Table 1 Summary of statistics of five phylogenetically controlled regression models (Model 1 to Model 5) based on the dataset compiled by the original author

From: Sex differences in avian parental care patterns vary across the breeding cycle

		Estimate(β ± SE)	t	p
Model 1 (N = 1050)	Random effects:
	Phylogeny (λ)	0.59 (0.47– 0.67)
	Fixed effects:
	Intercept	−0.031 ± 0.157	−0.2	–
	Nest incubation	−0.178 ± 0.029	−6.2	5.6e−10
	Offspring provisioning	0.274 ± 0.029	9.6	0
	Sexual selection	−0.103 ± 0.013	−7.9	2.9e−15
	Research effort	0.00002 ± 0.00004	0.5	0.59
Model 2 (N = 180)	Random effects:
	Phylogeny (λ)	0.71 (0.42–0.86)
	Fixed effects:
	Intercept	−0.188 ± 0.188	−1.0	–
	Nest incubation	−0.225 ± 0.064	−3.5	0.0005
	Offspring provisioning	0.349 ± 0.070	4.9	9.6e−07
	EPP	−0.790 ± 0.224	−3.5	0.0005
	Research effort	−0.00003 ± 0.00005	−0.5	0.60
Model 3 (N = 175)	Random effects:
	Phylogeny (λ)	0.69 (0.38–0.86)
	Fixed effects:
	Intercept	−0.183 ± 0.188	−1.0	–
	Nest incubation	−0.220 ± 0.066	−3.3	0.001
	Offspring provisioning	0.378 ± 0.074	5.1	3.4e−07
	EPBr	−0.489 ± 0.157	−3.1	0.002
	Research effort	−0.0000002 ± 0.00006	0.004	0.97
Model 4 (N = 245)	Random effects:
	Phylogeny (λ)	0.65 (0.40–0.80)
	Fixed effects:
	Intercept	−0.293 ± 0.177	−1.6	–
	Nest incubation	−0.329 ± 0.053	−6.2	5.6e−10
	Offspring provisioning	0.459 ± 0.057	8.0	1.3e−15
	Nest daily predation rate	1.060 ± 1.059	1.0	0.32
	Research effort	−0.0001 ± 0.00007	−1.5	0.14
Model 5 (N = 961)	Random effects:
	Phylogeny (λ)	0.68 (0.58−0.75)
	Fixed effects:
	Intercept	1.521 ± 0.345	4.4	–
	Nest incubation	−0.172 ± 0.033	−5.3	1.2e−07
	Offspring provisioning	0.326 ± 0.033	10.1	0
	Nestling developmental time	0.084 ± 0.145	0.6	0.56
	Clutch size	−0.076 ± 0.057	−1.3	0.18
	Research effort	−0.00004 ± 0.00004	−0.9	0.35

For the response variable, Model 1 to Model 4 used the first way of recoding (‘Female care’, ‘Biparental care’ and ‘Male care’ as ‘−1’, ‘0’, and ‘+1’, respectively; species in the ‘Cooperative Breeding’ category were also coded as ‘0’, because breeders and helpers of both sexes contributed to care). Model 5 used the second way of recoding (‘Female care’ and ‘Male care’ as ‘1’, ‘Biparental care’ as ‘2’, and ‘Cooperative Breeding’ as ‘3’). For the random effect (i.e., the phylogenetic tree), the estimated λ is shown. For each fixed effect, the estimate with its standard error (SE), \(t\)-value, and corresponding \(p\)-value are shown (two-sided tests; no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons). Note that, for each model, we ran the model using 100 different phylogenetic trees from Jetz et al.⁹⁴. Results are therefore based on mean estimates for predictor slopes and model-averaged standard errors.

Back to article page

Table 1 Summary of statistics of five phylogenetically controlled regression models (Model 1 to Model 5) based on the dataset compiled by the original author

Search

Quick links