BUSCADOR RECOLECTA

Digital.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC

oai:digital.csic.es:10261/330764

Table S1. Sex- and age-related differences in the wing patch size across the Stonechat population when all birds of known age were examined (e.g., age 0, juveniles; age 1, first-year adults; and so on). The mean, standard error (SE), degrees of freedom (df), and 95% coefficient intervals (CI) for each category are shown. Table S2. Pairwise differences in wing patch size between males and females of the same age-class, and across the age of individuals when all birds of known age were examined (e.g., age 0, juveniles; age 1, first-year adults; and so on). Note that, for the single adult male captured with an age-class of 5 years, comparisons between sexes cannot be made. For each comparison, estimate, standard error (SE), degrees of freedom (df), t-ratio and p-value adjusted by Tukey method are shown. Significant differences are in bold. Table S3. Total number of measurements obtained from the white wing patch of adult males (1) and females (2) during the study period. Only birds measured two or more times are shown. The data are grouped by plumage-year, so that they correspond to the year in which the measured plumage was moulted. For example, a bird with a "2" in 2008 was captured and measured twice between the moult of 2008 and the moult of 2009, i.e. between June 2008 and June 2009. Table S4. The three top-ranked candidate models (< 2 AICc points) resulting from the analysis performed to identify the source of variation of the wing patch size in common stonechat males. The number of identifiable parameters (K), the AICc value, the difference in AICc with respect to the highest-ranked model (ΔAICc), the maximized value of the log-likelihood function (LL), and the models with uninformative parameters (UP) are shown. Table S5. The six top-ranked models (< 2 AICc points) resulting from the analysis performed to identify the source of variation of the wing patch size in common stonechat females. The number of identifiable parameters (K), the AICc value, the difference in AICc with respect to the highest-ranked model (ΔAICc), the maximized value of the log-likelihood function (LL), and the models with uninformative parameters (UP) are shown. Table S6. Baseline and adjusted repeteabilities (R) of wing patch size in male and female stonechats. Baseline repeatabilities were calculated from models including the random effect alone (1|identity), while adjusted repeatabilites were obtained from models fitted with significant fixed effects (age, month, and year). To test the effect of intra-individual consistency within the same plumage-year, here we removed repeated measurements within the same plumage-year (only first measurement taken was kept). Figure S1. Wing plumage photos showing the white patch on a juvenile (top), a female (middle) and a male (bottom) of European Stonechat, Saxicola rubicola rubicola, from our study population. Figure S2. Individual variation in wing patch size within a plumage-year in males (top) and females (bottom). Dots represent individual wing patch measurements, while lines connect measurements from the same individual and plumage-year. Note that two different lines do not necessarily represent measurements from different individuals, if not they can have been taken in a different plumage-year. Annex I. Preliminary analyses conducted to select the effect of mean temperature of May for each sampling year (from 2006 to 2012)., Peer reviewed