SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
jane12058-sup-0001-AppendixFigS1-S6.docWord document392K

Fig. S1. A diagram showing the three experimental treatments and graphical representation of results of the experimental manipulations. The top three panels show the treatments at initiation of the experiment and the lower three those at the end of the experiment. The difference in plant size denotes the above-ground biomass difference among treatments; the earthworm distribution at different soil layers varied between the earthworm and beetle treatments. See text for more details.

Fig. S2. A graphic representation of the physical setting of this study. The total fresh weight of soil, dung pat and plants was 21 ± 1.2 kg (N = 10). See text for more details.

Fig. S3. The effects on predatory beetles on the vertical distribution of the large and small earthworm species in the predator-absent (grey column) and predator-present treatments (black column) for the first (a) and second (b) sampling in the accessory experiment. The different letters above the error bars denote the difference between treatments and between layers was statistically significant at the level of = 0.05, as revealed by a generalized linear mixed model with Poisson errors.

Fig. S4. Variation among the three treatments in the dry mass of residual dung on the soil surface at the end of the experiment. There is no statistical difference among the three treatments at the level of = 0.05, as revealed by one-way anova.

Fig. S5. Variation in plant biomass among the three treatments of (a) forb and (b) grass species at the end of the experiment. The same letters above the error bars denote the difference was statistically insignificant at the level of = 0.05, as revealed by one-way anova followed by Tukey's test.

Fig. S6. Variation among the three treatments in root biomass at the end of the experiment, for both the lower and upper soil layers. The same letters above the error bars denote the difference between treatments (but not between soil layers) was statistically insignificant at the level of = 0.05, as revealed by one-way anovas followed by Turkey's test for the upper and lower soil layer respectively.

jane12058-sup-0002-TableS1-S2.docWord document142K

Table S1. Results of generalized linear mixed model (with binomial distribution) showing the effects of predatory beetles, earthworm species and their interactions on proportion of earthworm at upper soil layer for the primary experiment and the accessory experiment, and the pooled data set.

Table S2. Results of one-way anova showing the treatment effect on plant biomass, dry mass of residual dung, proportion of large and small earthworms at upper layer, soil organic matter, total N and P, available N and P, water content and soil bulk density at both upper and lower layers. Tukey tests were used to determine the difference among three treatments (if any) following the anovas.

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.