marginally significantP = 0.10
However, comparisons of ΔAIC and R 2 indicated that the simpler MAM containing a linear size effect had substantially greater support than the MAM including a marginally significant non-linear response of basal area growth with tree size (DBH 2 : L = 2.71, P = 0.10; ΔAIC for the MAM with a non-linear size effect was only 0.7 points lower than for the model with a linear size effect; Table 2 ).