Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 3 LMMs investigating whether moving up or down the social ladder resulted in more or less within-ejaculate variation in sperm design or total sperm length

From: Social dominance explains within-ejaculate variation in sperm design in a passerine bird

a) Difference (after – before) in the variation in sperm design
Random effects Estimates ± SE   Z P
 Aviary 0.010 ± 0.010   0.91 0.18
 Sampling date 0.007 ± 0.012   0.58 0.28
Fixed effects   F df P
 Intercept 1.115 ± 1.061    
 Difference in social rank -0.010 ± 0.025 0.18 1, 50.8 0.68
 Body mass (after) -0.027 ± 0.026 1.09 1, 47.3 0.30
 Tarsus length -0.026 ± 0.050 0.27 1, 46 0.60
b) Difference (after – before) in the variation in total sperm length
Random effects Estimates ± SE   Z P
 Aviary 0.107 ± 0.103   1.04 0.15
 Sampling date 0.091 ± 0.141   0.64 0.26
Fixed effects   F df P
 Intercept 10.258 ± 3.224    
 Difference in social rank -0.131 ± 0.075 3.04 1, 50.6 0.09
 Body mass -0.090 ± 0.080 1.26 1, 46.8 0.27
 Tarsus length -0.427 ± 0.150 8.08 1, 45.7 0.007
  1. Values in bold indicate significance at α = 0.05; tests of random effects are based on Wald-Z