longitudinal

longitudinal data on female yearly reproductive success and ornament expressio

NB OCCUPATION_DATA

NB OCCUPATION_DAT

INDIV_DATA

INDIV_DAT

Top supported models (90% confidence set) for apparent survival (φ) and recapture (<i>p</i>) of pied flycatchers.

<p>Shown are Akaike information criteria corrected for small sample sizes (AICc), difference in AICc with the top-ranked model (ΔAICc), number of estimable parameters (<i>K</i>), normalized Akaike weights (<i>w_i</i>), and deviance. Subscripts denote age (a2 and a3 corresponding to two and three age-classes respectively), sex (s) and cohort (c). Covariates for heterozygosity: fledgling (HL), father (HL_F), mother (HL_M) and genetic relatedness of the parents (REL). ‘1 yr:’ and ‘2+:’ denote an effect only present from fledgling to first-year and from first-year onwards, respectively. Symbol ‘*’ denotes interaction, and symbol ‘+’ additive effects.</p

Apparent survival probability of adults (from their first-year onwards) in relation to the pairwise genetic relatedness of their parents.

<p>Low values indicate lower relatedness (e.g. relatedness between parent-offspring or full siblings is 0.5). Dashed lines denote 95% confidence limits around the predicted linear trend.</p

Prevalence of APV infections in blood of nestlings and adult pied flycatchers in relation to presence or absence of nest ectoparasitic blowflies.

<p>2005 nestlings: Fisher's exact test, <i>P</i><0.0001; adult males: χ²₁ = 6.00, <i>P</i> = 0.014; adult females: χ²₁ = 5.99, <i>P</i> = 0.014; 2006 nestlings: χ²₁ = 531.74, <i>P</i><0.0001; adult males: χ²₁ = 0.80, <i>P</i> = 0.370; adult females: χ²₁ = 19.74, <i>P</i><0.0001. The Yates' correction for continuity was applied. Numbers above bars are sample sizes (numbers of individuals).</p

Relationship between the number of blowflies in the nest and the prevalence of APV in nestlings in both study years.

<p>Logistic regressions; 2005: <i>B</i> = 1.05, Wald = 118.61, <i>P</i><0.0001, <i>n</i> = 535; 2006: <i>B</i> = 2.55, Wald = 90.22, <i>P</i><0.0001, <i>n</i> = 625.</p

Patterns of habitat selection by red-necked nightjars.

<p>Nesting, roosting and foraging habitats of radio-tagged individuals breeding in the managed and the natural area are shown. Directionality of selection is summarized from <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0104974#pone.0104974.s001" target="_blank">Table S1</a>.</p

Distribution histograms for the modeled movements needs of nightjars breeding in both study areas.

<p>Movement needs of a breeding pair reflect the summed distances from each nest to the nearest roosting and foraging habitats.</p

Spatial configuration of functional habitats for nightjars in the natural (clumped) and the managed area (random). 2a.

<p>Results from the Morańs <i>I</i> index. Sections of the natural (<b>2b</b>) and the managed area (<b>2c</b>) maps illustrating these differences in landscape configuration are also shown.</p