112.7051 -0.92 1 -560.1917 351.8767

93 Cladocera vs Amphipoda -53.31167 104.3447 -0.51 1 -475.5173 368.894

94 Cypriniformes vs Amphipoda -87.85308 94.51766 -0.93 1 -470.2961 294.5899

95 Cyprinodontiformes vs Amphipoda -48.12 134.7084 -0.36 1 -593.1851 496.9451

96 Ephemeroptera vs Amphipoda 129.4667 120.4869 1.07 1 -358.0544 616.9877

97 Gasterosteiformes vs Amphipoda 86.4 170.3941 0.51 1 -603.0589 775.8589

98 Haplotaxida vs Amphipoda -24.9 170.3941 -0.15 1 -714.3589 664.5589

99 Hygrophila vs Amphipoda -40.19333 120.4869 -0.33 1 -527.7144 447.3277

100 Isopoda vs Amphipoda 187.5 134.7084 1.39 1 -357.5651 732.5651

101 Lumbriculida vs Amphipoda 23.6 170.3941 0.14 1 -665.8589 713.0589

102 Neotaenioglossa vs Amphipoda -132.95 170.3941 -0.78 1 -822.4089 556.5089

103 Odonata vs Amphipoda 3.399999 134.7084 0.03 1 -541.6651 548.4651

104 Oligochaeta vs Amphipoda 21.4 170.3941 0.13 1 -668.0589 710.8589

105 Perciformes vs Amphipoda -75.95643 93.8826 -0.81 1 -455.8298 303.9169

106 Plecoptera vs Amphipoda -2.700007 170.3941 -0.02 1 -692.1589 686.7589

107 Salmoniformes vs Amphipoda -83.343 97.13961 -0.86 1 -476.395 309.709

108 Scorpaeniformes vs Amphipoda 27.1 170.3941 0.16 1 -662.3589 716.5589

109 Siluriformes vs Amphipoda -52.70001 170.3941 -0.31 1 -742.1589 636.7589

110 Sorbeocncha vs Amphipoda -126.56 170.3941 -0.74 1 -816.0189 562.8989

111 Tricladida vs Amphipoda -75.6 170.3941 -0.44 1 -765.0589 613.8589

112 Unionoida vs Amphipoda -140.3794 92.4092 -1.52 1 -514.291 233.5322

Page 9: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

9

113 Verenoida vs Amphipoda -105.74 170.3941 -0.62 1 -795.1989 583.7189

114 Cladocera vs Anura 50.84583 95.25322 0.53 1 -334.5734 436.2651

115 Cypriniformes vs Anura 16.30443 84.37389 0.19 1 -325.0942 357.7031

116 Cyprinodontiformes vs Anura 56.0375 127.7956 0.44 1 -461.0567 573.1317

117 Ephemeroptera vs Anura 233.6242 112.7051 2.07 1 -222.41 689.6584

118 Gasterosteiformes vs Anura 190.5575 164.9834 1.16 1 -477.0082 858.1232

119 Haplotaxida vs Anura 79.2575 164.9834 0.48 1 -588.3082 746.8232

120 Hygrophila vs Anura 63.96417 112.7051 0.57 1 -392.07 519.9984

121 Isopoda vs Anura 291.6575 127.7956 2.28 1 -225.4367 808.7517

122 Lumbriculida vs Anura 127.7575 164.9834 0.77 1 -539.8082 795.3232

123 Neotaenioglossa vs Anura -28.7925 164.9834 -0.17 1 -696.3582 638.7732

124 Odonata vs Anura 107.5575 127.7956 0.84 1 -409.5367 624.6517

125 Oligochaeta vs Anura 125.5575 164.9834 0.76 1 -542.0082 793.1232

126 Perciformes vs Anura 28.20107 83.66186 0.34 1 -310.3165 366.7187

127 Plecoptera vs Anura 101.4575 164.9834 0.61 1 -566.1082 769.0232

128 Salmoniformes vs Anura 20.8145 87.30102 0.24 1 -332.4281 374.0571

129 Scorpaeniformes vs Anura 131.2575 164.9834 0.8 1 -536.3082 798.8232

130 Siluriformes vs Anura 51.45749 164.9834 0.31 1 -616.1082 719.0232

131 Sorbeocncha vs Anura -22.4025 164.9834 -0.14 1 -689.9682 645.1632

132 Tricladida vs Anura 28.5575 164.9834 0.17 1 -639.0082 696.1232

133 Unionoida vs Anura -36.22191 82.00503 -0.44 1 -368.0355 295.5917

134 Verenoida vs Anura -1.582499 164.9834 -0.01 1 -669.1482 665.9832

135 Cypriniformes vs Cladocera -34.54141 72.83075 -0.47 1 -329.2335 260.1507

136 Cyprinodontiformes vs Cladocera 5.191671 120.4869 0.04 1 -482.3294 492.7127

137 Ephemeroptera vs Cladocera 182.7783 104.3447 1.75 1 -239.4273 604.984

138 Gasterosteiformes vs Cladocera 139.7117 159.3891 0.88 1 -505.2181 784.6414

139 Haplotaxida vs Cladocera 28.41166 159.3891 0.18 1 -616.5181 673.3414

140 Hygrophila vs Cladocera 13.11834 104.3447 0.13 1 -409.0873 435.324

141 Isopoda vs Cladocera 240.8117 120.4869 2 1 -246.7094 728.3327

142 Lumbriculida vs Cladocera 76.91166 159.3891 0.48 1 -568.0181 721.8414

143 Neotaenioglossa vs Cladocera -79.63833 159.3891 -0.5 1 -724.5681 565.2914

144 Odonata vs Cladocera 56.71167 120.4869 0.47 1 -430.8094 544.2327

145 Oligochaeta vs Cladocera 74.71167 159.3891 0.47 1 -570.2181 719.6414

146 Perciformes vs Cladocera -22.64476 72.00467 -0.31 1 -313.9943 268.7048

147 Plecoptera vs Cladocera 50.61166 159.3891 0.32 1 -594.3181 695.5414

148 Salmoniformes vs Cladocera -30.03133 76.20258 -0.39 1 -338.3667 278.3041

149 Scorpaeniformes vs Cladocera 80.41166 159.3891 0.5 1 -564.5181 725.3414

150 Siluriformes vs Cladocera 0.6116613 159.3891 0 1 -644.3181 645.5414

151 Sorbeocncha vs Cladocera -73.24833 159.3891 -0.46 1 -718.1781 571.6814

Page 10: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

10

152 Tricladida vs Cladocera -22.28833 159.3891 -0.14 1 -667.2181 622.6414

153 Unionoida vs Cladocera -87.06774 70.07274 -1.24 1 -370.6002 196.4648

154 Verenoida vs Cladocera -52.42833 159.3891 -0.33 1 -697.3581 592.5014

155 Decapoda vs Coleoptera -71.9667 170.3941 -0.42 1 -761.4256 617.4922

156 Diptera vs Coleoptera 4.499969 180.7303 0.02 1 -726.7816 735.7816

157 Ephemeroptera vs Coleoptera -411.3334 170.3941 -2.41 1 -1100.792 278.1255

158 Gasterosteiformes vs Coleoptera -454.4 208.6894 -2.18 1 -1298.811 390.0112

159 Haplotaxida vs Coleoptera -565.7 208.6894 -2.71 1 -1410.111 278.7112

160 Isopoda vs Coleoptera -353.3 180.7303 -1.95 1 -1084.582 377.9816

161 Lumbriculida vs Coleoptera -517.2 208.6894 -2.48 1 -1361.611 327.2112

162 Odonata vs Coleoptera -537.4 180.7303 -2.97 1 -1268.682 193.8816

163 Oligochaeta vs Coleoptera -519.4 208.6894 -2.49 1 -1363.811 325.0112

164 Plecoptera vs Coleoptera -543.5 208.6894 -2.6 1 -1387.911 300.9112

165 Scorpaeniformes vs Coleoptera -513.7 208.6894 -2.46 1 -1358.111 330.7112

166 Siluriformes vs Coleoptera -593.5 208.6894 -2.84 1 -1437.911 250.9112

167 Trichoptera vs Coleoptera 258.6 208.6894 1.24 1 -585.8113 1103.011

168 Tricladida vs Coleoptera -616.4 208.6894 -2.95 1 -1460.811 228.0112

169 Verenoida vs Coleoptera -646.54 208.6894 -3.1 1 -1490.951 197.8712

170 Cyprinodontiformes vs Cypriniformes 39.73308 112.0842 0.35 1 -413.7885 493.2547

171 Ephemeroptera vs Cypriniformes 217.3197 94.51766 2.3 1 -165.1232 599.7627

172 Gasterosteiformes vs Cypriniformes 174.2531 153.1361 1.14 1 -445.3754 793.8815

173 Haplotaxida vs Cypriniformes 62.95307 153.1361 0.41 1 -556.6754 682.5815

174 Hygrophila vs Cypriniformes 47.65975 94.51766 0.5 1 -334.7832 430.1027

175 Isopoda vs Cypriniformes 275.3531 112.0842 2.46 1 -178.1685 728.8747

176 Lumbriculida vs Cypriniformes 111.4531 153.1361 0.73 1 -508.1754 731.0815

177 Neotaenioglossa vs Cypriniformes -45.09692 153.1361 -0.29 1 -664.7254 574.5315

178 Odonata vs Cypriniformes 91.25308 112.0842 0.81 1 -362.2685 544.7747

179 Oligochaeta vs Cypriniformes 109.2531 153.1361 0.71 1 -510.3754 728.8815

180 Perciformes vs Cypriniformes 11.89665 56.83704 0.21 1 -218.0808 241.8741

181 Plecoptera vs Cypriniformes 85.15307 153.1361 0.56 1 -534.4754 704.7815

182 Salmoniformes vs Cypriniformes 4.510076 62.0694 0.07 1 -246.6388 255.659

183 Scorpaeniformes vs Cypriniformes 114.9531 153.1361 0.75 1 -504.6754 734.5815

184 Siluriformes vs Cypriniformes 35.15307 153.1361 0.23 1 -584.4754 654.7815

185 Sorbeocncha vs Cypriniformes -38.70692 153.1361 -0.25 1 -658.3354 580.9215

186 Tricladida vs Cypriniformes 12.25308 153.1361 0.08 1 -607.3754 631.8815

187 Unionoida vs Cypriniformes -52.52634 54.3688 -0.97 1 -272.5166 167.4639

188 Verenoida vs Cypriniformes -17.88692 153.1361 -0.12 1 -637.5154 601.7415

189 Ephemeroptera vs Cyprinodontiformes 177.5867 134.7084 1.32 1 -367.4785 722.6518

190 Gasterosteiformes vs Cyprinodontiformes 134.52 180.7303 0.74 1 -596.7616 865.8016

Page 11: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

11

191 Haplotaxida vs Cyprinodontiformes 23.21999 180.7303 0.13 1 -708.0616 754.5016

192 Hygrophila vs Cyprinodontiformes 7.926666 134.7084 0.06 1 -537.1385 552.9918

193 Isopoda vs Cyprinodontiformes 235.62 147.5657 1.6 1 -361.4689 832.7089

194 Lumbriculida vs Cyprinodontiformes 71.71999 180.7303 0.4 1 -659.5616 803.0016

195 Neotaenioglossa vs Cyprinodontiformes -84.83 180.7303 -0.47 1 -816.1116 646.4516

196 Odonata vs Cyprinodontiformes 51.52 147.5657 0.35 1 -545.5689 648.6089

197 Oligochaeta vs Cyprinodontiformes 69.52 180.7303 0.38 1 -661.7616 800.8016

198 Perciformes vs Cyprinodontiformes -27.83643 111.5492 -0.25 1 -479.1932 423.5204

199 Plecoptera vs Cyprinodontiformes 45.41999 180.7303 0.25 1 -685.8616 776.7016

200 Salmoniformes vs Cyprinodontiformes -35.223 114.3039 -0.31 1 -497.7261 427.2801

201 Scorpaeniformes vs Cyprinodontiformes 75.21999 180.7303 0.42 1 -656.0616 806.5016

202 Siluriformes vs Cyprinodontiformes -4.580009 180.7303 -0.03 1 -735.8616 726.7016

203 Sorbeocncha vs Cyprinodontiformes -78.44 180.7303 -0.43 1 -809.7216 652.8416

204 Tricladida vs Cyprinodontiformes -27.48 180.7303 -0.15 1 -758.7616 703.8016

205 Unionoida vs Cyprinodontiformes -92.25941 110.312 -0.84 1 -538.6103 354.0914

206 Verenoida vs Cyprinodontiformes -57.62 180.7303 -0.32 1 -788.9016 673.6616

207 Diptera vs Decapoda 76.46666 134.7084 0.57 1 -468.5985 621.5318

208 Ephemeroptera vs Decapoda -339.3667 120.4869 -2.82 1 -826.8877 148.1544

209 Gasterosteiformes vs Decapoda -382.4333 170.3941 -2.24 1 -1071.892 307.0256

210 Haplotaxida vs Decapoda -493.7333 170.3941 -2.9 1 -1183.192 195.7256

211 Isopoda vs Decapoda -281.3333 134.7084 -2.09 1 -826.3984 263.7318

212 Lumbriculida vs Decapoda -445.2333 170.3941 -2.61 1 -1134.692 244.2256

213 Oligochaeta vs Decapoda -447.4333 170.3941 -2.63 1 -1136.892 242.0256

214 Plecoptera vs Decapoda -471.5333 170.3941 -2.77 1 -1160.992 217.9256

215 Scorpaeniformes vs Decapoda -441.7333 170.3941 -2.59 1 -1131.192 247.7256

216 Siluriformes vs Decapoda -521.5333 170.3941 -3.06 1 -1210.992 167.9256

217 Trichoptera vs Decapoda 330.5667 170.3941 1.94 1 -358.8922 1020.026

218 Ephemeroptera vs Diptera -415.8333 134.7084 -3.09 1 -960.8984 129.2318

219 Gasterosteiformes vs Diptera -458.9 180.7303 -2.54 1 -1190.182 272.3816

220 Isopoda vs Diptera -357.8 147.5657 -2.42 1 -954.8889 239.2889

221 Lumbriculida vs Diptera -521.7 180.7303 -2.89 1 -1252.982 209.5816

222 Oligochaeta vs Diptera -523.9 180.7303 -2.9 1 -1255.182 207.3816

223 Plecoptera vs Diptera -548 180.7303 -3.03 1 -1279.282 183.2816

224 Scorpaeniformes vs Diptera -518.2 180.7303 -2.87 1 -1249.482 213.0816

225 Trichoptera vs Diptera 254.1 180.7303 1.41 1 -477.1816 985.3816

226 Gasterosteiformes vs Ephemeroptera -43.06667 170.3941 -0.25 1 -732.5256 646.3922

227 Haplotaxida vs Ephemeroptera -154.3667 170.3941 -0.91 1 -843.8256 535.0922

228 Hygrophila vs Ephemeroptera -169.66 120.4869 -1.41 1 -657.1811 317.8611

229 Isopoda vs Ephemeroptera 58.03334 134.7084 0.43 1 -487.0318 603.0985

Page 12: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

12

230 Lumbriculida vs Ephemeroptera -105.8667 170.3941 -0.62 1 -795.3256 583.5922

231 Neotaenioglossa vs Ephemeroptera -262.4167 170.3941 -1.54 1 -951.8756 427.0422

232 Odonata vs Ephemeroptera -126.0667 134.7084 -0.94 1 -671.1318 418.9985

233 Oligochaeta vs Ephemeroptera -108.0667 170.3941 -0.63 1 -797.5256 581.3922

234 Perciformes vs Ephemeroptera -205.4231 93.8826 -2.19 1 -585.2964 174.4503

235 Plecoptera vs Ephemeroptera -132.1667 170.3941 -0.78 1 -821.6256 557.2922

236 Salmoniformes vs Ephemeroptera -212.8097 97.13961 -2.19 1 -605.8617 180.2424

237 Scorpaeniformes vs Ephemeroptera -102.3667 170.3941 -0.6 1 -791.8256 587.0922

238 Siluriformes vs Ephemeroptera -182.1667 170.3941 -1.07 1 -871.6256 507.2922

239 Sorbeocncha vs Ephemeroptera -256.0267 170.3941 -1.5 1 -945.4856 433.4322

240 Tricladida vs Ephemeroptera -205.0667 170.3941 -1.2 1 -894.5256 484.3922

241 Unionoida vs Ephemeroptera -269.8461 92.4092 -2.92 1 -643.7577 104.0655

242 Verenoida vs Ephemeroptera -235.2067 170.3941 -1.38 1 -924.6656 454.2522

243 Haplotaxida vs Gasterosteiformes -111.3 208.6894 -0.53 1 -955.7113 733.1112

244 Hygrophila vs Gasterosteiformes -126.5933 170.3941 -0.74 1 -816.0522 562.8656

245 Isopoda vs Gasterosteiformes 101.1 180.7303 0.56 1 -630.1816 832.3816

246 Lumbriculida vs Gasterosteiformes -62.8 208.6894 -0.3 1 -907.2113 781.6112

247 Neotaenioglossa vs Gasterosteiformes -219.35 208.6894 -1.05 1 -1063.761 625.0613

248 Odonata vs Gasterosteiformes -83 180.7303 -0.46 1 -814.2816 648.2816

249 Oligochaeta vs Gasterosteiformes -65 208.6894 -0.31 1 -909.4112 779.4112

250 Perciformes vs Gasterosteiformes -162.3564 152.745 -1.06 1 -780.4022 455.6893

251 Plecoptera vs Gasterosteiformes -89.10001 208.6894 -0.43 1 -933.5113 755.3112

252 Salmoniformes vs Gasterosteiformes -169.743 154.7682 -1.1 1 -795.9751 456.4891

253 Scorpaeniformes vs Gasterosteiformes -59.3 208.6894 -0.28 1 -903.7113 785.1112

254 Siluriformes vs Gasterosteiformes -139.1 208.6894 -0.67 1 -983.5113 705.3112

255 Sorbeocncha vs Gasterosteiformes -212.96 208.6894 -1.02 1 -1057.371 631.4513

256 Tricladida vs Gasterosteiformes -162 208.6894 -0.78 1 -1006.411 682.4112

257 Unionoida vs Gasterosteiformes -226.7794 151.8438 -1.49 1 -841.1788 387.62

258 Verenoida vs Gasterosteiformes -192.14 208.6894 -0.92 1 -1036.551 652.2713

259 Hygrophila vs Haplotaxida -15.29333 170.3941 -0.09 1 -704.7522 674.1656

260 Isopoda vs Haplotaxida 212.4 180.7303 1.18 1 -518.8816 943.6816

261 Lumbriculida vs Haplotaxida 48.5 208.6894 0.23 1 -795.9112 892.9112

262 Neotaenioglossa vs Haplotaxida -108.05 208.6894 -0.52 1 -952.4612 736.3613

263 Odonata vs Haplotaxida 28.3 180.7303 0.16 1 -702.9816 759.5816

264 Oligochaeta vs Haplotaxida 46.3 208.6894 0.22 1 -798.1112 890.7113

265 Perciformes vs Haplotaxida -51.05643 152.745 -0.33 1 -669.1022 566.9893

266 Plecoptera vs Haplotaxida 22.2 208.6894 0.11 1 -822.2113 866.6112

267 Salmoniformes vs Haplotaxida -58.443 154.7682 -0.38 1 -684.6751 567.7891

268 Scorpaeniformes vs Haplotaxida 52 208.6894 0.25 1 -792.4112 896.4112

Page 13: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

13

269 Siluriformes vs Haplotaxida -27.8 208.6894 -0.13 1 -872.2113 816.6112

270 Sorbeocncha vs Haplotaxida -101.66 208.6894 -0.49 1 -946.0712 742.7513

271 Tricladida vs Haplotaxida -50.7 208.6894 -0.24 1 -895.1112 793.7113

272 Unionoida vs Haplotaxida -115.4794 151.8438 -0.76 1 -729.8788 498.92

273 Verenoida vs Haplotaxida -80.84 208.6894 -0.39 1 -925.2512 763.5713

274 Isopoda vs Hygrophila 227.6933 134.7084 1.69 1 -317.3718 772.7585

275 Lumbriculida vs Hygrophila 63.79333 170.3941 0.37 1 -625.6656 753.2522

276 Neotaenioglossa vs Hygrophila -92.75667 170.3941 -0.54 1 -782.2156 596.7022

277 Odonata vs Hygrophila 43.59333 134.7084 0.32 1 -501.4718 588.6584

278 Oligochaeta vs Hygrophila 61.59333 170.3941 0.36 1 -627.8656 751.0522

279 Perciformes vs Hygrophila -35.7631 93.8826 -0.38 1 -415.6365 344.1103

280 Plecoptera vs Hygrophila 37.49332 170.3941 0.22 1 -651.9656 726.9522

281 Salmoniformes vs Hygrophila -43.14967 97.13961 -0.44 1 -436.2017 349.9024

282 Scorpaeniformes vs Hygrophila 67.29333 170.3941 0.39 1 -622.1656 756.7522

283 Siluriformes vs Hygrophila -12.50668 170.3941 -0.07 1 -701.9656 676.9522

284 Sorbeocncha vs Hygrophila -86.36667 170.3941 -0.51 1 -775.8256 603.0922

285 Tricladida vs Hygrophila -35.40667 170.3941 -0.21 1 -724.8656 654.0522

286 Unionoida vs Hygrophila -100.1861 92.4092 -1.08 1 -474.0977 273.7255

287 Verenoida vs Hygrophila -65.54667 170.3941 -0.38 1 -755.0056 623.9122

288 Lumbriculida vs Isopoda -163.9 180.7303 -0.91 1 -895.1816 567.3816

289 Neotaenioglossa vs Isopoda -320.45 180.7303 -1.77 1 -1051.732 410.8316

290 Odonata vs Isopoda -184.1 147.5657 -1.25 1 -781.1889 412.9889

291 Oligochaeta vs Isopoda -166.1 180.7303 -0.92 1 -897.3816 565.1816

292 Perciformes vs Isopoda -263.4564 111.5492 -2.36 1 -714.8132 187.9004

293 Plecoptera vs Isopoda -190.2 180.7303 -1.05 1 -921.4816 541.0816

294 Salmoniformes vs Isopoda -270.843 114.3039 -2.37 1 -733.3461 191.6601

295 Scorpaeniformes vs Isopoda -160.4 180.7303 -0.89 1 -891.6816 570.8816

296 Siluriformes vs Isopoda -240.2 180.7303 -1.33 1 -971.4816 491.0816

297 Sorbeocncha vs Isopoda -314.06 180.7303 -1.74 1 -1045.342 417.2216

298 Tricladida vs Isopoda -263.1 180.7303 -1.46 1 -994.3816 468.1816

299 Unionoida vs Isopoda -327.8794 110.312 -2.97 1 -774.2303 118.4714

300 Verenoida vs Isopoda -293.24 180.7303 -1.62 1 -1024.522 438.0416

301 Neotaenioglossa vs Lumbriculida -156.55 208.6894 -0.75 1 -1000.961 687.8613

302 Odonata vs Lumbriculida -20.2 180.7303 -0.11 1 -751.4816 711.0816

303 Oligochaeta vs Lumbriculida -2.199997 208.6894 -0.01 1 -846.6112 842.2113

304 Perciformes vs Lumbriculida -99.55643 152.745 -0.65 1 -717.6022 518.4893

305 Plecoptera vs Lumbriculida -26.3 208.6894 -0.13 1 -870.7113 818.1112

306 Salmoniformes vs Lumbriculida -106.943 154.7682 -0.69 1 -733.1751 519.2891

307 Scorpaeniformes vs Lumbriculida 3.5 208.6894 0.02 1 -840.9112 847.9112

Page 14: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

14

308 Siluriformes vs Lumbriculida -76.3 208.6894 -0.37 1 -920.7113 768.1112

309 Sorbeocncha vs Lumbriculida -150.16 208.6894 -0.72 1 -994.5712 694.2513

310 Tricladida vs Lumbriculida -99.2 208.6894 -0.48 1 -943.6112 745.2113

311 Unionoida vs Lumbriculida -163.9794 151.8438 -1.08 1 -778.3788 450.42

312 Verenoida vs Lumbriculida -129.34 208.6894 -0.62 1 -973.7512 715.0713

313 Odonata vs Neotaenioglossa 136.35 180.7303 0.75 1 -594.9316 867.6316

314 Oligochaeta vs Neotaenioglossa 154.35 208.6894 0.74 1 -690.0613 998.7612

315 Perciformes vs Neotaenioglossa 56.99357 152.745 0.37 1 -561.0522 675.0393

316 Plecoptera vs Neotaenioglossa 130.25 208.6894 0.62 1 -714.1613 974.6612

317 Salmoniformes vs Neotaenioglossa 49.607 154.7682 0.32 1 -576.6251 675.8391

318 Scorpaeniformes vs Neotaenioglossa 160.05 208.6894 0.77 1 -684.3613 1004.461

319 Siluriformes vs Neotaenioglossa 80.24999 208.6894 0.38 1 -764.1613 924.6612

320 Sorbeocncha vs Neotaenioglossa 6.389999 208.6894 0.03 1 -838.0213 850.8012

321 Tricladida vs Neotaenioglossa 57.35 208.6894 0.27 1 -787.0613 901.7612

322 Unionoida vs Neotaenioglossa -7.429413 151.8438 -0.05 1 -621.8288 606.97

323 Verenoida vs Neotaenioglossa 27.21 208.6894 0.13 1 -817.2013 871.6212

324 Oligochaeta vs Odonata 18 180.7303 0.1 1 -713.2816 749.2816

325 Perciformes vs Odonata -79.35643 111.5492 -0.71 1 -530.7132 372.0004

326 Plecoptera vs Odonata -6.100006 180.7303 -0.03 1 -737.3816 725.1816

327 Salmoniformes vs Odonata -86.743 114.3039 -0.76 1 -549.2461 375.7601

328 Scorpaeniformes vs Odonata 23.7 180.7303 0.13 1 -707.5816 754.9816

329 Siluriformes vs Odonata -56.10001 180.7303 -0.31 1 -787.3816 675.1816

330 Sorbeocncha vs Odonata -129.96 180.7303 -0.72 1 -861.2416 601.3216

331 Tricladida vs Odonata -79 180.7303 -0.44 1 -810.2816 652.2816

332 Unionoida vs Odonata -143.7794 110.312 -1.3 1 -590.1302 302.5714

333 Verenoida vs Odonata -109.14 180.7303 -0.6 1 -840.4216 622.1416

334 Perciformes vs Oligochaeta -97.35643 152.745 -0.64 1 -715.4022 520.6893

335 Plecoptera vs Oligochaeta -24.10001 208.6894 -0.12 1 -868.5113 820.3112

336 Salmoniformes vs Oligochaeta -104.743 154.7682 -0.68 1 -730.9751 521.4891

337 Scorpaeniformes vs Oligochaeta 5.699997 208.6894 0.03 1 -838.7113 850.1112

338 Siluriformes vs Oligochaeta -74.10001 208.6894 -0.36 1 -918.5113 770.3112

339 Sorbeocncha vs Oligochaeta -147.96 208.6894 -0.71 1 -992.3712 696.4513

340 Tricladida vs Oligochaeta -97 208.6894 -0.46 1 -941.4112 747.4112

341 Unionoida vs Oligochaeta -161.7794 151.8438 -1.07 1 -776.1788 452.62

342 Verenoida vs Oligochaeta -127.14 208.6894 -0.61 1 -971.5512 717.2713

343 Plecoptera vs Perciformes 73.25642 152.745 0.48 1 -544.7893 691.3022

344 Salmoniformes vs Perciformes -7.386571 61.09799 -0.12 1 -254.6049 239.8317

345 Scorpaeniformes vs Perciformes 103.0564 152.745 0.67 1 -514.9893 721.1022

346 Siluriformes vs Perciformes 23.25642 152.745 0.15 1 -594.7893 641.3022

Page 15: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

15

347 Sorbeocncha vs Perciformes -50.60357 152.745 -0.33 1 -668.6493 567.4422

348 Tricladida vs Perciformes 0.3564292 152.745 0 1 -617.6893 618.4022

349 Unionoida vs Perciformes -64.42298 53.25712 -1.21 1 -279.9151 151.0691

350 Verenoida vs Perciformes -29.78357 152.745 -0.19 1 -647.8293 588.2622

351 Salmoniformes vs Plecoptera -80.64299 154.7682 -0.52 1 -706.8751 545.5891

352 Scorpaeniformes vs Plecoptera 29.8 208.6894 0.14 1 -814.6112 874.2113

353 Siluriformes vs Plecoptera -50 208.6894 -0.24 1 -894.4112 794.4112

354 Sorbeocncha vs Plecoptera -123.86 208.6894 -0.59 1 -968.2712 720.5513

355 Tricladida vs Plecoptera -72.89999 208.6894 -0.35 1 -917.3112 771.5113

356 Unionoida vs Plecoptera -137.6794 151.8438 -0.91 1 -752.0788 476.72

357 Verenoida vs Plecoptera -103.04 208.6894 -0.49 1 -947.4512 741.3713

358 Scorpaeniformes vs Salmoniformes 110.443 154.7682 0.71 1 -515.7891 736.6751

359 Siluriformes vs Salmoniformes 30.64299 154.7682 0.2 1 -595.5891 656.8751

360 Sorbeocncha vs Salmoniformes -43.217 154.7682 -0.28 1 -669.4491 583.0151

361 Tricladida vs Salmoniformes 7.743 154.7682 0.05 1 -618.4891 633.9751

362 Unionoida vs Salmoniformes -57.03641 58.80885 -0.97 1 -294.9923 180.9195

363 Verenoida vs Salmoniformes -22.397 154.7682 -0.14 1 -648.6291 603.8351

364 Siluriformes vs Scorpaeniformes -79.8 208.6894 -0.38 1 -924.2113 764.6112

365 Sorbeocncha vs Scorpaeniformes -153.66 208.6894 -0.74 1 -998.0712 690.7513

366 Tricladida vs Scorpaeniformes -102.7 208.6894 -0.49 1 -947.1112 741.7113

367 Unionoida vs Scorpaeniformes -167.4794 151.8438 -1.1 1 -781.8788 446.92

368 Verenoida vs Scorpaeniformes -132.84 208.6894 -0.64 1 -977.2512 711.5713

369 Sorbeocncha vs Siluriformes -73.85999 208.6894 -0.35 1 -918.2712 770.5513

370 Tricladida vs Siluriformes -22.89999 208.6894 -0.11 1 -867.3112 821.5113

371 Unionoida vs Siluriformes -87.67941 151.8438 -0.58 1 -702.0788 526.72

372 Verenoida vs Siluriformes -53.03999 208.6894 -0.25 1 -897.4512 791.3713

373 Tricladida vs Sorbeocncha 50.96 208.6894 0.24 1 -793.4513 895.3712

374 Unionoida vs Sorbeocncha -13.81941 151.8438 -0.09 1 -628.2188 600.58

375 Verenoida vs Sorbeocncha 20.82 208.6894 0.1 1 -823.5913 865.2312

376 Unionoida vs Tricladida -64.77941 151.8438 -0.43 1 -679.1788 549.62

377 Verenoida vs Tricladida -30.14 208.6894 -0.14 1 -874.5512 814.2713

378 Verenoida vs Unionoida 34.63941 151.8438 0.23 1 -579.76 649.0388

Appendix 4. Family level comparisons of NH3 sensitivities (mg TAN/L)(from EPA 2013b Table 3). Shaded taxa

are significantly different at p < 0.05.

Family Contrast Std. Error t p 95% CI 95% CI

Page 16: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

16

lower upper

Unionidae vs Cambaridae -609.2127 100.006 -6.09 0 -1040.203 -178.2228

Unionidae vs Chironomidae -685.6794 119.3805 -5.74 0 -1200.167 -171.1922

Unionidae vs Limnephilidae -939.7794 164.3266 -5.72 0 -1647.968 -231.5907

Cyprinidae vs Cambaridae -555.6522 106.4645 -5.22 0.002 -1014.476 -96.82841

Sa lmonidae vs Cambaridae -552.1763 105.1252 -5.25 0.002 -1005.229 -99.12412

Limnephilidae vs Centrarchidae 890.505 172.4922 5.16 0.002 147.1255 1633.885

Limnephilidae vs Cyprinidae 886.2189 168.3351 5.26 0.002 160.7547 1611.683

Sa lmonidae vs Limnephilidae -882.743 167.4913 -5.27 0.002 -1604.571 -160.9153

Cyprinidae vs Chironomidae -632.1189 124.8407 -5.06 0.003 -1170.137 -94.10027

Sa lmonidae vs Chironomidae -628.643 123.7005 -5.08 0.003 -1161.748 -95.5379

Centrarchidae vs Cambaridae -559.9383 112.9226 -4.96 0.005 -1046.594 -73.28219

Limnephilidae vs Catostomidae 889.58 178.5463 4.98 0.005 120.1091 1659.051

Limnephilidae vs Daphnidae 856.874 174.939 4.9 0.006 102.9495 1610.798

Percidae vs Limnephilidae -905.9267 184.4019 -4.91 0.006 -1700.633 -111.2205

Chironomidae vs Centrarchidae 636.405 130.3918 4.88 0.007 74.46288 1198.347

Moronidae vs Limnephilidae -846.22 178.5463 -4.74 0.011 -1615.691 -76.74908

Limnephilidae vs Hyl idae 922.055 195.5877 4.71 0.012 79.14184 1764.968

Catostomidae vs Cambaridae -559.0133 121.9704 -4.58 0.019 -1084.662 -33.36462

Chironomidae vs Catostomidae 635.48 138.3014 4.59 0.019 39.45038 1231.51

Daphnidae vs Cambaridae -526.3073 116.626 -4.51 0.025 -1028.924 -23.69103

Daphnidae vs Chironomidae -602.774 133.6118 -4.51 0.025 -1178.593 -26.95468

Percidae vs Chironomidae -651.8267 145.7825 -4.47 0.029 -1280.097 -23.55629

Percidae vs Cambaridae -575.36 130.3918 -4.41 0.035 -1137.302 -13.41789

Poeci liidae vs Limnephilidae -847.52 195.5877 -4.33 0.046 -1690.433 -4.606834

Moronidae vs Chironomidae -592.12 138.3014 -4.28 0.055 -1188.15 3.909618

Moronidae vs Cambaridae -515.6533 121.9704 -4.23 0.066 -1041.302 9.99538

Hyl idae vs Chironomidae -667.955 159.6967 -4.18 0.077 -1356.191 20.28072

Unionidae vs Elmidae -681.1794 164.3266 -4.15 0.087 -1389.368 27.00927

Limnephilidae vs Hydrobiidae 932.35 225.8452 4.13 0.092 -40.96228 1905.662

Pleuroceridae vs Limnephilidae -925.96 225.8452 -4.1 0.102 -1899.272 47.35228

Limnephilidae vs Crangonyctidae 798.15 195.5877 4.08 0.108 -44.76316 1641.063

Hyl idae vs Cambaridae -591.4883 145.7825 -4.06 0.117 -1219.759 36.78205

Lymnaeidae vs Limnephilidae -905.88 225.8452 -4.01 0.137 -1879.192 67.43229

Sphaeriidae vs Limnephilidae -905.14 225.8452 -4.01 0.138 -1878.452 68.17228

Ranidae vs Limnephilidae -898.12 225.8452 -3.98 0.153 -1871.432 75.19228

Limnephilidae vs Dendrocoelidae 875 225.8452 3.87 0.214 -98.31228 1848.312

Pipidae vs Limnephilidae -872 225.8452 -3.86 0.224 -1845.312 101.3123

Limnephilidae vs Ictaluridae 852.1 225.8452 3.77 0.297 -121.2123 1825.412

Page 17: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

17

Elmidae vs Cyprinidae 627.6189 168.3351 3.73 0.343 -97.84523 1353.083

Limnephilidae vs Baetidae 728.85 195.5877 3.73 0.345 -114.0632 1571.763

Sa lmonidae vs Elmidae -624.143 167.4913 -3.73 0.345 -1345.971 97.68468

Poeci liidae vs Chironomidae -593.42 159.6967 -3.72 0.357 -1281.656 94.81572

Limnephilidae vs Acipenseridae 837.8 225.8452 3.71 0.364 -135.5123 1811.112

Limnephilidae vs Chydoridae 831.9 225.8452 3.68 0.396 -141.4123 1805.212

Limnephilidae vs Coenagrionidae 830.5 225.8452 3.68 0.403 -142.8123 1803.812

Phys idae vs Limnephilidae -830 225.8452 -3.68 0.406 -1803.312 143.3123

Elmidae vs Centrarchidae 631.905 172.4922 3.66 0.422 -111.4745 1375.285

Tubi ficidae vs Limnephilidae -824.3 225.8452 -3.65 0.44 -1797.612 149.0123

Limnephilidae vs Cichlidae 809.3 225.8452 3.58 0.542 -164.0123 1782.612

Perlodidae vs Limnephilidae -802.1 225.8452 -3.55 0.599 -1775.412 171.2123

Limnephilidae vs Hyalellidae 801.9 225.8452 3.55 0.601 -171.4123 1775.212

Poeci liidae vs Cambaridae -516.9533 145.7825 -3.55 0.609 -1145.224 111.3171

Elmidae vs Catostomidae 630.98 178.5463 3.53 0.633 -138.4909 1400.451

Percidae vs Elmidae -647.3267 184.4019 -3.51 0.681 -1442.033 147.3795

Hydrobi idae vs Chironomidae -678.25 195.5877 -3.47 0.777 -1521.163 164.6632

Planorbidae vs Limnephilidae -782.9 225.8452 -3.47 0.78 -1756.212 190.4123

Naididae vs Limnephilidae -778 225.8452 -3.44 0.833 -1751.312 195.3123

Pleuroceridae vs Chironomidae -671.86 195.5877 -3.44 0.858 -1514.773 171.0532

Lumbriculidae vs Limnephilidae -775.8 225.8452 -3.44 0.858 -1749.112 197.5123

Elmidae vs Daphnidae 598.274 174.939 3.42 0.899 -155.6504 1352.198

Limnephilidae vs Cottidae 772.3 225.8452 3.42 0.9 -201.0123 1745.612

Crangonyctidae vs Chironomidae -544.05 159.6967 -3.41 0.936 -1232.286 144.1857

Hyl idae vs Elmidae -663.455 195.5877 -3.39 0.979 -1506.368 179.4581

Asellidae vs Acipenseridae 225.9 195.5877 1.15 1 -617.0132 1068.813

Baetidae vs Acipenseridae 108.95 195.5877 0.56 1 -733.9632 951.8632

Cambaridae vs Acipenseridae 507.2333 184.4019 2.75 1 -287.4728 1301.939

Catostomidae vs Acipenseridae -51.78 178.5463 -0.29 1 -821.2509 717.6909

Centrarchidae vs Acipenseridae -52.705 172.4922 -0.31 1 -796.0845 690.6745

Chironomidae vs Acipenseridae 583.7 195.5877 2.98 1 -259.2132 1426.613

Chydoridae vs Acipenseridae 5.900009 225.8452 0.03 1 -967.4123 979.2123

Cichl idae vs Acipenseridae 28.5 225.8452 0.13 1 -944.8123 1001.812

Coenagrionidae vs Acipenseridae 7.300003 225.8452 0.03 1 -966.0123 980.6123

Cottidae vs Acipenseridae 65.5 225.8452 0.29 1 -907.8123 1038.812

Crangonyctidae vs Acipenseridae 39.65 195.5877 0.2 1 -803.2632 882.5632

Cyprinidae vs Acipenseridae -48.41888 168.3351 -0.29 1 -773.883 677.0453

Daphnidae vs Acipenseridae -19.074 174.939 -0.11 1 -772.9985 734.8505

Dendrocoelidae vs Acipenseridae -37.2 225.8452 -0.16 1 -1010.512 936.1123

Page 18: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

18

Elmidae vs Acipenseridae 579.2 225.8452 2.56 1 -394.1123 1552.512

Ephemereliidae vs Acipenseridae 285.7 225.8452 1.27 1 -687.6123 1259.012

Gasterosteidae vs Acipenseridae 124.8 225.8452 0.55 1 -848.5123 1098.112

Hyalellidae vs Acipenseridae 35.90001 225.8452 0.16 1 -937.4123 1009.212

Hydrobi idae vs Acipenseridae -94.55 225.8452 -0.42 1 -1067.862 878.7623

Hyl idae vs Acipenseridae -84.255 195.5877 -0.43 1 -927.1682 758.6582

Icta luridae vs Acipenseridae -14.3 225.8452 -0.06 1 -987.6123 959.0123

Libellulidae vs Acipenseridae 76.3 225.8452 0.34 1 -897.0123 1049.612

Lumbriculidae vs Acipenseridae 62 225.8452 0.27 1 -911.3123 1035.312

Lymnaeidae vs Acipenseridae -68.07999 225.8452 -0.3 1 -1041.392 905.2323

Moronidae vs Acipenseridae -8.419998 178.5463 -0.05 1 -777.8909 761.0509

Naididae vs Acipenseridae 59.8 225.8452 0.26 1 -913.5123 1033.112

Percidae vs Acipenseridae -68.12667 184.4019 -0.37 1 -862.8328 726.5795

Perlodidae vs Acipenseridae 35.7 225.8452 0.16 1 -937.6123 1009.012

Phys idae vs Acipenseridae 7.800003 225.8452 0.03 1 -965.5123 981.1123

Pipidae vs Acipenseridae -34.2 225.8452 -0.15 1 -1007.512 939.1123

Planorbidae vs Acipenseridae 54.90001 225.8452 0.24 1 -918.4123 1028.212

Pleuroceridae vs Acipenseridae -88.16 225.8452 -0.39 1 -1061.472 885.1523

Poeci liidae vs Acipenseridae -9.719994 195.5877 -0.05 1 -852.6332 833.1932

Ranidae vs Acipenseridae -60.32 225.8452 -0.27 1 -1033.632 912.9923

Sa lmonidae vs Acipenseridae -44.943 167.4913 -0.27 1 -766.7707 676.8847

Sphaeriidae vs Acipenseridae -67.34 225.8452 -0.3 1 -1040.652 905.9723

Tubi ficidae vs Acipenseridae 13.5 225.8452 0.06 1 -959.8123 986.8123

Unionidae vs Acipenseridae -101.9794 164.3266 -0.62 1 -810.1681 606.2093

Baetidae vs Asellidae -116.95 159.6967 -0.73 1 -805.1857 571.2857

Cambaridae vs Asellidae 281.3333 145.7825 1.93 1 -346.9371 909.6037

Catostomidae vs Asellidae -277.68 138.3014 -2.01 1 -873.7096 318.3496

Centrarchidae vs Asellidae -278.605 130.3918 -2.14 1 -840.5471 283.3371

Chironomidae vs Asellidae 357.8 159.6967 2.24 1 -330.4357 1046.036

Chydoridae vs Asellidae -220 195.5877 -1.12 1 -1062.913 622.9132

Cichl idae vs Asellidae -197.4 195.5877 -1.01 1 -1040.313 645.5132

Coenagrionidae vs Asellidae -218.6 195.5877 -1.12 1 -1061.513 624.3132

Cottidae vs Asellidae -160.4 195.5877 -0.82 1 -1003.313 682.5132

Crangonyctidae vs Asellidae -186.25 159.6967 -1.17 1 -874.4857 501.9857

Cyprinidae vs Asellidae -274.3189 124.8407 -2.2 1 -812.3375 263.6997

Daphnidae vs Asellidae -244.974 133.6118 -1.83 1 -820.7933 330.8453

Dendrocoelidae vs Asellidae -263.1 195.5877 -1.35 1 -1106.013 579.8132

Elmidae vs Asellidae 353.3 195.5877 1.81 1 -489.6131 1196.213

Ephemereliidae vs Asellidae 59.79999 195.5877 0.31 1 -783.1132 902.7132

Page 19: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

19

Gasterosteidae vs Asellidae -101.1 195.5877 -0.52 1 -944.0132 741.8132

Hyalellidae vs Asellidae -190 195.5877 -0.97 1 -1032.913 652.9132

Hydrobi idae vs Asellidae -320.45 195.5877 -1.64 1 -1163.363 522.4632

Hyl idae vs Asellidae -310.155 159.6967 -1.94 1 -998.3907 378.0807

Icta luridae vs Asellidae -240.2 195.5877 -1.23 1 -1083.113 602.7132

Libellulidae vs Asellidae -149.6 195.5877 -0.76 1 -992.5132 693.3132

Limnephilidae vs Asellidae 611.9 195.5877 3.13 1 -231.0132 1454.813

Lumbriculidae vs Asellidae -163.9 195.5877 -0.84 1 -1006.813 679.0132

Lymnaeidae vs Asellidae -293.98 195.5877 -1.5 1 -1136.893 548.9332

Moronidae vs Asellidae -234.32 138.3014 -1.69 1 -830.3496 361.7096

Naididae vs Asellidae -166.1 195.5877 -0.85 1 -1009.013 676.8132

Percidae vs Asellidae -294.0267 145.7825 -2.02 1 -922.2971 334.2437

Perlodidae vs Asellidae -190.2 195.5877 -0.97 1 -1033.113 652.7132

Phys idae vs Asellidae -218.1 195.5877 -1.12 1 -1061.013 624.8132

Pipidae vs Asellidae -260.1 195.5877 -1.33 1 -1103.013 582.8132

Planorbidae vs Asellidae -171 195.5877 -0.87 1 -1013.913 671.9132

Pleuroceridae vs Asellidae -314.06 195.5877 -1.61 1 -1156.973 528.8532

Poeci liidae vs Asellidae -235.62 159.6967 -1.48 1 -923.8557 452.6157

Ranidae vs Asellidae -286.22 195.5877 -1.46 1 -1129.133 556.6932

Sa lmonidae vs Asellidae -270.843 123.7005 -2.19 1 -803.9481 262.2621

Sphaeriidae vs Asellidae -293.24 195.5877 -1.5 1 -1136.153 549.6732

Tubi ficidae vs Asellidae -212.4 195.5877 -1.09 1 -1055.313 630.5132

Unionidae vs Asellidae -327.8794 119.3805 -2.75 1 -842.3666 186.6078

Cambaridae vs Baetidae 398.2833 145.7825 2.73 1 -229.987 1026.554

Catostomidae vs Baetidae -160.73 138.3014 -1.16 1 -756.7596 435.2996

Centrarchidae vs Baetidae -161.655 130.3918 -1.24 1 -723.5971 400.2871

Chironomidae vs Baetidae 474.75 159.6967 2.97 1 -213.4857 1162.986

Chydoridae vs Baetidae -103.05 195.5877 -0.53 1 -945.9632 739.8632

Cichl idae vs Baetidae -80.45 195.5877 -0.41 1 -923.3632 762.4632

Coenagrionidae vs Baetidae -101.65 195.5877 -0.52 1 -944.5632 741.2632

Cottidae vs Baetidae -43.45 195.5877 -0.22 1 -886.3632 799.4632

Crangonyctidae vs Baetidae -69.3 159.6967 -0.43 1 -757.5357 618.9357

Cyprinidae vs Baetidae -157.3689 124.8407 -1.26 1 -695.3875 380.6497

Daphnidae vs Baetidae -128.024 133.6118 -0.96 1 -703.8433 447.7953

Dendrocoelidae vs Baetidae -146.15 195.5877 -0.75 1 -989.0632 696.7632

Elmidae vs Baetidae 470.25 195.5877 2.4 1 -372.6631 1313.163

Ephemereliidae vs Baetidae 176.75 195.5877 0.9 1 -666.1632 1019.663

Gasterosteidae vs Baetidae 15.85 195.5877 0.08 1 -827.0632 858.7632

Hyalellidae vs Baetidae -73.05 195.5877 -0.37 1 -915.9632 769.8632

Page 20: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

20

Hydrobi idae vs Baetidae -203.5 195.5877 -1.04 1 -1046.413 639.4132

Hyl idae vs Baetidae -193.205 159.6967 -1.21 1 -881.4407 495.0307

Icta luridae vs Baetidae -123.25 195.5877 -0.63 1 -966.1632 719.6632

Libellulidae vs Baetidae -32.65 195.5877 -0.17 1 -875.5632 810.2632

Lumbriculidae vs Baetidae -46.95 195.5877 -0.24 1 -889.8632 795.9632

Lymnaeidae vs Baetidae -177.03 195.5877 -0.91 1 -1019.943 665.8832

Moronidae vs Baetidae -117.37 138.3014 -0.85 1 -713.3996 478.6596

Naididae vs Baetidae -49.15 195.5877 -0.25 1 -892.0632 793.7632

Percidae vs Baetidae -177.0767 145.7825 -1.21 1 -805.347 451.1937

Perlodidae vs Baetidae -73.25001 195.5877 -0.37 1 -916.1632 769.6632

Phys idae vs Baetidae -101.15 195.5877 -0.52 1 -944.0632 741.7632

Pipidae vs Baetidae -143.15 195.5877 -0.73 1 -986.0632 699.7632

Planorbidae vs Baetidae -54.05 195.5877 -0.28 1 -896.9632 788.8632

Pleuroceridae vs Baetidae -197.11 195.5877 -1.01 1 -1040.023 645.8032

Poeci liidae vs Baetidae -118.67 159.6967 -0.74 1 -806.9057 569.5657

Ranidae vs Baetidae -169.27 195.5877 -0.87 1 -1012.183 673.6432

Sa lmonidae vs Baetidae -153.893 123.7005 -1.24 1 -686.9981 379.2121

Sphaeriidae vs Baetidae -176.29 195.5877 -0.9 1 -1019.203 666.6232

Tubi ficidae vs Baetidae -95.45 195.5877 -0.49 1 -938.3632 747.4632

Unionidae vs Baetidae -210.9294 119.3805 -1.77 1 -725.4166 303.5578

Chironomidae vs Cambaridae 76.46666 145.7825 0.52 1 -551.8037 704.737

Chydoridae vs Cambaridae -501.3333 184.4019 -2.72 1 -1296.039 293.3728

Cichl idae vs Cambaridae -478.7333 184.4019 -2.6 1 -1273.439 315.9728

Coenagrionidae vs Cambaridae -499.9333 184.4019 -2.71 1 -1294.639 294.7728

Cottidae vs Cambaridae -441.7333 184.4019 -2.4 1 -1236.439 352.9728

Crangonyctidae vs Cambaridae -467.5833 145.7825 -3.21 1 -1095.854 160.687

Dendrocoelidae vs Cambaridae -544.4333 184.4019 -2.95 1 -1339.139 250.2728

Elmidae vs Cambaridae 71.9667 184.4019 0.39 1 -722.7395 866.6728

Ephemereliidae vs Cambaridae -221.5333 184.4019 -1.2 1 -1016.239 573.1728

Gasterosteidae vs Cambaridae -382.4333 184.4019 -2.07 1 -1177.139 412.2728

Hyalellidae vs Cambaridae -471.3333 184.4019 -2.56 1 -1266.039 323.3728

Hydrobi idae vs Cambaridae -601.7833 184.4019 -3.26 1 -1396.489 192.9228

Icta luridae vs Cambaridae -521.5333 184.4019 -2.83 1 -1316.239 273.1728

Libellulidae vs Cambaridae -430.9333 184.4019 -2.34 1 -1225.639 363.7728

Limnephilidae vs Cambaridae 330.5667 184.4019 1.79 1 -464.1395 1125.273

Lumbriculidae vs Cambaridae -445.2333 184.4019 -2.41 1 -1239.939 349.4728

Lymnaeidae vs Cambaridae -575.3133 184.4019 -3.12 1 -1370.019 219.3928

Naididae vs Cambaridae -447.4333 184.4019 -2.43 1 -1242.139 347.2728

Perlodidae vs Cambaridae -471.5333 184.4019 -2.56 1 -1266.239 323.1728

Page 21: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

21

Phys idae vs Cambaridae -499.4333 184.4019 -2.71 1 -1294.139 295.2728

Pipidae vs Cambaridae -541.4333 184.4019 -2.94 1 -1336.139 253.2728

Planorbidae vs Cambaridae -452.3333 184.4019 -2.45 1 -1247.039 342.3728

Pleuroceridae vs Cambaridae -595.3933 184.4019 -3.23 1 -1390.099 199.3128

Ranidae vs Cambaridae -567.5533 184.4019 -3.08 1 -1362.259 227.1528

Sphaeriidae vs Cambaridae -574.5733 184.4019 -3.12 1 -1369.279 220.1328

Tubi ficidae vs Cambaridae -493.7333 184.4019 -2.68 1 -1288.439 300.9728

Centrarchidae vs Catostomidae -0.9249983 103.0838 -0.01 1 -445.1792 443.3292

Chydoridae vs Catostomidae 57.68001 178.5463 0.32 1 -711.7909 827.1509

Cichl idae vs Catostomidae 80.28 178.5463 0.45 1 -689.1909 849.7509

Coenagrionidae vs Catostomidae 59.08 178.5463 0.33 1 -710.3909 828.5509

Cottidae vs Catostomidae 117.28 178.5463 0.66 1 -652.1909 886.7509

Crangonyctidae vs Catostomidae 91.43 138.3014 0.66 1 -504.5996 687.4596

Cyprinidae vs Catostomidae 3.361114 95.96577 0.04 1 -410.2171 416.9393

Daphnidae vs Catostomidae 32.706 107.1278 0.31 1 -428.9766 494.3886

Dendrocoelidae vs Catostomidae 14.58 178.5463 0.08 1 -754.8909 784.0509

Ephemereliidae vs Catostomidae 337.48 178.5463 1.89 1 -431.9909 1106.951

Gasterosteidae vs Catostomidae 176.58 178.5463 0.99 1 -592.8909 946.0509

Hyalellidae vs Catostomidae 87.68001 178.5463 0.49 1 -681.7909 857.1509

Hydrobi idae vs Catostomidae -42.77 178.5463 -0.24 1 -812.2409 726.7009

Hyl idae vs Catostomidae -32.475 138.3014 -0.23 1 -628.5046 563.5546

Icta luridae vs Catostomidae 37.47999 178.5463 0.21 1 -731.9909 806.9509

Libellulidae vs Catostomidae 128.08 178.5463 0.72 1 -641.3909 897.5509

Lumbriculidae vs Catostomidae 113.78 178.5463 0.64 1 -655.6909 883.2509

Lymnaeidae vs Catostomidae -16.3 178.5463 -0.09 1 -785.7709 753.1709

Moronidae vs Catostomidae 43.36 112.9226 0.38 1 -443.2961 530.0161

Naididae vs Catostomidae 111.58 178.5463 0.62 1 -657.8909 881.0509

Percidae vs Catostomidae -16.34667 121.9704 -0.13 1 -541.9954 509.302

Perlodidae vs Catostomidae 87.47999 178.5463 0.49 1 -681.9909 856.9509

Phys idae vs Catostomidae 59.58 178.5463 0.33 1 -709.8909 829.0509

Pipidae vs Catostomidae 17.58 178.5463 0.1 1 -751.8909 787.0509

Planorbidae vs Catostomidae 106.68 178.5463 0.6 1 -662.7909 876.1509

Pleuroceridae vs Catostomidae -36.38 178.5463 -0.2 1 -805.8509 733.0909

Poeci liidae vs Catostomidae 42.06 138.3014 0.3 1 -553.9696 638.0896

Ranidae vs Catostomidae -8.540002 178.5463 -0.05 1 -778.0109 760.9309

Sa lmonidae vs Catostomidae 6.837001 94.47784 0.07 1 -400.3287 414.0027

Sphaeriidae vs Catostomidae -15.56 178.5463 -0.09 1 -785.0309 753.9109

Tubi ficidae vs Catostomidae 65.28 178.5463 0.37 1 -704.1909 834.7509

Unionidae vs Catostomidae -50.19941 88.74648 -0.57 1 -432.665 332.2662

Page 22: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

22

Chydoridae vs Centrarchidae 58.60501 172.4922 0.34 1 -684.7745 801.9845

Cichl idae vs Centrarchidae 81.205 172.4922 0.47 1 -662.1745 824.5845

Coenagrionidae vs Centrarchidae 60.005 172.4922 0.35 1 -683.3745 803.3845

Cottidae vs Centrarchidae 118.205 172.4922 0.69 1 -625.1745 861.5845

Crangonyctidae vs Centrarchidae 92.355 130.3918 0.71 1 -469.5871 654.2971

Cyprinidae vs Centrarchidae 4.286112 84.16755 0.05 1 -358.446 367.0182

Daphnidae vs Centrarchidae 33.631 96.70116 0.35 1 -383.1164 450.3784

Dendrocoelidae vs Centrarchidae 15.505 172.4922 0.09 1 -727.8745 758.8845

Ephemereliidae vs Centrarchidae 338.405 172.4922 1.96 1 -404.9745 1081.785

Gasterosteidae vs Centrarchidae 177.505 172.4922 1.03 1 -565.8745 920.8845

Hyalellidae vs Centrarchidae 88.60501 172.4922 0.51 1 -654.7745 831.9845

Hydrobi idae vs Centrarchidae -41.845 172.4922 -0.24 1 -785.2245 701.5345

Hyl idae vs Centrarchidae -31.55 130.3918 -0.24 1 -593.4921 530.3921

Icta luridae vs Centrarchidae 38.40499 172.4922 0.22 1 -704.9745 781.7845

Libellulidae vs Centrarchidae 129.005 172.4922 0.75 1 -614.3745 872.3845

Lumbriculidae vs Centrarchidae 114.705 172.4922 0.66 1 -628.6745 858.0845

Lymnaeidae vs Centrarchidae -15.375 172.4922 -0.09 1 -758.7545 728.0045

Moronidae vs Centrarchidae 44.285 103.0838 0.43 1 -399.9692 488.5392

Naididae vs Centrarchidae 112.505 172.4922 0.65 1 -630.8745 855.8845

Percidae vs Centrarchidae -15.42167 112.9226 -0.14 1 -502.0778 471.2345

Perlodidae vs Centrarchidae 88.40499 172.4922 0.51 1 -654.9745 831.7845

Phys idae vs Centrarchidae 60.505 172.4922 0.35 1 -682.8745 803.8845

Pipidae vs Centrarchidae 18.505 172.4922 0.11 1 -724.8745 761.8845

Planorbidae vs Centrarchidae 107.605 172.4922 0.62 1 -635.7745 850.9845

Pleuroceridae vs Centrarchidae -35.455 172.4922 -0.21 1 -778.8345 707.9245

Poeci liidae vs Centrarchidae 42.985 130.3918 0.33 1 -518.9571 604.9271

Ranidae vs Centrarchidae -7.615004 172.4922 -0.04 1 -750.9945 735.7645

Sa lmonidae vs Centrarchidae 7.761999 82.46702 0.09 1 -347.6414 363.1654

Sphaeriidae vs Centrarchidae -14.635 172.4922 -0.08 1 -758.0145 728.7445

Tubi ficidae vs Centrarchidae 66.205 172.4922 0.38 1 -677.1745 809.5845

Unionidae vs Centrarchidae -49.27441 75.83327 -0.65 1 -376.0887 277.5399

Chydoridae vs Chironomidae -577.8 195.5877 -2.95 1 -1420.713 265.1132

Cichl idae vs Chironomidae -555.2 195.5877 -2.84 1 -1398.113 287.7132

Coenagrionidae vs Chironomidae -576.4 195.5877 -2.95 1 -1419.313 266.5132

Cottidae vs Chironomidae -518.2 195.5877 -2.65 1 -1361.113 324.7132

Dendrocoelidae vs Chironomidae -620.9 195.5877 -3.17 1 -1463.813 222.0132

Elmidae vs Chironomidae -4.499969 195.5877 -0.02 1 -847.4131 838.4132

Ephemereliidae vs Chironomidae -298 195.5877 -1.52 1 -1140.913 544.9132

Gasterosteidae vs Chironomidae -458.9 195.5877 -2.35 1 -1301.813 384.0132

Page 23: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

23

Hyalellidae vs Chironomidae -547.8 195.5877 -2.8 1 -1390.713 295.1132

Icta luridae vs Chironomidae -598 195.5877 -3.06 1 -1440.913 244.9132

Libellulidae vs Chironomidae -507.4 195.5877 -2.59 1 -1350.313 335.5132

Limnephilidae vs Chironomidae 254.1 195.5877 1.3 1 -588.8132 1097.013

Lumbriculidae vs Chironomidae -521.7 195.5877 -2.67 1 -1364.613 321.2132

Lymnaeidae vs Chironomidae -651.78 195.5877 -3.33 1 -1494.693 191.1332

Naididae vs Chironomidae -523.9 195.5877 -2.68 1 -1366.813 319.0132

Perlodidae vs Chironomidae -548 195.5877 -2.8 1 -1390.913 294.9132

Phys idae vs Chironomidae -575.9 195.5877 -2.94 1 -1418.813 267.0132

Pipidae vs Chironomidae -617.9 195.5877 -3.16 1 -1460.813 225.0132

Planorbidae vs Chironomidae -528.8 195.5877 -2.7 1 -1371.713 314.1132

Ranidae vs Chironomidae -644.02 195.5877 -3.29 1 -1486.933 198.8932

Sphaeriidae vs Chironomidae -651.04 195.5877 -3.33 1 -1493.953 191.8732

Tubi ficidae vs Chironomidae -570.2 195.5877 -2.92 1 -1413.113 272.7132

Cichl idae vs Chydoridae 22.59999 225.8452 0.1 1 -950.7123 995.9123

Coenagrionidae vs Chydoridae 1.399994 225.8452 0.01 1 -971.9123 974.7123

Cottidae vs Chydoridae 59.59999 225.8452 0.26 1 -913.7123 1032.912

Crangonyctidae vs Chydoridae 33.74999 195.5877 0.17 1 -809.1632 876.6632

Cyprinidae vs Chydoridae -54.31889 168.3351 -0.32 1 -779.783 671.1452

Daphnidae vs Chydoridae -24.97401 174.939 -0.14 1 -778.8985 728.9504

Dendrocoelidae vs Chydoridae -43.10001 225.8452 -0.19 1 -1016.412 930.2123

Elmidae vs Chydoridae 573.3 225.8452 2.54 1 -400.0123 1546.612

Ephemereliidae vs Chydoridae 279.8 225.8452 1.24 1 -693.5123 1253.112

Gasterosteidae vs Chydoridae 118.9 225.8452 0.53 1 -854.4123 1092.212

Hyalellidae vs Chydoridae 30 225.8452 0.13 1 -943.3123 1003.312

Hydrobi idae vs Chydoridae -100.45 225.8452 -0.44 1 -1073.762 872.8623

Hyl idae vs Chydoridae -90.15501 195.5877 -0.46 1 -933.0682 752.7582

Icta luridae vs Chydoridae -20.20001 225.8452 -0.09 1 -993.5123 953.1123

Libellulidae vs Chydoridae 70.39999 225.8452 0.31 1 -902.9123 1043.712

Lumbriculidae vs Chydoridae 56.09999 225.8452 0.25 1 -917.2123 1029.412

Lymnaeidae vs Chydoridae -73.98 225.8452 -0.33 1 -1047.292 899.3323

Moronidae vs Chydoridae -14.32001 178.5463 -0.08 1 -783.7909 755.1509

Naididae vs Chydoridae 53.89999 225.8452 0.24 1 -919.4123 1027.212

Percidae vs Chydoridae -74.02667 184.4019 -0.4 1 -868.7328 720.6795

Perlodidae vs Chydoridae 29.79999 225.8452 0.13 1 -943.5123 1003.112

Phys idae vs Chydoridae 1.899994 225.8452 0.01 1 -971.4123 975.2123

Pipidae vs Chydoridae -40.10001 225.8452 -0.18 1 -1013.412 933.2123

Planorbidae vs Chydoridae 49 225.8452 0.22 1 -924.3123 1022.312

Pleuroceridae vs Chydoridae -94.06001 225.8452 -0.42 1 -1067.372 879.2523

Page 24: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

24

Poeci liidae vs Chydoridae -15.62 195.5877 -0.08 1 -858.5332 827.2932

Ranidae vs Chydoridae -66.22001 225.8452 -0.29 1 -1039.532 907.0923

Sa lmonidae vs Chydoridae -50.84301 167.4913 -0.3 1 -772.6707 670.9847

Sphaeriidae vs Chydoridae -73.24001 225.8452 -0.32 1 -1046.552 900.0723

Tubi ficidae vs Chydoridae 7.599991 225.8452 0.03 1 -965.7123 980.9123

Unionidae vs Chydoridae -107.8794 164.3266 -0.66 1 -816.0681 600.3093

Coenagrionidae vs Cichlidae -21.2 225.8452 -0.09 1 -994.5123 952.1123

Cottidae vs Cichlidae 37 225.8452 0.16 1 -936.3123 1010.312

Crangonyctidae vs Cichlidae 11.15 195.5877 0.06 1 -831.7632 854.0632

Cyprinidae vs Cichlidae -76.91888 168.3351 -0.46 1 -802.383 648.5453

Daphnidae vs Cichlidae -47.574 174.939 -0.27 1 -801.4985 706.3505

Dendrocoelidae vs Cichlidae -65.7 225.8452 -0.29 1 -1039.012 907.6123

Elmidae vs Cichlidae 550.7 225.8452 2.44 1 -422.6123 1524.012

Ephemereliidae vs Cichlidae 257.2 225.8452 1.14 1 -716.1123 1230.512

Gasterosteidae vs Cichlidae 96.3 225.8452 0.43 1 -877.0123 1069.612

Hyalellidae vs Cichlidae 7.400009 225.8452 0.03 1 -965.9123 980.7123

Hydrobi idae vs Cichlidae -123.05 225.8452 -0.54 1 -1096.362 850.2623

Hyl idae vs Cichlidae -112.755 195.5877 -0.58 1 -955.6682 730.1582

Icta luridae vs Cichlidae -42.8 225.8452 -0.19 1 -1016.112 930.5123

Libellulidae vs Cichlidae 47.8 225.8452 0.21 1 -925.5123 1021.112

Lumbriculidae vs Cichlidae 33.5 225.8452 0.15 1 -939.8123 1006.812

Lymnaeidae vs Cichlidae -96.57999 225.8452 -0.43 1 -1069.892 876.7323

Moronidae vs Cichlidae -36.92 178.5463 -0.21 1 -806.3909 732.5509

Naididae vs Cichlidae 31.3 225.8452 0.14 1 -942.0123 1004.612

Percidae vs Cichlidae -96.62667 184.4019 -0.52 1 -891.3328 698.0795

Perlodidae vs Cichlidae 7.199997 225.8452 0.03 1 -966.1123 980.5123

Phys idae vs Cichlidae -20.7 225.8452 -0.09 1 -994.0123 952.6123

Pipidae vs Cichlidae -62.7 225.8452 -0.28 1 -1036.012 910.6123

Planorbidae vs Cichlidae 26.40001 225.8452 0.12 1 -946.9123 999.7123

Pleuroceridae vs Cichlidae -116.66 225.8452 -0.52 1 -1089.972 856.6523

Poeci liidae vs Cichlidae -38.21999 195.5877 -0.2 1 -881.1332 804.6932

Ranidae vs Cichlidae -88.82 225.8452 -0.39 1 -1062.132 884.4923

Sa lmonidae vs Cichlidae -73.443 167.4913 -0.44 1 -795.2707 648.3847

Sphaeriidae vs Cichlidae -95.84 225.8452 -0.42 1 -1069.152 877.4723

Tubi ficidae vs Cichlidae -15 225.8452 -0.07 1 -988.3123 958.3123

Unionidae vs Cichlidae -130.4794 164.3266 -0.79 1 -838.6681 577.7093

Cottidae vs Coenagrionidae 58.2 225.8452 0.26 1 -915.1123 1031.512

Crangonyctidae vs Coenagrionidae 32.35 195.5877 0.17 1 -810.5632 875.2632

Cyprinidae vs Coenagrionidae -55.71889 168.3351 -0.33 1 -781.183 669.7453

Page 25: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

25

Daphnidae vs Coenagrionidae -26.374 174.939 -0.15 1 -780.2985 727.5505

Dendrocoelidae vs Coenagrionidae -44.5 225.8452 -0.2 1 -1017.812 928.8123

Elmidae vs Coenagrionidae 571.9 225.8452 2.53 1 -401.4123 1545.212

Ephemereliidae vs Coenagrionidae 278.4 225.8452 1.23 1 -694.9123 1251.712

Gasterosteidae vs Coenagrionidae 117.5 225.8452 0.52 1 -855.8123 1090.812

Hyalellidae vs Coenagrionidae 28.60001 225.8452 0.13 1 -944.7123 1001.912

Hydrobi idae vs Coenagrionidae -101.85 225.8452 -0.45 1 -1075.162 871.4623

Hyl idae vs Coenagrionidae -91.555 195.5877 -0.47 1 -934.4682 751.3582

Icta luridae vs Coenagrionidae -21.60001 225.8452 -0.1 1 -994.9123 951.7123

Libellulidae vs Coenagrionidae 69 225.8452 0.31 1 -904.3123 1042.312

Lumbriculidae vs Coenagrionidae 54.7 225.8452 0.24 1 -918.6123 1028.012

Lymnaeidae vs Coenagrionidae -75.38 225.8452 -0.33 1 -1048.692 897.9323

Moronidae vs Coenagrionidae -15.72 178.5463 -0.09 1 -785.1909 753.7509

Naididae vs Coenagrionidae 52.5 225.8452 0.23 1 -920.8123 1025.812

Percidae vs Coenagrionidae -75.42667 184.4019 -0.41 1 -870.1328 719.2795

Perlodidae vs Coenagrionidae 28.39999 225.8452 0.13 1 -944.9123 1001.712

Phys idae vs Coenagrionidae 0.5 225.8452 0 1 -972.8123 973.8123

Pipidae vs Coenagrionidae -41.5 225.8452 -0.18 1 -1014.812 931.8123

Planorbidae vs Coenagrionidae 47.60001 225.8452 0.21 1 -925.7123 1020.912

Pleuroceridae vs Coenagrionidae -95.46 225.8452 -0.42 1 -1068.772 877.8523

Poeci liidae vs Coenagrionidae -17.02 195.5877 -0.09 1 -859.9332 825.8932

Ranidae vs Coenagrionidae -67.62 225.8452 -0.3 1 -1040.932 905.6923

Sa lmonidae vs Coenagrionidae -52.243 167.4913 -0.31 1 -774.0707 669.5847

Sphaeriidae vs Coenagrionidae -74.64 225.8452 -0.33 1 -1047.952 898.6723

Tubi ficidae vs Coenagrionidae 6.199997 225.8452 0.03 1 -967.1123 979.5123

Unionidae vs Coenagrionidae -109.2794 164.3266 -0.67 1 -817.4681 598.9093

Crangonyctidae vs Cottidae -25.85 195.5877 -0.13 1 -868.7632 817.0632

Cyprinidae vs Cottidae -113.9189 168.3351 -0.68 1 -839.383 611.5453

Daphnidae vs Cottidae -84.574 174.939 -0.48 1 -838.4985 669.3505

Dendrocoelidae vs Cottidae -102.7 225.8452 -0.45 1 -1076.012 870.6123

Elmidae vs Cottidae 513.7 225.8452 2.27 1 -459.6123 1487.012

Ephemereliidae vs Cottidae 220.2 225.8452 0.98 1 -753.1123 1193.512

Gasterosteidae vs Cottidae 59.3 225.8452 0.26 1 -914.0123 1032.612

Hyalellidae vs Cottidae -29.59999 225.8452 -0.13 1 -1002.912 943.7123

Hydrobi idae vs Cottidae -160.05 225.8452 -0.71 1 -1133.362 813.2623

Hyl idae vs Cottidae -149.755 195.5877 -0.77 1 -992.6682 693.1582

Icta luridae vs Cottidae -79.8 225.8452 -0.35 1 -1053.112 893.5123

Libellulidae vs Cottidae 10.8 225.8452 0.05 1 -962.5123 984.1123

Lumbriculidae vs Cottidae -3.5 225.8452 -0.02 1 -976.8123 969.8123

Page 26: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

26

Lymnaeidae vs Cottidae -133.58 225.8452 -0.59 1 -1106.892 839.7323

Moronidae vs Cottidae -73.92 178.5463 -0.41 1 -843.3909 695.5509

Naididae vs Cottidae -5.699997 225.8452 -0.03 1 -979.0123 967.6123

Percidae vs Cottidae -133.6267 184.4019 -0.72 1 -928.3328 661.0795

Perlodidae vs Cottidae -29.8 225.8452 -0.13 1 -1003.112 943.5123

Phys idae vs Cottidae -57.7 225.8452 -0.26 1 -1031.012 915.6123

Pipidae vs Cottidae -99.7 225.8452 -0.44 1 -1073.012 873.6123

Planorbidae vs Cottidae -10.59999 225.8452 -0.05 1 -983.9123 962.7123

Pleuroceridae vs Cottidae -153.66 225.8452 -0.68 1 -1126.972 819.6523

Poeci liidae vs Cottidae -75.21999 195.5877 -0.38 1 -918.1332 767.6932

Ranidae vs Cottidae -125.82 225.8452 -0.56 1 -1099.132 847.4923

Sa lmonidae vs Cottidae -110.443 167.4913 -0.66 1 -832.2707 611.3847

Sphaeriidae vs Cottidae -132.84 225.8452 -0.59 1 -1106.152 840.4723

Tubi ficidae vs Cottidae -52 225.8452 -0.23 1 -1025.312 921.3123

Unionidae vs Cottidae -167.4794 164.3266 -1.02 1 -875.6681 540.7093

Cyprinidae vs Crangonyctidae -88.06889 124.8407 -0.71 1 -626.0875 449.9497

Daphnidae vs Crangonyctidae -58.724 133.6118 -0.44 1 -634.5433 517.0953

Dendrocoelidae vs Crangonyctidae -76.85 195.5877 -0.39 1 -919.7632 766.0632

Elmidae vs Crangonyctidae 539.55 195.5877 2.76 1 -303.3631 1382.463

Ephemereliidae vs Crangonyctidae 246.05 195.5877 1.26 1 -596.8632 1088.963

Gasterosteidae vs Crangonyctidae 85.15 195.5877 0.44 1 -757.7632 928.0632

Hyalellidae vs Crangonyctidae -3.749992 195.5877 -0.02 1 -846.6632 839.1632

Hydrobi idae vs Crangonyctidae -134.2 195.5877 -0.69 1 -977.1132 708.7132

Hyl idae vs Crangonyctidae -123.905 159.6967 -0.78 1 -812.1407 564.3307

Icta luridae vs Crangonyctidae -53.95 195.5877 -0.28 1 -896.8632 788.9632

Libellulidae vs Crangonyctidae 36.65 195.5877 0.19 1 -806.2632 879.5632

Lumbriculidae vs Crangonyctidae 22.35 195.5877 0.11 1 -820.5632 865.2632

Lymnaeidae vs Crangonyctidae -107.73 195.5877 -0.55 1 -950.6432 735.1832

Moronidae vs Crangonyctidae -48.07 138.3014 -0.35 1 -644.0996 547.9596

Naididae vs Crangonyctidae 20.15 195.5877 0.1 1 -822.7632 863.0632

Percidae vs Crangonyctidae -107.7767 145.7825 -0.74 1 -736.047 520.4937

Perlodidae vs Crangonyctidae -3.950005 195.5877 -0.02 1 -846.8632 838.9632

Phys idae vs Crangonyctidae -31.85 195.5877 -0.16 1 -874.7632 811.0632

Pipidae vs Crangonyctidae -73.85 195.5877 -0.38 1 -916.7632 769.0632

Planorbidae vs Crangonyctidae 15.25001 195.5877 0.08 1 -827.6632 858.1632

Pleuroceridae vs Crangonyctidae -127.81 195.5877 -0.65 1 -970.7232 715.1032

Poeci liidae vs Crangonyctidae -49.37 159.6967 -0.31 1 -737.6057 638.8657

Ranidae vs Crangonyctidae -99.97 195.5877 -0.51 1 -942.8832 742.9432

Sa lmonidae vs Crangonyctidae -84.593 123.7005 -0.68 1 -617.6981 448.5121

Page 27: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

27

Sphaeriidae vs Crangonyctidae -106.99 195.5877 -0.55 1 -949.9032 735.9232

Tubi ficidae vs Crangonyctidae -26.15 195.5877 -0.13 1 -869.0632 816.7632

Unionidae vs Crangonyctidae -141.6294 119.3805 -1.19 1 -656.1166 372.8578

Daphnidae vs Cyprinidae 29.34488 89.07456 0.33 1 -354.5347 413.2244

Dendrocoelidae vs Cyprinidae 11.21889 168.3351 0.07 1 -714.2453 736.683

Ephemereliidae vs Cyprinidae 334.1189 168.3351 1.98 1 -391.3453 1059.583

Gasterosteidae vs Cyprinidae 173.2189 168.3351 1.03 1 -552.2453 898.683

Hyalellidae vs Cyprinidae 84.31889 168.3351 0.5 1 -641.1452 809.783

Hydrobi idae vs Cyprinidae -46.13111 168.3351 -0.27 1 -771.5953 679.333

Hyl idae vs Cyprinidae -35.83611 124.8407 -0.29 1 -573.8547 502.1825

Icta luridae vs Cyprinidae 34.11888 168.3351 0.2 1 -691.3453 759.583

Libellulidae vs Cyprinidae 124.7189 168.3351 0.74 1 -600.7453 850.183

Lumbriculidae vs Cyprinidae 110.4189 168.3351 0.66 1 -615.0453 835.883

Lymnaeidae vs Cyprinidae -19.66111 168.3351 -0.12 1 -745.1253 705.803

Moronidae vs Cyprinidae 39.99889 95.96577 0.42 1 -373.5793 453.5771

Naididae vs Cyprinidae 108.2189 168.3351 0.64 1 -617.2453 833.683

Percidae vs Cyprinidae -19.70778 106.4645 -0.19 1 -478.5316 439.116

Perlodidae vs Cyprinidae 84.11888 168.3351 0.5 1 -641.3453 809.583

Phys idae vs Cyprinidae 56.21889 168.3351 0.33 1 -669.2453 781.683

Pipidae vs Cyprinidae 14.21889 168.3351 0.08 1 -711.2453 739.683

Planorbidae vs Cyprinidae 103.3189 168.3351 0.61 1 -622.1452 828.783

Pleuroceridae vs Cyprinidae -39.74111 168.3351 -0.24 1 -765.2053 685.723

Poeci liidae vs Cyprinidae 38.69889 124.8407 0.31 1 -499.3197 576.7175

Ranidae vs Cyprinidae -11.90112 168.3351 -0.07 1 -737.3653 713.563

Sa lmonidae vs Cyprinidae 3.475887 73.37557 0.05 1 -312.7466 319.6984

Sphaeriidae vs Cyprinidae -18.92111 168.3351 -0.11 1 -744.3853 706.543

Tubi ficidae vs Cyprinidae 61.91888 168.3351 0.37 1 -663.5453 787.383

Unionidae vs Cyprinidae -53.56052 65.83198 -0.81 1 -337.2728 230.1518

Dendrocoelidae vs Daphnidae -18.126 174.939 -0.1 1 -772.0505 735.7985

Ephemereliidae vs Daphnidae 304.774 174.939 1.74 1 -449.1505 1058.698

Gasterosteidae vs Daphnidae 143.874 174.939 0.82 1 -610.0505 897.7985

Hyalellidae vs Daphnidae 54.97401 174.939 0.31 1 -698.9504 808.8985

Hydrobi idae vs Daphnidae -75.476 174.939 -0.43 1 -829.4004 678.4485

Hyl idae vs Daphnidae -65.181 133.6118 -0.49 1 -641.0003 510.6383

Icta luridae vs Daphnidae 4.773996 174.939 0.03 1 -749.1505 758.6984

Libellulidae vs Daphnidae 95.374 174.939 0.55 1 -658.5505 849.2985

Lumbriculidae vs Daphnidae 81.074 174.939 0.46 1 -672.8505 834.9985

Lymnaeidae vs Daphnidae -49.006 174.939 -0.28 1 -802.9304 704.9185

Moronidae vs Daphnidae 10.654 107.1278 0.1 1 -451.0286 472.3366

Page 28: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

28

Naididae vs Daphnidae 78.874 174.939 0.45 1 -675.0505 832.7985

Percidae vs Daphnidae -49.05267 116.626 -0.42 1 -551.669 453.5636

Perlodidae vs Daphnidae 54.774 174.939 0.31 1 -699.1505 808.6984

Phys idae vs Daphnidae 26.874 174.939 0.15 1 -727.0505 780.7985

Pipidae vs Daphnidae -15.126 174.939 -0.09 1 -769.0505 738.7985

Planorbidae vs Daphnidae 73.97401 174.939 0.42 1 -679.9504 827.8985

Pleuroceridae vs Daphnidae -69.086 174.939 -0.39 1 -823.0104 684.8385

Poeci liidae vs Daphnidae 9.354005 133.6118 0.07 1 -566.4653 585.1733

Ranidae vs Daphnidae -41.246 174.939 -0.24 1 -795.1705 712.6785

Sa lmonidae vs Daphnidae -25.869 87.46949 -0.3 1 -402.8312 351.0932

Sphaeriidae vs Daphnidae -48.266 174.939 -0.28 1 -802.1904 705.6585

Tubi ficidae vs Daphnidae 32.574 174.939 0.19 1 -721.3505 786.4985

Unionidae vs Daphnidae -82.90541 81.24522 -1.02 1 -433.0433 267.2325

Elmidae vs Dendrocoelidae 616.4 225.8452 2.73 1 -356.9123 1589.712

Ephemereliidae vs Dendrocoelidae 322.9 225.8452 1.43 1 -650.4123 1296.212

Gasterosteidae vs Dendrocoelidae 162 225.8452 0.72 1 -811.3123 1135.312

Hyalellidae vs Dendrocoelidae 73.10001 225.8452 0.32 1 -900.2123 1046.412

Hydrobi idae vs Dendrocoelidae -57.35 225.8452 -0.25 1 -1030.662 915.9623

Hyl idae vs Dendrocoelidae -47.055 195.5877 -0.24 1 -889.9682 795.8582

Icta luridae vs Dendrocoelidae 22.89999 225.8452 0.1 1 -950.4123 996.2123

Libellulidae vs Dendrocoelidae 113.5 225.8452 0.5 1 -859.8123 1086.812

Lumbriculidae vs Dendrocoelidae 99.2 225.8452 0.44 1 -874.1123 1072.512

Lymnaeidae vs Dendrocoelidae -30.88 225.8452 -0.14 1 -1004.192 942.4323

Moronidae vs Dendrocoelidae 28.78 178.5463 0.16 1 -740.6909 798.2509

Naididae vs Dendrocoelidae 97 225.8452 0.43 1 -876.3123 1070.312

Percidae vs Dendrocoelidae -30.92667 184.4019 -0.17 1 -825.6328 763.7795

Perlodidae vs Dendrocoelidae 72.89999 225.8452 0.32 1 -900.4123 1046.212

Phys idae vs Dendrocoelidae 45 225.8452 0.2 1 -928.3123 1018.312

Pipidae vs Dendrocoelidae 3 225.8452 0.01 1 -970.3123 976.3123

Planorbidae vs Dendrocoelidae 92.10001 225.8452 0.41 1 -881.2123 1065.412

Pleuroceridae vs Dendrocoelidae -50.96 225.8452 -0.23 1 -1024.272 922.3523

Poeci liidae vs Dendrocoelidae 27.48 195.5877 0.14 1 -815.4332 870.3932

Ranidae vs Dendrocoelidae -23.12 225.8452 -0.1 1 -996.4323 950.1923

Sa lmonidae vs Dendrocoelidae -7.743 167.4913 -0.05 1 -729.5707 714.0847

Sphaeriidae vs Dendrocoelidae -30.14 225.8452 -0.13 1 -1003.452 943.1723

Tubi ficidae vs Dendrocoelidae 50.7 225.8452 0.22 1 -922.6123 1024.012

Unionidae vs Dendrocoelidae -64.77941 164.3266 -0.39 1 -772.9681 643.4093

Ephemereliidae vs Elmidae -293.5 225.8452 -1.3 1 -1266.812 679.8123

Gasterosteidae vs Elmidae -454.4 225.8452 -2.01 1 -1427.712 518.9123

Page 29: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

29

Hyalellidae vs Elmidae -543.3 225.8452 -2.41 1 -1516.612 430.0123

Hydrobi idae vs Elmidae -673.75 225.8452 -2.98 1 -1647.062 299.5623

Icta luridae vs Elmidae -593.5 225.8452 -2.63 1 -1566.812 379.8123

Libellulidae vs Elmidae -502.9 225.8452 -2.23 1 -1476.212 470.4123

Limnephilidae vs Elmidae 258.6 225.8452 1.15 1 -714.7123 1231.912

Lumbriculidae vs Elmidae -517.2 225.8452 -2.29 1 -1490.512 456.1123

Lymnaeidae vs Elmidae -647.28 225.8452 -2.87 1 -1620.592 326.0323

Moronidae vs Elmidae -587.62 178.5463 -3.29 1 -1357.091 181.8509

Naididae vs Elmidae -519.4 225.8452 -2.3 1 -1492.712 453.9123

Perlodidae vs Elmidae -543.5 225.8452 -2.41 1 -1516.812 429.8123

Phys idae vs Elmidae -571.4 225.8452 -2.53 1 -1544.712 401.9123

Pipidae vs Elmidae -613.4 225.8452 -2.72 1 -1586.712 359.9123

Planorbidae vs Elmidae -524.3 225.8452 -2.32 1 -1497.612 449.0123

Pleuroceridae vs Elmidae -667.36 225.8452 -2.95 1 -1640.672 305.9523

Poeci liidae vs Elmidae -588.92 195.5877 -3.01 1 -1431.833 253.9931

Ranidae vs Elmidae -639.52 225.8452 -2.83 1 -1612.832 333.7923

Sphaeriidae vs Elmidae -646.54 225.8452 -2.86 1 -1619.852 326.7723

Tubi ficidae vs Elmidae -565.7 225.8452 -2.5 1 -1539.012 407.6123

Gasterosteidae vs Ephemereliidae -160.9 225.8452 -0.71 1 -1134.212 812.4123

Hyalellidae vs Ephemereliidae -249.8 225.8452 -1.11 1 -1223.112 723.5123

Hydrobi idae vs Ephemereliidae -380.25 225.8452 -1.68 1 -1353.562 593.0623

Hyl idae vs Ephemereliidae -369.955 195.5877 -1.89 1 -1212.868 472.9582

Icta luridae vs Ephemereliidae -300 225.8452 -1.33 1 -1273.312 673.3123

Libellulidae vs Ephemereliidae -209.4 225.8452 -0.93 1 -1182.712 763.9123

Limnephilidae vs Ephemereliidae 552.1 225.8452 2.44 1 -421.2123 1525.412

Lumbriculidae vs Ephemereliidae -223.7 225.8452 -0.99 1 -1197.012 749.6123

Lymnaeidae vs Ephemereliidae -353.78 225.8452 -1.57 1 -1327.092 619.5323

Moronidae vs Ephemereliidae -294.12 178.5463 -1.65 1 -1063.591 475.3509

Naididae vs Ephemereliidae -225.9 225.8452 -1 1 -1199.212 747.4123

Percidae vs Ephemereliidae -353.8267 184.4019 -1.92 1 -1148.533 440.8795

Perlodidae vs Ephemereliidae -250 225.8452 -1.11 1 -1223.312 723.3123

Phys idae vs Ephemereliidae -277.9 225.8452 -1.23 1 -1251.212 695.4123

Pipidae vs Ephemereliidae -319.9 225.8452 -1.42 1 -1293.212 653.4123

Planorbidae vs Ephemereliidae -230.8 225.8452 -1.02 1 -1204.112 742.5123

Pleuroceridae vs Ephemereliidae -373.86 225.8452 -1.66 1 -1347.172 599.4523

Poeci liidae vs Ephemereliidae -295.42 195.5877 -1.51 1 -1138.333 547.4932

Ranidae vs Ephemereliidae -346.02 225.8452 -1.53 1 -1319.332 627.2923

Sa lmonidae vs Ephemereliidae -330.643 167.4913 -1.97 1 -1052.471 391.1847

Sphaeriidae vs Ephemereliidae -353.04 225.8452 -1.56 1 -1326.352 620.2723

Page 30: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

30

Tubi ficidae vs Ephemereliidae -272.2 225.8452 -1.21 1 -1245.512 701.1123

Unionidae vs Ephemereliidae -387.6794 164.3266 -2.36 1 -1095.868 320.5093

Hyalellidae vs Gasterosteidae -88.89999 225.8452 -0.39 1 -1062.212 884.4123

Hydrobi idae vs Gasterosteidae -219.35 225.8452 -0.97 1 -1192.662 753.9623

Hyl idae vs Gasterosteidae -209.055 195.5877 -1.07 1 -1051.968 633.8582

Icta luridae vs Gasterosteidae -139.1 225.8452 -0.62 1 -1112.412 834.2123

Libellulidae vs Gasterosteidae -48.5 225.8452 -0.21 1 -1021.812 924.8123

Limnephilidae vs Gasterosteidae 713 225.8452 3.16 1 -260.3123 1686.312

Lumbriculidae vs Gasterosteidae -62.8 225.8452 -0.28 1 -1036.112 910.5123

Lymnaeidae vs Gasterosteidae -192.88 225.8452 -0.85 1 -1166.192 780.4323

Moronidae vs Gasterosteidae -133.22 178.5463 -0.75 1 -902.6909 636.2509

Naididae vs Gasterosteidae -65 225.8452 -0.29 1 -1038.312 908.3123

Percidae vs Gasterosteidae -192.9267 184.4019 -1.05 1 -987.6328 601.7795

Perlodidae vs Gasterosteidae -89.10001 225.8452 -0.39 1 -1062.412 884.2123

Phys idae vs Gasterosteidae -117 225.8452 -0.52 1 -1090.312 856.3123

Pipidae vs Gasterosteidae -159 225.8452 -0.7 1 -1132.312 814.3123

Planorbidae vs Gasterosteidae -69.89999 225.8452 -0.31 1 -1043.212 903.4123

Pleuroceridae vs Gasterosteidae -212.96 225.8452 -0.94 1 -1186.272 760.3523

Poeci liidae vs Gasterosteidae -134.52 195.5877 -0.69 1 -977.4332 708.3932

Ranidae vs Gasterosteidae -185.12 225.8452 -0.82 1 -1158.432 788.1923

Sa lmonidae vs Gasterosteidae -169.743 167.4913 -1.01 1 -891.5707 552.0847

Sphaeriidae vs Gasterosteidae -192.14 225.8452 -0.85 1 -1165.452 781.1723

Tubi ficidae vs Gasterosteidae -111.3 225.8452 -0.49 1 -1084.612 862.0123

Unionidae vs Gasterosteidae -226.7794 164.3266 -1.38 1 -934.9681 481.4093

Hydrobi idae vs Hyalellidae -130.45 225.8452 -0.58 1 -1103.762 842.8623

Hyl idae vs Hyalellidae -120.155 195.5877 -0.61 1 -963.0682 722.7582

Icta luridae vs Hyalellidae -50.20001 225.8452 -0.22 1 -1023.512 923.1123

Libellulidae vs Hyalellidae 40.39999 225.8452 0.18 1 -932.9123 1013.712

Lumbriculidae vs Hyalellidae 26.09999 225.8452 0.12 1 -947.2123 999.4123

Lymnaeidae vs Hyalellidae -103.98 225.8452 -0.46 1 -1077.292 869.3323

Moronidae vs Hyalellidae -44.32001 178.5463 -0.25 1 -813.7909 725.1509

Naididae vs Hyalellidae 23.89999 225.8452 0.11 1 -949.4123 997.2123

Percidae vs Hyalellidae -104.0267 184.4019 -0.56 1 -898.7328 690.6795

Perlodidae vs Hyalellidae -0.2000122 225.8452 0 1 -973.5123 973.1123

Phys idae vs Hyalellidae -28.10001 225.8452 -0.12 1 -1001.412 945.2123

Pipidae vs Hyalellidae -70.10001 225.8452 -0.31 1 -1043.412 903.2123

Planorbidae vs Hyalellidae 19 225.8452 0.08 1 -954.3123 992.3123

Pleuroceridae vs Hyalellidae -124.06 225.8452 -0.55 1 -1097.372 849.2523

Poeci liidae vs Hyalellidae -45.62 195.5877 -0.23 1 -888.5332 797.2932

Page 31: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

31

Ranidae vs Hyalellidae -96.22001 225.8452 -0.43 1 -1069.532 877.0923

Sa lmonidae vs Hyalellidae -80.84301 167.4913 -0.48 1 -802.6707 640.9847

Sphaeriidae vs Hyalellidae -103.24 225.8452 -0.46 1 -1076.552 870.0723

Tubi ficidae vs Hyalellidae -22.40001 225.8452 -0.1 1 -995.7123 950.9123

Unionidae vs Hyalellidae -137.8794 164.3266 -0.84 1 -846.0681 570.3093

Hyl idae vs Hydrobiidae 10.295 195.5877 0.05 1 -832.6182 853.2082

Icta luridae vs Hydrobiidae 80.24999 225.8452 0.36 1 -893.0623 1053.562

Libellulidae vs Hydrobiidae 170.85 225.8452 0.76 1 -802.4623 1144.162

Lumbriculidae vs Hydrobiidae 156.55 225.8452 0.69 1 -816.7623 1129.862

Lymnaeidae vs Hydrobiidae 26.47 225.8452 0.12 1 -946.8423 999.7823

Moronidae vs Hydrobiidae 86.13 178.5463 0.48 1 -683.3409 855.6009

Naididae vs Hydrobiidae 154.35 225.8452 0.68 1 -818.9623 1127.662

Percidae vs Hydrobiidae 26.42333 184.4019 0.14 1 -768.2828 821.1295

Perlodidae vs Hydrobiidae 130.25 225.8452 0.58 1 -843.0623 1103.562

Phys idae vs Hydrobiidae 102.35 225.8452 0.45 1 -870.9623 1075.662

Pipidae vs Hydrobiidae 60.35 225.8452 0.27 1 -912.9623 1033.662

Planorbidae vs Hydrobiidae 149.45 225.8452 0.66 1 -823.8623 1122.762

Pleuroceridae vs Hydrobiidae 6.389999 225.8452 0.03 1 -966.9223 979.7023

Poeci liidae vs Hydrobiidae 84.83 195.5877 0.43 1 -758.0832 927.7432

Ranidae vs Hydrobiidae 34.23 225.8452 0.15 1 -939.0823 1007.542

Sa lmonidae vs Hydrobiidae 49.607 167.4913 0.3 1 -672.2207 771.4347

Sphaeriidae vs Hydrobiidae 27.21 225.8452 0.12 1 -946.1023 1000.522

Tubi ficidae vs Hydrobiidae 108.05 225.8452 0.48 1 -865.2623 1081.362

Unionidae vs Hydrobiidae -7.429413 164.3266 -0.05 1 -715.6181 700.7593

Icta luridae vs Hylidae 69.95499 195.5877 0.36 1 -772.9582 912.8682

Libellulidae vs Hylidae 160.555 195.5877 0.82 1 -682.3582 1003.468

Lumbriculidae vs Hylidae 146.255 195.5877 0.75 1 -696.6582 989.1682

Lymnaeidae vs Hylidae 16.175 195.5877 0.08 1 -826.7382 859.0882

Moronidae vs Hylidae 75.835 138.3014 0.55 1 -520.1946 671.8646

Naididae vs Hylidae 144.055 195.5877 0.74 1 -698.8582 986.9682

Percidae vs Hylidae 16.12833 145.7825 0.11 1 -612.142 644.3987

Perlodidae vs Hyl idae 119.955 195.5877 0.61 1 -722.9582 962.8682

Phys idae vs Hylidae 92.055 195.5877 0.47 1 -750.8582 934.9682

Pipidae vs Hylidae 50.055 195.5877 0.26 1 -792.8582 892.9682

Planorbidae vs Hyl idae 139.155 195.5877 0.71 1 -703.7582 982.0682

Pleuroceridae vs Hylidae -3.904999 195.5877 -0.02 1 -846.8182 839.0082

Poeci liidae vs Hyl idae 74.535 159.6967 0.47 1 -613.7007 762.7707

Ranidae vs Hylidae 23.935 195.5877 0.12 1 -818.9782 866.8482

Sa lmonidae vs Hylidae 39.312 123.7005 0.32 1 -493.7931 572.4171

Page 32: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

32

Sphaeriidae vs Hyl idae 16.915 195.5877 0.09 1 -825.9982 859.8282

Tubi ficidae vs Hylidae 97.755 195.5877 0.5 1 -745.1582 940.6682

Unionidae vs Hylidae -17.72441 119.3805 -0.15 1 -532.2116 496.7628

Libellulidae vs Ictaluridae 90.60001 225.8452 0.4 1 -882.7123 1063.912

Lumbriculidae vs Ictaluridae 76.3 225.8452 0.34 1 -897.0123 1049.612

Lymnaeidae vs Ictaluridae -53.77999 225.8452 -0.24 1 -1027.092 919.5323

Moronidae vs Ictaluridae 5.880005 178.5463 0.03 1 -763.5909 775.3509

Naididae vs Ictaluridae 74.10001 225.8452 0.33 1 -899.2123 1047.412

Percidae vs Ictaluridae -53.82666 184.4019 -0.29 1 -848.5328 740.8795

Perlodidae vs Ictaluridae 50 225.8452 0.22 1 -923.3123 1023.312

Phys idae vs Ictaluridae 22.10001 225.8452 0.1 1 -951.2123 995.4123

Pipidae vs Ictaluridae -19.89999 225.8452 -0.09 1 -993.2123 953.4123

Planorbidae vs Ictaluridae 69.20001 225.8452 0.31 1 -904.1123 1042.512

Pleuroceridae vs Ictaluridae -73.85999 225.8452 -0.33 1 -1047.172 899.4523

Poeci liidae vs Ictaluridae 4.580009 195.5877 0.02 1 -838.3332 847.4932

Ranidae vs Ictaluridae -46.02 225.8452 -0.2 1 -1019.332 927.2923

Sa lmonidae vs Ictaluridae -30.64299 167.4913 -0.18 1 -752.4707 691.1847

Sphaeriidae vs Ictaluridae -53.03999 225.8452 -0.23 1 -1026.352 920.2723

Tubi ficidae vs Ictaluridae 27.8 225.8452 0.12 1 -945.5123 1001.112

Unionidae vs Ictaluridae -87.67941 164.3266 -0.53 1 -795.8681 620.5093

Limnephilidae vs Libellulidae 761.5 225.8452 3.37 1 -211.8123 1734.812

Lumbriculidae vs Libellulidae -14.3 225.8452 -0.06 1 -987.6123 959.0123

Lymnaeidae vs Libellulidae -144.38 225.8452 -0.64 1 -1117.692 828.9323

Moronidae vs Libellulidae -84.72 178.5463 -0.47 1 -854.1909 684.7509

Naididae vs Libellulidae -16.5 225.8452 -0.07 1 -989.8123 956.8123

Percidae vs Libellulidae -144.4267 184.4019 -0.78 1 -939.1328 650.2795

Perlodidae vs Libellulidae -40.60001 225.8452 -0.18 1 -1013.912 932.7123

Phys idae vs Libellulidae -68.5 225.8452 -0.3 1 -1041.812 904.8123

Pipidae vs Libellulidae -110.5 225.8452 -0.49 1 -1083.812 862.8123

Planorbidae vs Libellulidae -21.39999 225.8452 -0.09 1 -994.7123 951.9123

Pleuroceridae vs Libellulidae -164.46 225.8452 -0.73 1 -1137.772 808.8523

Poeci liidae vs Libellulidae -86.02 195.5877 -0.44 1 -928.9332 756.8932

Ranidae vs Libellulidae -136.62 225.8452 -0.6 1 -1109.932 836.6923

Sa lmonidae vs Libellulidae -121.243 167.4913 -0.72 1 -843.0707 600.5847

Sphaeriidae vs Libellulidae -143.64 225.8452 -0.64 1 -1116.952 829.6723

Tubi ficidae vs Libellulidae -62.8 225.8452 -0.28 1 -1036.112 910.5123

Unionidae vs Libellulidae -178.2794 164.3266 -1.08 1 -886.4681 529.9093

Lymnaeidae vs Lumbriculidae -130.08 225.8452 -0.58 1 -1103.392 843.2323

Moronidae vs Lumbriculidae -70.42 178.5463 -0.39 1 -839.8909 699.0509

Page 33: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

33

Naididae vs Lumbriculidae -2.199997 225.8452 -0.01 1 -975.5123 971.1123

Percidae vs Lumbriculidae -130.1267 184.4019 -0.71 1 -924.8328 664.5795

Perlodidae vs Lumbriculidae -26.3 225.8452 -0.12 1 -999.6123 947.0123

Phys idae vs Lumbriculidae -54.2 225.8452 -0.24 1 -1027.512 919.1123

Pipidae vs Lumbriculidae -96.2 225.8452 -0.43 1 -1069.512 877.1123

Planorbidae vs Lumbriculidae -7.099991 225.8452 -0.03 1 -980.4123 966.2123

Pleuroceridae vs Lumbriculidae -150.16 225.8452 -0.66 1 -1123.472 823.1523

Poeci liidae vs Lumbriculidae -71.71999 195.5877 -0.37 1 -914.6332 771.1932

Ranidae vs Lumbriculidae -122.32 225.8452 -0.54 1 -1095.632 850.9923

Sa lmonidae vs Lumbriculidae -106.943 167.4913 -0.64 1 -828.7707 614.8847

Sphaeriidae vs Lumbriculidae -129.34 225.8452 -0.57 1 -1102.652 843.9723

Tubi ficidae vs Lumbriculidae -48.5 225.8452 -0.21 1 -1021.812 924.8123

Unionidae vs Lumbriculidae -163.9794 164.3266 -1 1 -872.1681 544.2093

Moronidae vs Lymnaeidae 59.66 178.5463 0.33 1 -709.8109 829.1309

Naididae vs Lymnaeidae 127.88 225.8452 0.57 1 -845.4323 1101.192

Percidae vs Lymnaeidae -0.0466715 184.4019 0 1 -794.7528 794.6595

Perlodidae vs Lymnaeidae 103.78 225.8452 0.46 1 -869.5323 1077.092

Phys idae vs Lymnaeidae 75.88 225.8452 0.34 1 -897.4323 1049.192

Pipidae vs Lymnaeidae 33.88 225.8452 0.15 1 -939.4323 1007.192

Planorbidae vs Lymnaeidae 122.98 225.8452 0.54 1 -850.3323 1096.292

Pleuroceridae vs Lymnaeidae -20.08 225.8452 -0.09 1 -993.3923 953.2323

Poeci liidae vs Lymnaeidae 58.36 195.5877 0.3 1 -784.5532 901.2732

Ranidae vs Lymnaeidae 7.759995 225.8452 0.03 1 -965.5523 981.0723

Sa lmonidae vs Lymnaeidae 23.137 167.4913 0.14 1 -698.6907 744.9647

Sphaeriidae vs Lymnaeidae 0.7399979 225.8452 0 1 -972.5723 974.0523

Tubi ficidae vs Lymnaeidae 81.57999 225.8452 0.36 1 -891.7323 1054.892

Unionidae vs Lymnaeidae -33.89941 164.3266 -0.21 1 -742.0881 674.2893

Naididae vs Moronidae 68.22 178.5463 0.38 1 -701.2509 837.6909

Percidae vs Moronidae -59.70667 121.9704 -0.49 1 -585.3554 465.942

Perlodidae vs Moronidae 44.12 178.5463 0.25 1 -725.3509 813.5909

Phys idae vs Moronidae 16.22 178.5463 0.09 1 -753.2509 785.6909

Pipidae vs Moronidae -25.78 178.5463 -0.14 1 -795.2509 743.6909

Planorbidae vs Moronidae 63.32001 178.5463 0.35 1 -706.1509 832.7909

Pleuroceridae vs Moronidae -79.74 178.5463 -0.45 1 -849.2109 689.7309

Poeci liidae vs Moronidae -1.299995 138.3014 -0.01 1 -597.3296 594.7296

Ranidae vs Moronidae -51.9 178.5463 -0.29 1 -821.3709 717.5709

Sa lmonidae vs Moronidae -36.523 94.47784 -0.39 1 -443.6887 370.6427

Sphaeriidae vs Moronidae -58.92 178.5463 -0.33 1 -828.3909 710.5509

Tubi ficidae vs Moronidae 21.92 178.5463 0.12 1 -747.5509 791.3909

Page 34: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

34

Unionidae vs Moronidae -93.55941 88.74648 -1.05 1 -476.025 288.9062

Percidae vs Naididae -127.9267 184.4019 -0.69 1 -922.6328 666.7795

Perlodidae vs Naididae -24.10001 225.8452 -0.11 1 -997.4123 949.2123

Phys idae vs Naididae -52 225.8452 -0.23 1 -1025.312 921.3123

Pipidae vs Naididae -94 225.8452 -0.42 1 -1067.312 879.3123

Planorbidae vs Naididae -4.899994 225.8452 -0.02 1 -978.2123 968.4123

Pleuroceridae vs Naididae -147.96 225.8452 -0.66 1 -1121.272 825.3523

Poeci liidae vs Naididae -69.52 195.5877 -0.36 1 -912.4332 773.3932

Ranidae vs Naididae -120.12 225.8452 -0.53 1 -1093.432 853.1923

Sa lmonidae vs Naididae -104.743 167.4913 -0.63 1 -826.5707 617.0847

Sphaeriidae vs Naididae -127.14 225.8452 -0.56 1 -1100.452 846.1723

Tubi ficidae vs Naididae -46.3 225.8452 -0.21 1 -1019.612 927.0123

Unionidae vs Naididae -161.7794 164.3266 -0.98 1 -869.9681 546.4093

Perlodidae vs Percidae 103.8267 184.4019 0.56 1 -690.8795 898.5328

Phys idae vs Percidae 75.92667 184.4019 0.41 1 -718.7795 870.6328

Pipidae vs Percidae 33.92667 184.4019 0.18 1 -760.7795 828.6328

Planorbidae vs Percidae 123.0267 184.4019 0.67 1 -671.6795 917.7328

Pleuroceridae vs Percidae -20.03333 184.4019 -0.11 1 -814.7395 774.6728

Poeci liidae vs Percidae 58.40667 145.7825 0.4 1 -569.8637 686.677

Ranidae vs Percidae 7.806666 184.4019 0.04 1 -786.8995 802.5128

Sa lmonidae vs Percidae 23.18367 105.1252 0.22 1 -429.8685 476.2359

Sphaeriidae vs Percidae 0.7866694 184.4019 0 1 -793.9195 795.4928

Tubi ficidae vs Percidae 81.62667 184.4019 0.44 1 -713.0795 876.3328

Unionidae vs Percidae -33.85274 100.006 -0.34 1 -464.8427 397.1372

Phys idae vs Perlodidae -27.89999 225.8452 -0.12 1 -1001.212 945.4123

Pipidae vs Perlodidae -69.89999 225.8452 -0.31 1 -1043.212 903.4123

Planorbidae vs Perlodidae 19.20001 225.8452 0.09 1 -954.1123 992.5123

Pleuroceridae vs Perlodidae -123.86 225.8452 -0.55 1 -1097.172 849.4523

Poeci liidae vs Perlodidae -45.41999 195.5877 -0.23 1 -888.3332 797.4932

Ranidae vs Perlodidae -96.02 225.8452 -0.43 1 -1069.332 877.2923

Sa lmonidae vs Perlodidae -80.64299 167.4913 -0.48 1 -802.4707 641.1847

Sphaeriidae vs Perlodidae -103.04 225.8452 -0.46 1 -1076.352 870.2723

Tubi ficidae vs Perlodidae -22.2 225.8452 -0.1 1 -995.5123 951.1123

Unionidae vs Perlodidae -137.6794 164.3266 -0.84 1 -845.8681 570.5093

Pipidae vs Physidae -42 225.8452 -0.19 1 -1015.312 931.3123

Planorbidae vs Phys idae 47.10001 225.8452 0.21 1 -926.2123 1020.412

Pleuroceridae vs Physidae -95.96 225.8452 -0.42 1 -1069.272 877.3523

Poeci liidae vs Phys idae -17.52 195.5877 -0.09 1 -860.4332 825.3932

Ranidae vs Physidae -68.12 225.8452 -0.3 1 -1041.432 905.1923

Page 35: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

35

Salmonidae vs Physidae -52.743 167.4913 -0.31 1 -774.5707 669.0847

Sphaeriidae vs Phys idae -75.14 225.8452 -0.33 1 -1048.452 898.1723

Tubi ficidae vs Physidae 5.699997 225.8452 0.03 1 -967.6123 979.0123

Unionidae vs Physidae -109.7794 164.3266 -0.67 1 -817.9681 598.4093

Planorbidae vs Pipidae 89.10001 225.8452 0.39 1 -884.2123 1062.412

Pleuroceridae vs Pipidae -53.96 225.8452 -0.24 1 -1027.272 919.3523

Poeci liidae vs Pipidae 24.48 195.5877 0.13 1 -818.4332 867.3932

Ranidae vs Pipidae -26.12 225.8452 -0.12 1 -999.4323 947.1923

Sa lmonidae vs Pipidae -10.743 167.4913 -0.06 1 -732.5707 711.0847

Sphaeriidae vs Pipidae -33.14 225.8452 -0.15 1 -1006.452 940.1723

Tubi ficidae vs Pipidae 47.7 225.8452 0.21 1 -925.6123 1021.012

Unionidae vs Pipidae -67.77941 164.3266 -0.41 1 -775.9681 640.4093

Pleuroceridae vs Planorbidae -143.06 225.8452 -0.63 1 -1116.372 830.2523

Poeci liidae vs Planorbidae -64.62 195.5877 -0.33 1 -907.5332 778.2932

Ranidae vs Planorbidae -115.22 225.8452 -0.51 1 -1088.532 858.0923

Sa lmonidae vs Planorbidae -99.84301 167.4913 -0.6 1 -821.6707 621.9847

Sphaeriidae vs Planorbidae -122.24 225.8452 -0.54 1 -1095.552 851.0723

Tubi ficidae vs Planorbidae -41.40001 225.8452 -0.18 1 -1014.712 931.9123

Unionidae vs Planorbidae -156.8794 164.3266 -0.95 1 -865.0681 551.3093

Poeci liidae vs Pleuroceridae 78.44 195.5877 0.4 1 -764.4732 921.3532

Ranidae vs Pleuroceridae 27.84 225.8452 0.12 1 -945.4723 1001.152

Sa lmonidae vs Pleuroceridae 43.217 167.4913 0.26 1 -678.6107 765.0447

Sphaeriidae vs Pleuroceridae 20.82 225.8452 0.09 1 -952.4923 994.1323

Tubi ficidae vs Pleuroceridae 101.66 225.8452 0.45 1 -871.6523 1074.972

Unionidae vs Pleuroceridae -13.81941 164.3266 -0.08 1 -722.0081 694.3693

Ranidae vs Poeciliidae -50.60001 195.5877 -0.26 1 -893.5132 792.3132

Sa lmonidae vs Poeciliidae -35.223 123.7005 -0.28 1 -568.3281 497.8821

Sphaeriidae vs Poeciliidae -57.62 195.5877 -0.29 1 -900.5332 785.2932

Tubi ficidae vs Poeciliidae 23.21999 195.5877 0.12 1 -819.6932 866.1332

Unionidae vs Poeciliidae -92.25941 119.3805 -0.77 1 -606.7466 422.2278

Sa lmonidae vs Ranidae 15.377 167.4913 0.09 1 -706.4507 737.2047

Sphaeriidae vs Ranidae -7.019997 225.8452 -0.03 1 -980.3323 966.2923

Tubi ficidae vs Ranidae 73.82 225.8452 0.33 1 -899.4923 1047.132

Unionidae vs Ranidae -41.65941 164.3266 -0.25 1 -749.8481 666.5293

Sphaeriidae vs Salmonidae -22.397 167.4913 -0.13 1 -744.2247 699.4307

Tubi ficidae vs Salmonidae 58.443 167.4913 0.35 1 -663.3847 780.2707

Unionidae vs Salmonidae -57.03641 63.6434 -0.9 1 -331.3167 217.2439

Tubi ficidae vs Sphaeriidae 80.84 225.8452 0.36 1 -892.4723 1054.152

Unionidae vs Sphaeriidae -34.63941 164.3266 -0.21 1 -742.8281 673.5493

Page 36: Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals …wfwqc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Does-Phylogeny... · 2017. 12. 9. · FRESHWATER 2013 document on this

OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT

Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals?

36

Unionidae vs Tubificidae -115.4794 164.3266 -0.7 1 -823.6681 592.7093