Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Average weekly pan-evaporation for Ithaca, NY/Tompkins County (23 May – 12 September 2012).
- Figure 2.
Average weekly soil moisture for trees in the treatment and control groups.
- Figure 3.
Average weekly soil moisture for trees that were watered and not watered as measured by self-report in surveys.
Tables
- Table 1.
Distribution of trees across site types and distribution of tree species for the treatment and control groups. Cross-tabulations for the control and treatment groups present row percentages of total N.
Total Control Treatment χ2 P-value % (N) % (n) Site type 2.48z 0.31 Single-family home 64.2% 38.5% 61.5% (52) (20) (32) Multi-family home 24.7% 40.0% 60.0% (20) (8) (12) Commercial 11.1% 66.7% 33.3% (9) (6) (3) Species Swamp white oak 35.8% 41.4% 58.6% 2.08 z 0.36 (Quercus bicolor) (29) (12) (17) Glenleven linden 33.3% 51.9% 48.1% (Tilia cordata ‘Glenleven’) (27) (14) (13) Amur maackia 30.9% 32.0% 68.0% (Maackia amurensis) (25) (8) (17) ↵z Fisher’s Exact Test due to cell counts <5.
- Table 2.
Self-reported watering behavior from the final survey for the control and treatment groups.
Control Treatment % (n) % (n) Once per week 16.7% (2) 83.3% (10) Every other week 25.0% (1) 75.0% (3) A few times over the summer 28.6% (2) 71.4% (5) Never 36.4% (4) 63.6% (7) Note: Fisher’s Exact Test = 1.419, P = 0.816.
- Table 3.
Beta coefficients (P-values in parentheses) for multiple linear regression models predicting the impact of each postcard mailing on average weekly soil moisture, controlling for soil compaction and city watering. All regression models include the week prior to the postcard mailing and the week in which the postcard was mailed.
Regression model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Postcard 2 3 4z 5 6 7 8 Weeks 2, 3y 4, 6y 4, 7yx 8, 9yx 10x, 11y 12w, 13y 15, 16y 1. Constant 0.21
(0.00)
***0.23
(0.00)
***0.23
(0.00)
***0.16
(0.00)
***0.20
(0.00)
***0.25
(0.00)
***0.16
(0.00)
***2. Week 0.01
(0.51)−0.03
(0.10)0.04
(0.01)
***0.07
(0.00)
***0.07
(0.00)
***−0.02
(0.27)0.05
(0.01)
***3. Postcard received 0.02
(0.14)−0.02
(0.21)−0.02
(0.24)0.03
(0.11)0.01
(0.47)0.00
(0.92)−0.01
(0.50)4. Postcard-week −0.01
(0.70)0.05
(0.02)
**0.05
(0.04)
**−0.02
(0.46)−0.03
(0.22)−0.02
(0.45)0.00
(0.96)5. Soil compaction 0.003
(0.03)
**0.002
(0.18)0.001
(0.42)0.005
(0.01)
***0.002
(0.27)0.000
(0.83)0.002
(0.18)6. City watering -- -- 0.01
(0.53)0.01
(0.44)−0.02
(0.46)−0.02
(0.44)-- N 158 161 162 157 162 162 162 R 0.24 0.22 0.48 0.41 0.34 0.23 0.34 R2 0.06 0.05 0.23 0.17 0.12 0.05 0.12 Adj. R2 0.03 0.02 0.21 0.14 0.09 0.02 0.09 F 2.24 1.88 9.41 6.02 4.08 1.72 5.12 P-value 0.07
*0.12 0.00
***0.00
***0.00
***0.13 0.00
***↵z This regression model included week seven (when the postcard was mailed) and week four, the last previous week in which a postcard had not been mailed.
↵y Indicates the week the postcard was mailed and the week dummy variable that was entered into the regression model.
↵x Indicates the week in which some of the trees were watered by the city.
Note: Double asterisk (**) indicates P < 0.05; triple asterisk (***) indicates P < 0.01.
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.