, nlower 39, nupper 6, P 0.33), young fledged (medians for low and higher Computer
, nlower 39, nupper 6, P 0.33), young fledged (medians for low and higher PC2 groups were 0 and young, respectively, W 38, nlower 36, nupper 8, P 0.9), and young made that survive to independence (medians for each low and higher PC2 groups was 0 young, W 37.5, nlower 38, nupper six, P 0.76); or survival (X2(, n 30) 0.0, P 0.92). None from the situation indices CGP 25454A chemical information predicted the number of young fledged by prosperous breeders in either the four or 2year datasets as evidenced by substantial modeluncertainty with the best models having 7 and 9 with the weight, respectively (S2 and S3 Tables). The baseline models are amongst the top rated models in each circumstances. The evidence ratios for the leading model (scaled PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24713140 mass scaled mass2) are 7.0 and 22.0 against the baseline model, and 2.2 and .7 against the linear model of scaled mass for the four and 2year datasets, respectively. In the 4year dataset, the third ideal model (PC2 PC22) is inside two AICc units with the prime model and has an evidence ratio of two.8 against the baseline model, and two.two against the linear model of PC2. Scaled mass had a optimistic impact around the quantity of young that survived to independence from low to above typical mass, but this effect then plateaued in the highest values of scaled mass (Fig two). The effect of scaled mass on reproductive achievement in the 4year analysis (Fig 2A) is qualitatively comparable to that in the 2year analysis (Fig 2B), but is weaker, exhibits significantly less variation and just isn’t evident in all years. From the 2year evaluation, birds with optimal scaled mass are predicted to possess an around threefold boost in reproductive results more than birds with low scaled mass: throughout an typical year for reproductive achievement (2009200), an individual at an optimal scaled mass in a minimum of their secondbreeding season is predicted to create .five 0.7 young that survive to independence when compared with 0.5 0.4 young for an individual having a comparatively low scaled mass (Fig 2B). During the year with high populationwide reproductive accomplishment (20082009), individuals of optimal scaled mass are predicted to generate 3.4 .two young when compared with .two . young for men and women with low scaled mass (Fig 2B). Standard error is substantial about several of the modelaveraged predictions in Fig two as a result of (a) smaller sized sample sizes in the intense higher and low ends of the scaled mass axis, (b) variation inside the raw data (quantity of young created that survive to independence ranged from 0 young), and (c) the big proportion of men and women that fledged no young in all years and categories.SurvivalThe modelaveraged apparent month-to-month survival rate was 0.95 (0.940.96, 95 CI) in the 4year dataset, and 0.96 (0.90.98) in the 2year dataset. The modelaveraged recapture rate varied monthly from 0.50 (0.320.68) to () and from 0.82 (0.630.92) to () for the four and 2year datasets, respectively. Complete QAICc benefits are supplied in S Table. None of the condition indices predict survival as evidenced by high model uncertainty in all analyses with the prime models only obtaining 06 with the weight (S Table). Fat and PC2 inside the 2year dataset improved model match over the baseline model however the baseline model was competitive using the leading model within this and the 4year dataset (S Table).We tested the widespread interpretation of condition indices as proxies for fitness by asking if condition indices predict reproductive good results and survival. We located only partial support for this hypothesis due to the fact even though two condition indices predict annual reproductiv.
