diff --git a/data-raw/anonymised_data/master_data.csv b/data-raw/anonymised_data/master_data.csv index dd01bf9..f6ebec6 100644 --- a/data-raw/anonymised_data/master_data.csv +++ b/data-raw/anonymised_data/master_data.csv @@ -13,9 +13,9 @@ Distance to the nearest Eucalyptus canopy correlated negatively with seedlingâ Our analyses of Eucalyptus seedlings show that recruitment at a site is affected negatively by grass, herb and litter cover, but positively by its proximity to mother trees (Eucalyptus canopy), which suggest that seed dispersal and germination are bottleneck processes. Once Eucalyptus seedlings have established, their abundances vary along a north-south gradient of potential evapotranspiration that is associated with other landscape attributes (e.g., change in topography and land-use). It is not entirely clear what are the processes that drive seedlings’ abundances along this gradient. ",neg_q,"R version 3.6.2 Hurdle model was adjusted with the hurdle function from the pscl package version 1.5.5",R,3.6.2,R,3.6.2,NA,NA,Season,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,ExoticAnnualHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,ExoticShrub_cover,NativePerennialFern_cover,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NativePerennialHerb_cover,NativePerennialGraminoid_cover,NA,BareGround_cover,Litter_cover,NA,NA,Euc_canopy_cover,Distance_to_Eucalypt_canopy(m),euc_sdlgs0_50cm,euc_sdlgs50cm-2m,NA,NA,NA,NA,PET,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,SRad_Jul,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bicheno -R_11787O3NmejXKAH,Ayr-1-2-2,1,2,2,NA,NA,484.0193,NA,NA,NA,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_11787O3NmejXKAH,net_rearing_manipulation,3720,0,generalised,standard,12,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,"Chicks reared in clutches of 5-6 were the biggest in weight, tarsus length, and overall growth. Although sibling competition affected chick growth, this effect was outweighed by the random effects of each model, illustrating the importance of parental, geographical, and weather-related influences.",CHECK,R studio Version 1.2.5042,R,NA,R,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,hatch_mom_Ring,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,d0_hatch_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,rear_mom_Ring,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,Date_of_day14,day_14_tarsus_length,day_14_weight,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Ayr -R_11787O3NmejXKAH,Ayr-1-2-3,1,2,3,NA,NA,666.56874,NA,NA,NA,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_11787O3NmejXKAH,net_rearing_manipulation,3720,0,generalised,standard,12,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,"Chicks reared in clutches of 5-6 were the biggest in weight, tarsus length, and overall growth. Although sibling competition affected chick growth, this effect was outweighed by the random effects of each model, illustrating the importance of parental, geographical, and weather-related influences.",CHECK,R studio Version 1.2.5042,R,NA,R,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,hatch_mom_Ring,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,d0_hatch_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,rear_mom_Ring,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,Date_of_day14,day_14_tarsus_length,day_14_weight,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Ayr -R_11787O3NmejXKAH,Ayr-1-2-1,1,2,1,NA,NA,590.18263,NA,NA,NA,blue tit,1,power2.675,power2.675,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight*day_14_tarsus_length,R_11787O3NmejXKAH,net_rearing_manipulation,3720,0,generalised,standard,12,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,"Chicks reared in clutches of 5-6 were the biggest in weight, tarsus length, and overall growth. Although sibling competition affected chick growth, this effect was outweighed by the random effects of each model, illustrating the importance of parental, geographical, and weather-related influences.",CHECK,R studio Version 1.2.5042,R,NA,R,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,hatch_mom_Ring,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,d0_hatch_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,rear_mom_Ring,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,Date_of_day14,day_14_tarsus_length,day_14_weight,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Ayr +R_11787O3NmejXKAH,Ayr-1-2-2,1,2,2,NA,NA,484.0193,NA,NA,NA,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_11787O3NmejXKAH,net_rearing_manipulation,3720,0,generalised,standard,12,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,"Chicks reared in clutches of 5-6 were the biggest in weight, tarsus length, and overall growth. Although sibling competition affected chick growth, this effect was outweighed by the random effects of each model, illustrating the importance of parental, geographical, and weather-related influences.",NA,R studio Version 1.2.5042,R,NA,R,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,hatch_mom_Ring,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,d0_hatch_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,rear_mom_Ring,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,Date_of_day14,day_14_tarsus_length,day_14_weight,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Ayr +R_11787O3NmejXKAH,Ayr-1-2-3,1,2,3,NA,NA,666.56874,NA,NA,NA,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_11787O3NmejXKAH,net_rearing_manipulation,3720,0,generalised,standard,12,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,"Chicks reared in clutches of 5-6 were the biggest in weight, tarsus length, and overall growth. Although sibling competition affected chick growth, this effect was outweighed by the random effects of each model, illustrating the importance of parental, geographical, and weather-related influences.",NA,R studio Version 1.2.5042,R,NA,R,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,hatch_mom_Ring,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,d0_hatch_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,rear_mom_Ring,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,Date_of_day14,day_14_tarsus_length,day_14_weight,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Ayr +R_11787O3NmejXKAH,Ayr-1-2-1,1,2,1,NA,NA,590.18263,NA,NA,NA,blue tit,1,power2.675,power2.675,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight*day_14_tarsus_length,R_11787O3NmejXKAH,net_rearing_manipulation,3720,0,generalised,standard,12,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,"Chicks reared in clutches of 5-6 were the biggest in weight, tarsus length, and overall growth. Although sibling competition affected chick growth, this effect was outweighed by the random effects of each model, illustrating the importance of parental, geographical, and weather-related influences.",NA,R studio Version 1.2.5042,R,NA,R,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,hatch_mom_Ring,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,d0_hatch_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,rear_mom_Ring,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,Date_of_day14,day_14_tarsus_length,day_14_weight,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Ayr R_126erjKKuN3IwSJ,Bega-2-2-1,2,2,1,-4.05,control-enlarged,389.12,2.11,identity,identity,blue tit,1,power2,power2,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_126erjKKuN3IwSJ,rear_nest_trt_C.E,396,0,linear,standard,6,6,4,4,2,2,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"Nestlings in enlarged broods on average had shorter tarsi compared to control broods, but not significantly so, while they had significantly shorter tarsi compared to nestlings in reduced broods (Table 1, Figure 1B, 1D). Nestlings in reduced broods did not have significantly longer tarsi than control nestlings (Table 1, Figure 1B, 1D). Mean tarsus length per nest was significantly lower for larger experimental broods and for broods in which more nestlings died. The laying date did not affect mean tarsus length significantly.",neg_q,R 3.5.0,R,3.5.0,R,3.5.0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_OH,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,brood_reduction,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bega R_126erjKKuN3IwSJ,Bega-2-2-2,2,2,2,-2.55,reduced-control,384.09,1.91,identity,identity,blue tit,1,power2,power2,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_126erjKKuN3IwSJ,rear_nest_trt_R.C,396,0,linear,standard,6,6,4,4,2,2,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"Nestlings in enlarged broods on average had shorter tarsi compared to control broods, but not significantly so, while they had significantly shorter tarsi compared to nestlings in reduced broods (Table 1, Figure 1B, 1D). Nestlings in reduced broods did not have significantly longer tarsi than control nestlings (Table 1, Figure 1B, 1D). Mean tarsus length per nest was significantly lower for larger experimental broods and for broods in which more nestlings died. The laying date did not affect mean tarsus length significantly.",neg_q,R 3.5.0,R,3.5.0,R,3.5.0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_OH,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,brood_reduction,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bega R_126erjKKuN3IwSJ,Bega-1-1-1,1,1,1,-9.2,control-enlarged,388.5,2.45,identity,identity,blue tit,1,power2,power2,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_126erjKKuN3IwSJ,rear_nest_trt_C.E,396,0,linear,standard,6,6,4,4,2,2,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"We found mean weight per brood to be significantly lower in the enlarged broods compared to the control and reduced broods, while nestlings in reduced broods were not significantly heavier than nestlings in control broods (Table 1, Figure 1A, 1C). Mean weight was significantly lower for larger experimental brood sizes, broods that were laid later in the year, and nests in which a higher number of nestlings died.",neg_q,R 3.5.0,R,3.5.0,R,3.5.0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_OH,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,brood_reduction,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bega @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ R_1E099fIoICERZIZ,Burr-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.98505,reduced-enlarged,459.58,0.04284,iden R_1E6WYqro4x6Nnz8,Byng-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,316.17526,0.09247,logit,logit,blue tit,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),Mortality was defined as the number of chicks at start of rearing (variable rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing) minus the number of fledged chicks (variable number_chicks_fledged_from_rear_nest) out of the number of chicks at start of rearing.,NA,R_1E6WYqro4x6Nnz8,NA,NA,0,generalised,standard,7,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,"Data from this experiment show that experimentally increasing or reducing brood size by approximately one quarter by moving chicks between nests caused higher mortality in increased broods to about 18%, compared to about 7% in decreased broods. Surviving chicks on day 14 in increased broods had lower body weight by about 1 g and shorter tarsometatarsal bones by about 0.4 mm compared to those in decreased broods. This shows that competition with siblings can have large effects on growth of nestling blue tits.",neg_c,R version 4.0.0,R,4.0.0,R,4.0.0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,number_chicks_fledged_from_rear_nest,NA,day_14_tarsus_length,day_14_weight,day14_measurer,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Byng R_1Ej3sywrrnzy7KJ,Birchip-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.19713,slope,172.1218,0.06731,log,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),"I summed euc_sdlgs50cm-2m, euc_sdlgs>2m and euc_sdlgs0_50cm",euc_sdlgs_all,R_1Ej3sywrrnzy7KJ,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NA,0,generalised,standard,6,6,3,3,3,3,0,0,retain,retain,exclude,It appears that exotic perennial grass cover and native perennial grass cover have a negative effect on eucalyptus seedling count!,neg_c,R version 4.0.0,R,4.0.0,R,4.0.0,NA,Date,NA,Property,Quadrat no,NA,NA,NA,NA,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,NA,NA,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,NA,NA,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Birchip R_1eXlFKlQdiD2F59,Cape-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.49,slope,225.996,0.052,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_1eXlFKlQdiD2F59,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,2626,0,linear,standard,10,11,6,7,4,4,1,0,exclude,retain,NA,NA,neg_c,NA,R,3.6.2,R,3.6.2,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,rear_Box,NA,NA,NA,home_or_away,rear_nest_LD,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,day14_measurer,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Cape -R_1eXlFKlQdiD2F59,Cape-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.022548,slope,26.45,0.178,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_1eXlFKlQdiD2F59,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,0,linear,standard,0,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,retain,NA,NA,CHECK,NA,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Cape +R_1eXlFKlQdiD2F59,Cape-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.022548,slope,26.45,0.178,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_1eXlFKlQdiD2F59,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,0,linear,standard,0,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,retain,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Cape R_1f9Lv1lWGLjMFk8,Clar-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.04298,slope,18,0.01459,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),"This variable was constructed by pairing groups of individuals with different treatments (rear_nest_trt) based on several variables, finding the mean day_14_tarsus_length for each group, and taking the difference between those means. The groups were made by pairing individuals with the same mother (hatch_nest_breed_ID), father (genetic_dad_ring_(WP_or_EP)), sex (chick_sex_molec), rear nest area (rear_area), and person who measured them (day14_measurer). Note: Because I modelled differences between groups of individuals that I paired (change in weight/size for every additional sibling), I cannot make predictions for the new data provided (single individuals that cannot be paired in the same manner)",day_14_tarsus_length_group_deviation,R_1f9Lv1lWGLjMFk8,net_rearing_manipulation,76,0,linear,standard,2,2,1,1,1,1,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"For both measures of chick size, the magnitude of difference between the two treatments significantly improved models of the difference in chick size (tarsus length: Χ2 = 7.5, df = 1, p-value = 0.006; weight: Χ2 = 13.2, df = 1, p-value < 0.001). Also, in line with the expectation that manipulations that do not change the number of siblings will not affect chick size, the addition of a non-zero y-intercept did not improve model fits (tarsus length: Χ2 = 0.81, df = 1, p-value = 0.37; weight: Χ2 = 0.05, df = 1, p-value =0.82). According to the final models, for every additional sibling in a nest, chicks had 0.04 mm (SE = 0.015 mm) shorter tarsi and were 0.14 g (SE = 0.034 g) lighter (Table 1, Figure 1).",neg_c,R version 4.0.0,R,4.0.0,R,4.0.0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Clar R_1f9Lv1lWGLjMFk8,Clar-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.1444,slope,18,0.03388,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),"This variable was constructed by pairing groups of individuals with different treatments (rear_nest_trt) based on several variables, finding the mean day_14_weight for each group, and taking the difference between those means. The groups were made by pairing individuals with the same mother (hatch_nest_breed_ID), father (genetic_dad_ring_(WP_or_EP)), sex (chick_sex_molec), rear nest area (rear_area), and person who measured them (day14_measurer). Note: Because I modelled differences between groups of individuals that I paired (change in weight/size for every additional sibling), I cannot make predictions for the new data provided (single individuals that cannot be paired in the same manner)",day_14_weight_group_deviation,R_1f9Lv1lWGLjMFk8,net_rearing_manipulation,76,0,linear,standard,2,2,1,1,1,1,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"For both measures of chick size, the magnitude of difference between the two treatments significantly improved models of the difference in chick size (tarsus length: Χ2 = 7.5, df = 1, p-value = 0.006; weight: Χ2 = 13.2, df = 1, p-value < 0.001). Also, in line with the expectation that manipulations that do not change the number of siblings will not affect chick size, the addition of a non-zero y-intercept did not improve model fits (tarsus length: Χ2 = 0.81, df = 1, p-value = 0.37; weight: Χ2 = 0.05, df = 1, p-value =0.82). According to the final models, for every additional sibling in a nest, chicks had 0.04 mm (SE = 0.015 mm) shorter tarsi and were 0.14 g (SE = 0.034 g) lighter (Table 1, Figure 1).",neg_c,R version 4.0.0,R,4.0.0,R,4.0.0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Clar R_1ff6slHNcrTJ2JS,Clev-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.167,slope,180.5,0.01431,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_1ff6slHNcrTJ2JS,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,1764,0,linear,standard,12,12,4,4,8,8,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"Enlarging broods led to worse outcomes both for individual nestlings and for reproductive success of parents. @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ R_1GEw0p99dpeSW3E,Alban-4-4-1,4,4,1,NA,NA,366.3,0.029,logit,logit,blue tit,1,NA, R_1GEw0p99dpeSW3E,Alban-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.052,slope,333.265,0.005,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_1GEw0p99dpeSW3E,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,3333,0,linear,standard,9,9,3,3,6,6,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"Higher level of sibling competition, as in enlarged broods, reduced nestling body mass and tarsus length before fledging and also reduced fledging success.",neg_c,R 3.6.1,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,hatch_Box,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,NA,rear_Box,NA,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,Date_of_day14,NA,NA,day14_measurer,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Alban R_1GEw0p99dpeSW3E,Alban-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.148,slope,273.604,0.012,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_1GEw0p99dpeSW3E,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,3333,0,linear,standard,9,9,3,3,6,6,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"Higher level of sibling competition, as in enlarged broods, reduced nestling body mass and tarsus length before fledging and also reduced fledging success.",neg_c,R 3.6.1,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_breed_ID,hatch_Area,hatch_Box,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,NA,rear_Box,NA,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,Date_of_day14,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Alban R_1GEw0p99dpeSW3E,Alban-3-3-1,3,3,1,NA,NA,NA,0.042,logit,logit,blue tit,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),I used a two-column variable that combines the number of chicks that successfully fledged and the number of chicks that failed for each nest.,NA,R_1GEw0p99dpeSW3E,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,0,generalised,standard,5,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,"Higher level of sibling competition, as in enlarged broods, reduced nestling body mass and tarsus length before fledging and also reduced fledging success.",neg_c,R 3.6.1,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,NA,rear_Box,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,number_chicks_fledged_from_rear_nest,Date_of_day14,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Alban -R_1GJlffAgZv6SY4y,Alpha-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,blue tit,NA,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,NA,R_1GJlffAgZv6SY4y,NA,NA,CHECK,CHECK,standard,2,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,"a) The experiment was poorly planned to answer the question +R_1GJlffAgZv6SY4y,Alpha-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,blue tit,NA,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,NA,R_1GJlffAgZv6SY4y,NA,NA,NA,NA,standard,2,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,"a) The experiment was poorly planned to answer the question or @@ -93,8 +93,8 @@ R_1LRqq2WHrQaENtM,Boorowa-1-1-1,1,1,1,0.23292,slope,78.64149,0.06493,log,log,euc R_1LRqq2WHrQaENtM,Boorowa-1-2-1,1,2,1,-0.026084,slope,335.40604,0.028092,log,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs50cm_2m,R_1LRqq2WHrQaENtM,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,348,0,generalised,standard,6,6,3,3,3,3,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"Grass cover, especially exotic grasses, has a negative effect on the establishment of Eucalyptus spp. seedlings.",neg_c,Rstudio Version 1.2.5042,R,NA,R,NA,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,NA,NA,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,NA,NA,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,annual_precipitation,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Boorowa R_1LTZWsikoIaKdMu,Brookto-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.101004592,slope,324,0.0749372,log,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),euc_sdlgs50cm_2m + euc_sdlgs0-50cm + euc_sdlgs>2m,euc_sdlgs_all,R_1LTZWsikoIaKdMu,all_grass,276,0,generalised,mixture_model,9,9,7,7,2,2,0,0,retain,retain,NA,Grass cover does not significantly affect Eucalyptus spp. seedling recruitment across the sampled properties.,none_c,R 4.0.0,R,4.0.0,R,4.0.0,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,ExoticAnnualHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,ExoticShrub_cover,NativePerennialFern_cover,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NativePerennialHerb_cover,NativePerennialGraminoid_cover,NativeShrub_cover,BareGround_cover,Litter_cover,MossLichen_cover,Rock_cover,Euc_canopy_cover,Distance_to_Eucalypt_canopy(m),euc_sdlgs0_50cm,euc_sdlgs50cm-2m,euc_sdlgs>2m,NA,NA,NA,PET,NA,K_perc,Th_ppm,U_ppm,NA,NA,all_grass,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,soilPC1,coverPC1,coverPC2,coverPC3,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Brookto R_1LXqc8NAdABndjl,Broulee-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,NA,0.57,log,log,eucalyptus,0,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs50cm_2m,R_1LXqc8NAdABndjl,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,NA,1,generalised,standard,12,13,9,10,3,3,1,0,retain,exclude_all,NA,"There are to different principal results: 1) When we look for variation between seasons recruitment significantly decreases in winter as a function of exotic annual grass cover and exotic perennial grass. On another hand, recruitment increasing in spring in response to native perennial grass. Finally, recruitment declines in the autumn in response to perennial grass cover (both native and exotic; 2) The structural model shows that eucalyptus recruitment had a negative indirect effect by native perennial grass and exotic annual grass via eucalyptus establishment.",mixed,All analysis as performed using R 4.0.1 (2020-06-06),R,4.0.1,R,4.0.1,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,Landscape position,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,NA,NA,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,NA,NA,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,Litter_cover,NA,NA,NA,Distance_to_Eucalypt_canopy(m),euc_sdlgs0_50cm,NA,NA,annual_precipitation,NA,NA,NA,NA,K_perc,NA,NA,NA,SRad_Jul,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Broulee -R_1M0cMZL2IPYWHoi,Bruthen-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,eucalyptus,NA,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs_all,R_1M0cMZL2IPYWHoi,NA,NA,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,NA,CHECK,NA,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bruthen -R_1M0cMZL2IPYWHoi,Buderim-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs_all,R_1M0cMZL2IPYWHoi,NA,NA,1,generalised,CHECK,18,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,"""How does grass cover influence Eucalyptus spp. seedling recruitment?"" was not the research question!! +R_1M0cMZL2IPYWHoi,Bruthen-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,eucalyptus,NA,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs_all,R_1M0cMZL2IPYWHoi,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bruthen +R_1M0cMZL2IPYWHoi,Buderim-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs_all,R_1M0cMZL2IPYWHoi,NA,NA,1,generalised,NA,18,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,"""How does grass cover influence Eucalyptus spp. seedling recruitment?"" was not the research question!! The questions were the following: @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ R_1o4ElmLsRiBa4FJ,Bargo-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.026830707,slope,383.391807,0.009092046,id R_1o4ElmLsRiBa4FJ,Bargo-3-3-1,3,3,1,-0.0295659,slope,299.30603,0.010420679,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_1o4ElmLsRiBa4FJ,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,3189,0,linear,standard,14,16,6,8,8,8,0,2,retain,retain,NA,"Overall, our results showed that the more competition, the less nestlings grow. These results were particularly evident when focusing on nestlings’ body mass rather than tarsus length, which is likely due to the larger lability (and lower heritability) of body mass compared to tarsus length.",neg_c,R programming language v.3.5.1 (R Core Team 2018),R,3.5.1,R,3.5.1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,hatch_mom_Ring,NA,NA,NA,genetic_dad_ring_(WP_or_EP),NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,rear_mom_Ring,rear_dad_Ring,rear_nest_trt,home_or_away,NA,NA,rear_nest_OH,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,day14_measurer,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,brood_mortality,NA,Bargo R_1o4ElmLsRiBa4FJ,Bargo-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.09949535,slope,394.77937,0.018919666,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_1o4ElmLsRiBa4FJ,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,3189,0,linear,standard,10,12,6,8,4,4,0,2,retain,retain,NA,"Overall, our results showed that the more competition, the less nestlings grow. These results were particularly evident when focusing on nestlings’ body mass rather than tarsus length, which is likely due to the larger lability (and lower heritability) of body mass compared to tarsus length.",neg_c,R programming language v.3.5.1 (R Core Team 2018),R,3.5.1,R,3.5.1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,rear_mom_Ring,NA,rear_nest_trt,home_or_away,NA,NA,rear_nest_OH,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,brood_mortality,NA,Bargo R_1o4ElmLsRiBa4FJ,Bargo-4-4-1,4,4,1,-0.112223317,slope,320.77503,0.020133793,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_1o4ElmLsRiBa4FJ,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,3189,0,linear,standard,13,15,6,8,7,7,0,2,retain,retain,NA,"Overall, our results showed that the more competition, the less nestlings grow. These results were particularly evident when focusing on nestlings’ body mass rather than tarsus length, which is likely due to the larger lability (and lower heritability) of body mass compared to tarsus length.",neg_c,R programming language v.3.5.1 (R Core Team 2018),R,3.5.1,R,3.5.1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,hatch_mom_Ring,NA,NA,NA,genetic_dad_ring_(WP_or_EP),NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,rear_mom_Ring,rear_dad_Ring,rear_nest_trt,home_or_away,NA,NA,rear_nest_OH,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,brood_mortality,NA,Bargo -R_1QlnXdW5tKuUQIr,Capella-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,343.24787,0.2328,log,log,eucalyptus,NA,check.mixed.team,check.mixed.team,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),"We added ""euc_sdlgs0_50cm"" and ""euc_sdlgs50cm-2m"" together",euc_sdlgs>2m,R_1QlnXdW5tKuUQIr,CHECK,NA,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,22,NA,20,NA,2,NA,NA,NA,check.mixed.team,CHECK,NA,"Both net_rearing_manipulation and rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing were associated with the outcome variables, though net_rearing_manipulation was not significantly associated with tarsus length in my final model. Net_rearing_manipulation was still associated with weight, so an increase in the number of chicks in the nest was linked to lower weights. Similarly, more rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing was linked shorter tarsus lengths and lower weights. More siblings, and presumably additional competition, was on balance worse for nestling growth. +R_1QlnXdW5tKuUQIr,Capella-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,343.24787,0.2328,log,log,eucalyptus,NA,NA.mixed.team,NA.mixed.team,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),"We added ""euc_sdlgs0_50cm"" and ""euc_sdlgs50cm-2m"" together",euc_sdlgs>2m,R_1QlnXdW5tKuUQIr,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,22,NA,20,NA,2,NA,NA,NA,NA.mixed.team,NA,NA,"Both net_rearing_manipulation and rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing were associated with the outcome variables, though net_rearing_manipulation was not significantly associated with tarsus length in my final model. Net_rearing_manipulation was still associated with weight, so an increase in the number of chicks in the nest was linked to lower weights. Similarly, more rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing was linked shorter tarsus lengths and lower weights. More siblings, and presumably additional competition, was on balance worse for nestling growth. I was especially interested in the interactions I might find between net_rearing_manipulation or rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing and other variables, but for the most part, I could not confirm any such relationships. The exception was the interaction between net_rearing_manipulation and the square of hatch_nest_LD. This suggests that chicks in nests manipulated to have more chicks had greater growth when the lay date of the nest that chick was born in was later in the month.",neg_q,R 3.6.1,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,hatch_Area,NA,NA,NA,Extra-pair_paternity,NA,NA,hatch_nest_LD,hatch_nest_CS,hatch_nest_OH,d0_hatch_nest_brood_size,d14_hatch_nest_brood_size,NA,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,NA,home_or_away,rear_nest_LD,rear_nest_CS,rear_nest_OH,rear_d0_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,Date_of_day14,day_14_tarsus_length,day_14_weight,day14_measurer,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Capella R_1QoRu2birFKL9Hx,Berry-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.05996286,slope,150.69387,0.005510245,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_1QoRu2birFKL9Hx,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,1854,0,linear,standard,8,8,2,2,6,6,0,0,retain,retain,NA,Sibling competition significantly affects the growth of nestling blue tits.,neg_c,R 3.6.3,R,3.6.3,R,3.6.3,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,rear_Box,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,day14_measurer,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,parentage,NA,NA,NA,NA,Berry @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ loaded via a namespace (and not attached): [31] randomForest_4.6-14 R6_2.4.1 markdown_1.1 HDInterval_0.2.0 promises_1.1.0 [36] scales_1.1.1 multcomp_1.4-13 gtable_0.3.0 globals_0.12.5 lwgeom_0.2-3 [41] processx_3.4.2 sandwich_2.5-1 rlang_0.4.6 systemfonts_0.2.2 splines_4.0.0 - [46] dichromat_2.0-0 checkmate_2.0.0 broom_0.5.6 inline_0.3.15 yaml_2.2.1 + [46] dichromat_2.0-0 NAmate_2.0.0 broom_0.5.6 inline_0.3.15 yaml_2.2.1 [51] reshape2_1.4.4 abind_1.4-5 modelr_0.1.7 threejs_0.3.3 crosstalk_1.1.0.1 [56] backports_1.1.7 httpuv_1.5.2 rsconnect_0.8.16 tools_4.0.0 ellipsis_0.3.1 [61] raster_3.1-5 RColorBrewer_1.1-2 ggridges_0.5.2 plyr_1.8.6 base64enc_0.1-3 @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ R_21an1zgH6j5Vfds,Bowen-3-1-1,3,1,1,-0.02393115,control-enlarged,341.4158107,0.0 R_21an1zgH6j5Vfds,Bowen-3-1-2,3,1,2,0.06052492,reduced-control,294.3330071,0.10300167,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_21an1zgH6j5Vfds,rear_nest_trt_R.C,NA,0,linear,standard,13,13,8,8,5,5,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"We found no impact of clutch manipulation on hatchling tarsus length at 14 days old (Table 1). We found that tarsus lengths were shorter in year 2003 compared to 2001 (Table 1). Offspring with extra-pair paternity, male offspring, and offspring reared in transplanted nests were associated with larger tarsus (Table 1). While offspring sex accounted for approximately 10% of tarsus length variation, the other factors had little impact on tarsus length, with average effect sizes below 2% and a model effect size of 26% (Table 2).",none_c,R,R,NA,R,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,hatch_Area,NA,hatch_mom_Ring,NA,Extra-pair_paternity,NA,NA,hatch_nest_LD,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,rear_mom_Ring,NA,rear_nest_trt,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,rear_d0_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,day14_measurer,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bowen R_21an1zgH6j5Vfds,Bowen-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.2625701,control-enlarged,310.7019316,0.1951243,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_21an1zgH6j5Vfds,rear_nest_trt_C.E,NA,0,linear,standard,15,15,10,10,5,5,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"We found an impact of clutch manipulation on hatchling weight at 14 days old, with hatchlings from nests with increased clutch sizes weighing less than hatchling from control nests (Table 3). While there was a trend for hatchlings from 2002 to be smaller than 2001, hatching from 2003 were smaller than 2001 as well as hatchlings whose eggs were laid later in the season (Table 3). Additionally, clutch size in the rearing nests at the start of rearing had a negative relation with hatchling weight. Finally, offspring reared in transplanted nests weighed more than offspring reared in their home nests (Table 3). The magnitude of these changes ranged from 1-9%, with competition parameters (clutch size and nest treatment) having effect sizes of 1-7% while the overall model explained 38% of the variation (Table 4).",neg_c,R,R,NA,R,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,hatch_Area,NA,hatch_mom_Ring,NA,Extra-pair_paternity,NA,NA,hatch_nest_LD,hatch_nest_CS,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,rear_mom_Ring,rear_dad_Ring,rear_nest_trt,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,day14_measurer,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_incub_length,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bowen R_21an1zgH6j5Vfds,Bowen-2-2-2,2,2,2,0.554332197,reduced-control,269.5614069,0.211119281,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_21an1zgH6j5Vfds,rear_nest_trt_R.C,NA,0,linear,standard,15,15,10,10,5,5,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"We found an impact of clutch manipulation on hatchling weight at 14 days old, with hatchlings from nests with increased clutch sizes weighing less than hatchling from control nests (Table 3). While there was a trend for hatchlings from 2002 to be smaller than 2001, hatching from 2003 were smaller than 2001 as well as hatchlings whose eggs were laid later in the season (Table 3). Additionally, clutch size in the rearing nests at the start of rearing had a negative relation with hatchling weight. Finally, offspring reared in transplanted nests weighed more than offspring reared in their home nests (Table 3). The magnitude of these changes ranged from 1-9%, with competition parameters (clutch size and nest treatment) having effect sizes of 1-7% while the overall model explained 38% of the variation (Table 4).",neg_c,R,R,NA,R,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,hatch_Area,NA,hatch_mom_Ring,NA,Extra-pair_paternity,NA,NA,hatch_nest_LD,hatch_nest_CS,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,rear_mom_Ring,rear_dad_Ring,rear_nest_trt,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,day14_measurer,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_incub_length,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bowen -R_21gmMa0uclrNoTP,Bulli-2-1-1,2,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,identity,identity,blue tit,NA,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_21gmMa0uclrNoTP,NA,NA,CHECK,linear,CHECK,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,NA,CHECK,NA,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bulli +R_21gmMa0uclrNoTP,Bulli-2-1-1,2,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,identity,identity,blue tit,NA,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_21gmMa0uclrNoTP,NA,NA,NA,linear,NA,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bulli R_21gmMa0uclrNoTP,Bulli-1-1-2,1,1,2,-1.07071,control-enlarged,358.567,0.14791,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_21gmMa0uclrNoTP,rear_nest_trt_C.E,2606,0,linear,standard,7,9,5,7,2,2,2,0,retain,retain,NA,"I conclude that inhibited nestling growth is associated with an increase in sibling competition, but an increase in nestling growth is not as strong associated with a decrease in sibling competition.",neg_q,R 3.6.0,R,3.6.0,R,3.6.0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_LD,hatch_nest_CS,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bulli R_21gmMa0uclrNoTP,Bulli-1-2-2,1,2,2,-0.97987,control-enlarged,359.3927,0.13229,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_21gmMa0uclrNoTP,rear_nest_trt_C.E,2606,0,linear,standard,7,7,5,5,2,2,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"I conclude that inhibited nestling growth is associated with an increase in sibling competition, but an increase in nestling growth is not as strong associated with a decrease in sibling competition.",neg_q,R 3.6.0,R,3.6.0,R,3.6.0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_LD,hatch_nest_CS,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bulli R_21gmMa0uclrNoTP,Bulli-1-1-1,1,1,1,0.01272,reduced-control,365.6073,0.14793,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_21gmMa0uclrNoTP,rear_nest_trt_R.C,2606,0,linear,standard,7,9,5,7,2,2,2,0,retain,retain,NA,"I conclude that inhibited nestling growth is associated with an increase in sibling competition, but an increase in nestling growth is not as strong associated with a decrease in sibling competition.",neg_q,R 3.6.0,R,3.6.0,R,3.6.0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_LD,hatch_nest_CS,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bulli @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ R_2EgAnNXZmEg7LoJ,Atherton-2-2-1,2,2,1,-1.07242,slope,345.792235,0.3493,log,log, R_2eQ3csRDLG0n4YO,Bell-3-8-1,3,8,1,NA,NA,NA,0.01409,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_2eQ3csRDLG0n4YO,NA,3720,0,linear,standard,8,NA,4,NA,4,NA,0,NA,exclude,exclude_all,exclude,"Body mass showed similar relationships. Body mass was lower in broods with increased size, and was negatively related to the net change in brood size. Additionally, body mass was negatively related to the brood size at day 14 when mass was measured.",neg_c,R 3.2.3,R,3.2.3,R,3.2.3,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_LD,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,Date_of_day14,NA,NA,day14_measurer,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bell R_2eQ3csRDLG0n4YO,Bell-2-7-1,2,7,1,NA,NA,NA,0.008781,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_2eQ3csRDLG0n4YO,NA,NA,0,linear,standard,8,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,exclude,"Body mass showed similar relationships. Body mass was lower in broods with increased size, and was negatively related to the net change in brood size. Additionally, body mass was negatively related to the brood size at day 14 when mass was measured.",neg_c,R 3.2.3,R,3.2.3,R,3.2.3,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_LD,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_d0_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Date_of_day14,NA,NA,day14_measurer,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bell R_2eQ3csRDLG0n4YO,Bell-1-6-1,1,6,1,NA,NA,NA,0.014853,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_2eQ3csRDLG0n4YO,net_rearing_manipulation,3720,0,linear,standard,9,NA,5,NA,4,NA,0,NA,exclude,exclude_all,exclude,"Body mass showed similar relationships. Body mass was lower in broods with increased size, and was negatively related to the net change in brood size. Additionally, body mass was negatively related to the brood size at day 14 when mass was measured.",neg_c,R 3.2.3,R,3.2.3,R,3.2.3,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_LD,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,NA,NA,NA,Date_of_day14,NA,NA,day14_measurer,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bell -R_2Pjoz1X4q5XRClO,Anakie-2-1-1,2,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,identity,identity,blue tit,NA,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_2Pjoz1X4q5XRClO,NA,NA,CHECK,CHECK,standard,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,NA,CHECK,NA,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Anakie +R_2Pjoz1X4q5XRClO,Anakie-2-1-1,2,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,identity,identity,blue tit,NA,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_2Pjoz1X4q5XRClO,NA,NA,NA,NA,standard,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Anakie R_2Pjoz1X4q5XRClO,Aramac-1-1-1,1,1,1,-1.117943,control-enlarged,496.444018,0.1106223,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_2Pjoz1X4q5XRClO,rear_nest_trt_C.E,3720,1,linear,standard,8,8,4,4,4,4,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"From my results, I would mainly conclude that increased competition with siblings by brood size increase reduces nestling growth. However, reducing sibling competition by reducing brood size does not impact the growth of nestlings: they do not have enhanced growth because of reduced competition. Another conclusion from my results would be that nestlings reared away from their natal nest tend to have an increased growth compared to chicks reared in their natal nest. This would mean that nestlings get a competitive advantage when reared by foster parents, surrounded mostly by non-kin “siblings”. ",neg_q,"For data preparation and analyses, the software R version 3.5.1 (2018-07-02) was used. More specifically, the software JAGS 4.3.0. was used for analyses, but the R package ‘R2jags’ version 0.5-7 was used to run JAGS through R.",R,3.5.1,"R,JAGS","3.5.1,4.3.0",NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,home_or_away,NA,NA,rear_nest_OH,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Aramac @@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ R_2zj7U8UJE7GgEYS,Beachpor-2-2-1,2,2,1,-7.66E-04,slope,103,0.0097312,identity,id R_2zj7U8UJE7GgEYS,Beachpor-2-2-2,2,2,2,-0.0255903,slope,103,0.0167391,identity,identity,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs50cm_2m,R_2zj7U8UJE7GgEYS,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,348,0,linear,standard,16,16,13,13,3,3,0,0,retain,exclude_partial,NA,Grass cover did not have an influence on Eucalyptus spp. seedling recruitment.,none_c,R 4.0.0,R,4.0.0,R,4.0.0,NA,NA,Season,NA,NA,Easting,Northing,NA,NA,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,ExoticAnnualHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,ExoticShrub_cover,NativePerennialFern_cover,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NA,NativePerennialGraminoid_cover,NativeShrub_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,Euc_canopy_cover,NA,euc_sdlgs0_50cm,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,MrVBF,K_perc,Th_ppm,U_ppm,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Beachpor R_2zj7U8UJE7GgEYS,Beachpor-2-2-3,2,2,3,0.0106045,slope,103,0.0088735,identity,identity,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs50cm_2m,R_2zj7U8UJE7GgEYS,NativePerennialGrass_cover,348,0,linear,standard,16,16,13,13,3,3,0,0,retain,exclude_partial,NA,Grass cover did not have an influence on Eucalyptus spp. seedling recruitment.,none_c,R 4.0.0,R,4.0.0,R,4.0.0,NA,NA,Season,NA,NA,Easting,Northing,NA,NA,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,ExoticAnnualHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,ExoticShrub_cover,NativePerennialFern_cover,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NA,NativePerennialGraminoid_cover,NativeShrub_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,Euc_canopy_cover,NA,euc_sdlgs0_50cm,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,MrVBF,K_perc,Th_ppm,U_ppm,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Beachpor R_2zNKAmJcWbM4QtY,Beaufort-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.005413,slope,300.87375,0.007008,logit,logit,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),"1 if there is at least one seedling in the plot; 0 if no seedlings. using sdlgs_total, which was the sum of the counts in the three seedling size classes, the following code was used to generate this field: ifelse(sdlgs_total > 0, 1, 0)",NA,R_2zNKAmJcWbM4QtY,NA,NA,0,generalised,standard,12,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,retain,NA,"this dataset does not provide sufficient evidence to declare a significant effect of herbaceous vegetation cover on seedling recruitment, either by counts or by presence/absence, given variation in seedling availability",none_q,R v3.6.1,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,ExoticAnnualHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,NA,NativePerennialFern_cover,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NativePerennialHerb_cover,NativePerennialGraminoid_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Euc_canopy_cover,Distance_to_Eucalypt_canopy(m),NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Beaufort -R_2zNKAmJcWbM4QtY,Beaufort-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.002738,slope,129.6381,0.005301,log,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),"total count of seedlings in a quadrat, in all size classes: euc_sdlgs0_50cm + euc_sdlgs50cm.2m + euc_sdlgs.2m",NA,R_2zNKAmJcWbM4QtY,NA,NA,0,CHECK,standard,12,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,retain,NA,"this dataset does not provide sufficient evidence to declare a significant effect of herbaceous vegetation cover on seedling recruitment, either by counts or by presence/absence, given variation in seedling availability",none_q,R v3.6.1,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,ExoticAnnualHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,NA,NativePerennialFern_cover,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NativePerennialHerb_cover,NativePerennialGraminoid_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Euc_canopy_cover,Distance_to_Eucalypt_canopy(m),NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Beaufort +R_2zNKAmJcWbM4QtY,Beaufort-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.002738,slope,129.6381,0.005301,log,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),"total count of seedlings in a quadrat, in all size classes: euc_sdlgs0_50cm + euc_sdlgs50cm.2m + euc_sdlgs.2m",NA,R_2zNKAmJcWbM4QtY,NA,NA,0,NA,standard,12,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,retain,NA,"this dataset does not provide sufficient evidence to declare a significant effect of herbaceous vegetation cover on seedling recruitment, either by counts or by presence/absence, given variation in seedling availability",none_q,R v3.6.1,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,ExoticAnnualHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,NA,NativePerennialFern_cover,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NativePerennialHerb_cover,NativePerennialGraminoid_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Euc_canopy_cover,Distance_to_Eucalypt_canopy(m),NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Beaufort R_2ZOi9HYfzNfJmKE,Belgrave-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.070406,slope,245,0.067511,log,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs0_50cm,R_2ZOi9HYfzNfJmKE,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,260,0,generalised,standard,14,14,13,13,1,1,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"There is weak evidence for weak or negligible negative relationships between eucalyptus recruitment and percentage grass cover (exotic annual and perennial, and native perennial grass species).",neg_q,All steps were performed using R version 4.0.2.,R,4.0.2,R,4.0.2,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,ExoticAnnualHerb_cover,NA,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,NA,NA,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,Litter_cover,MossLichen_cover,NA,Euc_canopy_cover,Distance_to_Eucalypt_canopy(m),NA,euc_sdlgs50cm-2m,euc_sdlgs>2m,NA,precipitation_warmest_quarter,NA,NA,MrVBF,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Belgrave R_2zSEWAYDs4K7SiK,Bencubbi-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.007649,slope,306.68,0.00778,log,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),total eucalyptus seedlings = euc_sdlgs0_50cm + euc_sdlgs50cm.2m + euc_sdlgs.2m,euc_sdlgs_all,R_2zSEWAYDs4K7SiK,all_grass,NA,0,generalised,standard,3,3,1,1,2,2,0,0,retain,retain,NA,Grass cover did not have a significant influence on Eucalyptus seedling recruitment.,none_c,R version 3.6.2 was used all aspects of my analysis,R,3.6.2,R,3.6.2,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,all_grass,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bencubbi R_2zUZWZuYEjzhNEw,Blinma-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.027,slope,233.472258,0.006,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_2zUZWZuYEjzhNEw,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,3720,0,linear,standard,11,11,3,3,8,8,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"Although the effect of brood size both at the beginning of the nestling period (just after manipulations) and on day 14 are significant, the brood size only explains 1.6% of the variation in tarsus length and 3.8% of the variation in chick weight on day 14. The effect of the experiment itself, (being moved or being in a brood that was unnaturally large regardless of brood size) seem to have stronger effects on the nestlings than being brought up with one additional sibling. Large differences in brood size will, however, have stronger effects on nestling size and weight.",neg_q,R version 3.6.2,R,3.6.2,R,3.6.2,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,hatch_Area,hatch_Box,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,rear_Box,NA,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,NA,NA,day14_measurer,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Blinma @@ -337,7 +337,7 @@ In all nests analyses, we find in one set of analyses that the effect of adding On the other hand, in our other set of all nests analyses we see some positive evidence for an effect of siblings, as there were significant negative main effects for both brood size and net manipulation, suggesting that extra chicks lead to smaller average sizes in the nest. One possible interpretation of these results is that chicks suffer when they grow up in broods that are larger than what the mothers intended to have, perhaps particularly so when those broods were large to begin with. However, within the normal range of brood sizes (i.e. in control nests), parents are able to adjust care levels such that outcomes for chicks are similar across different levels of sibling competition.",mixed,R 3.6.1,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,rear_d0_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,NA,NA,NA,Date_of_day14,NA,NA,day14_measurer,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bowral -R_3EbbZxcQ3gctVZu,Binnaway-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,-2.6269353,0.01312667,logit,logit,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),"wd$zero<-as.logical(wd$total_seeds, wd$total_seeds!=0) - analysis was a hurdle model since there were no seedlings in the new_ecu_data only predictions for the first model were generated",NA,R_3EbbZxcQ3gctVZu,NA,NA,0,CHECK,hurdle,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,The odds of seedlings being present in a plot decreases as exotic perennial grass cover increases but is unaffected by annual grass or native grass cover. Herb cover and soil chemistry both have a much greater effect on seedling presence and count than grass cover.,neg_q,R version 3.6.1,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Binnaway +R_3EbbZxcQ3gctVZu,Binnaway-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,-2.6269353,0.01312667,logit,logit,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),"wd$zero<-as.logical(wd$total_seeds, wd$total_seeds!=0) - analysis was a hurdle model since there were no seedlings in the new_ecu_data only predictions for the first model were generated",NA,R_3EbbZxcQ3gctVZu,NA,NA,0,NA,hurdle,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,The odds of seedlings being present in a plot decreases as exotic perennial grass cover increases but is unaffected by annual grass or native grass cover. Herb cover and soil chemistry both have a much greater effect on seedling presence and count than grass cover.,neg_q,R version 3.6.1,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Binnaway R_3EchM6GxZboGwz4,Bright-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.01699,slope,2384.80707,6.60E-04,identity,identity,blue tit,1,log,log,original variable (transformed prior to analysis [not with a link function in analysis]),NA,day_14_weight,R_3EchM6GxZboGwz4,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,2564,0,linear,standard,5,5,1,1,4,4,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"Mean nestling mass (as an index of ""growth"") appears to be negatively influenced by number of siblings after accounting for genetics, and spatial and temporal autocorrelation. However, parental genetic effects may be far more important in influencing growth than brood size alone.",neg_q,R version 3.5.1,R,3.5.1,R,3.5.1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_mom_Ring,NA,NA,NA,genetic_dad_ring_(WP_or_EP),NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,Date_of_day14,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bright R_3eemYAT4onCCt0N,Buchan-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.002337,slope,391,0.00103,identity,identity,blue tit,1,divided.by.14,divided.by.14,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),"I took day_14_weight and adjusted for body size using a LMM including day_14_tarsus_length as a fixed effect and day14_measurer as a random intercept. I then took the residuals of this model and divided by 14 to give a daily chick growth rate. This was then used as my response. {newline} lmer(day_14_weight ~ day_14_tarsus_length + (1|day14_measurer), data = titdata) {newline} titdata$day_14_weight_SA <- as.vector(resid(model.mass)) #SA = size adjusted {newline} titdata$chick_growth_rate <- titdata$day_14_weight_SA / 14",residual_day14_weight,R_3eemYAT4onCCt0N,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,3328,0,linear,standard,7,7,5,5,2,2,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"The growth of nestlings blue tits generally decreases with increased competition with siblings as shown by the overall relationship between chick growth rate and rear nest brood size (Fig. 1B). Experimental manipulations of nests showed that relative increased in nestling competition results in decreased chick growth rates compared to all other nests (i.e. control and decreased treatments; Fig. 1A). The lack of difference between control and decreased nests (Fig. 1A) could be because breeding adults can only invest in offspring provisioning as much as their condition or fitness allows, and the original clutch may have been close to their maximal investment capacity. Only those in increased treatment nests were pushed beyond their limits to provide and offspring growth suffered as a consequence. Decreased treatment nest chicks may not have been provided with excessive food (which could result in increased in chick growth) as adults save energy for future reproductive efforts, or there may be some other physiological constraint to the rate of growth, regardless of possibly higher provisioning rates at decreased treatment nests.",neg_q,R v3.6.3,R,3.6.3,R,3.6.3,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,brood_reduction,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Buchan R_3EoS37IOWKLRxDV,Blackall-1-1-1,1,1,1,0.12948879,slope,364.8621107,0.05611687,back.transformed,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs0_50cm,R_3EoS37IOWKLRxDV,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,NA,1,generalised,standard,10,15,6,11,4,4,5,0,retain,retain,exclude,"There is a positive association between small seedlings (0-50cm) and the cover of exotic annual grasses, a positive association between medium seedlings (50cm-2m) and the cover of native perennial grasses, and a negative association between large seedlings (>2m) and the cover of native perennial and exotic annual grasses.",mixed,R 3.6.3,R,3.6.3,R,3.6.3,NA,NA,Season,Property,Quadrat no,NA,NA,NA,NA,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,NA,NA,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,NA,NA,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NA,NativePerennialGraminoid_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Distance_to_Eucalypt_canopy(m),NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,year,size_class,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Blackall @@ -402,7 +402,7 @@ R_3HzSBqQTAmJJ9ye,Byrock-2-9-1,2,9,1,0.007628,slope,345,0.008191,log,log,eucalyp R_3iKJrflQwwxsps0,Byrock-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.01968,slope,452.1175,0.00668,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_3iKJrflQwwxsps0,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,3720,0,linear,standard,3,3,2,2,1,1,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"Sibling count had a statistically significant effect on both measures of nestling growth. The 0.065 g decrease in mass for each additional sibling represents only a 0.63% change from the mean mass of 10.276 g. The 0.020 mm decrease in tarsus length per additional sibling represents a 0.12 % change from the mean of 16.7276 mm. Given the range in brood size from 1 to 17, the difference in mass and tarsus length due to sibling competition could be as much as 10.08% and 1.92%, respectively, when comparing the extremes of the brood size range. This indicates a potentially biologically significant effect when considering the extremes of brood size, but minor changes in brood size are unlikely to have a biologically significant effect.",neg_c,All analyses were conducted using R version 3.6.1 (R Core Team 2019) within RStudio version 1.2.1335 (RStudio Team 2018). Linear mixed effects models were conducted using R package “nlme” version 3.1-147 (Pinheiro et al. 2020).,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Byrock R_3iKJrflQwwxsps0,Byrock-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.06549,slope,458.3576,0.0141,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_3iKJrflQwwxsps0,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,3720,0,linear,standard,3,3,2,2,1,1,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"Sibling count had a statistically significant effect on both measures of nestling growth. The 0.065 g decrease in mass for each additional sibling represents only a 0.63% change from the mean mass of 10.276 g. The 0.020 mm decrease in tarsus length per additional sibling represents a 0.12 % change from the mean of 16.7276 mm. Given the range in brood size from 1 to 17, the difference in mass and tarsus length due to sibling competition could be as much as 10.08% and 1.92%, respectively, when comparing the extremes of the brood size range. This indicates a potentially biologically significant effect when considering the extremes of brood size, but minor changes in brood size are unlikely to have a biologically significant effect.",neg_c,All analyses were conducted using R version 3.6.1 (R Core Team 2019) within RStudio version 1.2.1335 (RStudio Team 2018). Linear mixed effects models were conducted using R package “nlme” version 3.1-147 (Pinheiro et al. 2020).,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Byrock R_3Kvy0h01LXHWniT,Branxton-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.003765,slope,268.382753,0.0288,log,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs0_50cm,R_3Kvy0h01LXHWniT,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,NA,0,generalised,standard,10,10,8,8,2,2,0,0,retain,retain,NA,NA,neg_q,R,R,NA,R,NA,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,NA,NA,NA,NativePerennialHerb_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,MossLichen_cover,Rock_cover,Euc_canopy_cover,Distance_to_Eucalypt_canopy(m),NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Th_ppm,U_ppm,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Branxton -R_3Kvy0h01LXHWniT,Branxton-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.014239,slope,246.347341,0.015897,NA,NA,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs50cm_2m,R_3Kvy0h01LXHWniT,NA,NA,0,generalised,standard,10,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,retain,NA,NA,CHECK,R,R,NA,R,NA,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,ExoticAnnualHerb_cover,NA,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,BareGround_cover,NA,MossLichen_cover,NA,NA,Distance_to_Eucalypt_canopy(m),NA,euc_sdlgs50cm-2m,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,K_perc,Th_ppm,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Branxton +R_3Kvy0h01LXHWniT,Branxton-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.014239,slope,246.347341,0.015897,NA,NA,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs50cm_2m,R_3Kvy0h01LXHWniT,NA,NA,0,generalised,standard,10,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,retain,NA,NA,NA,R,R,NA,R,NA,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,ExoticAnnualHerb_cover,NA,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,BareGround_cover,NA,MossLichen_cover,NA,NA,Distance_to_Eucalypt_canopy(m),NA,euc_sdlgs50cm-2m,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,K_perc,Th_ppm,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Branxton R_3L6k5TOvZ4731Dk,Bridport-1-1-1,1,1,1,-1.05,slope,85.35546,0.9,log,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),summed all three categories of seedlings,euc_sdlgs_all,R_3L6k5TOvZ4731Dk,all_exotic_grass,350,1,generalised,standard,4,4,3,3,1,1,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"The amount of native grass and grass like plant cover has a weak positive effect on whether eucalyptus seedlings establish, whereas both the amount of native and exotic grass cover have negative effects on the number of seedlings. Effects on the number of seedlings were stronger than on seedling presence; however, these effects were still deemed weak due to high levels of uncertainty, which is most likely related to the limited sample size of quadrats with >0 counts. Due to these high levels of uncertainty, evidence is not conclusive, but results suggest that grasses compete with or otherwise inhibit eucalyptus seedlings where seedlings are present, but native grasses may benefit the occurrence of seedlings. Seedlings were more likely to be present closer to existing canopy, suggesting that close to source populations, passive eucalyptus restoration may be a possibility, but again, evidence in favor of this statement was fairly weak.",mixed,Data preparation: R 3.6.1; model fitting JAGS ver 4.3.0; accessing JAGS through R: package jagsUI 1.5.1,R,3.6.1,"R,JAGS","3.6.1,4.3.0",NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,all_exotic_grass,all_native_grass_graminoid,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bridport R_3lMQ3NmmjrzpbM2,Caigun-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.10058,slope,323.105,0.01296,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_3lMQ3NmmjrzpbM2,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,0,linear,standard,7,7,5,5,2,2,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"Growth appears to be negatively affected by early competition with siblings, yet somehow positively correlated with the number of siblings in a nest at the end of nesting. It is possible that these latter results are confounded by great provisioning parents. For example, perhaps parents who can support many offspring (those with high nestling counts on day 14), do so much more efficiently, and those nests with lower numbers of nestlings on day 14, are of poorer quality - thus those individuals have grown less, despite less competition.",mixed,R version 3.6.2 (2019-12-12),R,3.6.2,R,3.6.2,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_OH,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,rear_mom_Ring,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Caigun R_3lMQ3NmmjrzpbM2,Caigun-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.275155,slope,316.8708,0.02596,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_3lMQ3NmmjrzpbM2,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,0,linear,standard,7,7,5,5,2,2,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"Growth appears to be negatively affected by early competition with siblings, yet somehow positively correlated with the number of siblings in a nest at the end of nesting. It is possible that these latter results are confounded by great provisioning parents. For example, perhaps parents who can support many offspring (those with high nestling counts on day 14), do so much more efficiently, and those nests with lower numbers of nestlings on day 14, are of poorer quality - thus those individuals have grown less, despite less competition.",mixed,R version 3.6.2 (2019-12-12),R,3.6.2,R,3.6.2,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_OH,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,rear_mom_Ring,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Caigun @@ -412,10 +412,10 @@ R_3m9pJhdYt9KfVms,Camden-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.07159,slope,550.37737,0.02614,identity,i R_3mfyhAj6rakbi5b,Brighton-1-1-3,1,1,3,-0.01177,slope,340,0.0404,log,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs>2m,R_3mfyhAj6rakbi5b,all_grass,NA,0,generalised,standard,8,8,6,6,2,2,0,0,retain,exclude_partial,exclude,"Grass cover does not influence grass cover. However, other vegetation types such as herbs seem to influence on seedling recruitment.",none_c,All the data analysis procedures were performed using R software ver. 3.6.3,R,3.6.3,R,3.6.3,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Euc_canopy_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,all_grass,NA,NA,NA,shrub_cover,herb_cover,other_veg,bare,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Brighton R_3mfyhAj6rakbi5b,Brighton-1-1-1,1,1,1,0.009359,slope,340,0.01325,log,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs0_50cm,R_3mfyhAj6rakbi5b,all_grass,NA,0,generalised,standard,8,8,6,6,2,2,0,0,retain,exclude_partial,exclude,"Grass cover does not influence grass cover. However, other vegetation types such as herbs seem to influence on seedling recruitment.",none_c,All the data analysis procedures were performed using R software ver. 3.6.3,R,3.6.3,R,3.6.3,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Euc_canopy_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,all_grass,NA,NA,NA,shrub_cover,herb_cover,other_veg,bare,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Brighton R_3mfyhAj6rakbi5b,Brighton-1-1-2,1,1,2,0.008334,slope,340,0.011672,log,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs50cm_2m,R_3mfyhAj6rakbi5b,all_grass,NA,0,generalised,standard,8,8,6,6,2,2,0,0,retain,exclude_partial,exclude,"Grass cover does not influence grass cover. However, other vegetation types such as herbs seem to influence on seedling recruitment.",none_c,All the data analysis procedures were performed using R software ver. 3.6.3,R,3.6.3,R,3.6.3,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Euc_canopy_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,all_grass,NA,NA,NA,shrub_cover,herb_cover,other_veg,bare,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Brighton -R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,Casino-3-1-2,3,1,2,NA,NA,NA,NA,identity,identity,blue tit,NA,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,NA,NA,CHECK,CHECK,standard,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,NA,NA,NA,CHECK,NA,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Casino +R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,Casino-3-1-2,3,1,2,NA,NA,NA,NA,identity,identity,blue tit,NA,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,NA,NA,NA,NA,standard,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Casino R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,Cattai-2-2-2,2,2,2,-0.08847,control-enlarged,471.65246,0.10329,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,rear_nest_trt_C.E,2031,0,linear,standard,8,11,6,9,2,2,3,0,retain,exclude_partial,NA,"More siblings have a negative impact on blue tit chick growth, both, in terms of biomass and tarsus length. Even though males are, on avergae heavier and larger than females, more numerous clutches have negative impacts on chick growth for both sexes. However, environmental effects such as clutch size explain more variation in biomass than in tarsus length, assuming leg size is more genetically determined than weight, which seems a more plastic traist.",neg_c,all analyses were conducted using R version 3.6.2 (2019-12-12),R,3.6.2,R,3.6.2,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Cattai R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,Cattai-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.05607,reduced-enlarged,327.33744,0.09451,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,rear_nest_trt_R.E,2031,0,linear,standard,8,11,6,9,2,2,3,0,retain,exclude_partial,NA,"More siblings have a negative impact on blue tit chick growth, both, in terms of biomass and tarsus length. Even though males are, on avergae heavier and larger than females, more numerous clutches have negative impacts on chick growth for both sexes. However, environmental effects such as clutch size explain more variation in biomass than in tarsus length, assuming leg size is more genetically determined than weight, which seems a more plastic traist.",neg_c,all analyses were conducted using R version 3.6.2 (2019-12-12),R,3.6.2,R,3.6.2,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Cattai -R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,Casino-3-1-1,3,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,identity,identity,blue tit,NA,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,NA,NA,CHECK,CHECK,standard,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,NA,NA,NA,CHECK,NA,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Casino +R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,Casino-3-1-1,3,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,identity,identity,blue tit,NA,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,NA,NA,NA,NA,standard,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Casino R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,Cattai-1-1-2,1,1,2,-0.6309,control-enlarged,367.3598,0.1985,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,rear_nest_trt_C.E,2031,0,linear,standard,8,11,6,9,2,2,3,0,retain,exclude_partial,NA,"More siblings have a negative impact on blue tit chick growth, both, in terms of biomass and tarsus length. Even though males are, on avergae heavier and larger than females, more numerous clutches have negative impacts on chick growth for both sexes. However, environmental effects such as clutch size explain more variation in biomass than in tarsus length, assuming leg size is more genetically determined than weight, which seems a more plastic traist.",neg_c,all analyses were conducted using R version 3.6.2 (2019-12-12),R,3.6.2,R,3.6.2,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Cattai R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,Cattai-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.1575,reduced-enlarged,304.078,0.2004,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_3nBCE4hMLh5s3qt,rear_nest_trt_R.E,2031,0,linear,standard,8,11,6,9,2,2,3,0,retain,exclude_partial,NA,"More siblings have a negative impact on blue tit chick growth, both, in terms of biomass and tarsus length. Even though males are, on avergae heavier and larger than females, more numerous clutches have negative impacts on chick growth for both sexes. However, environmental effects such as clutch size explain more variation in biomass than in tarsus length, assuming leg size is more genetically determined than weight, which seems a more plastic traist.",neg_c,all analyses were conducted using R version 3.6.2 (2019-12-12),R,3.6.2,R,3.6.2,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Cattai R_3NHVKFiOiQBfX9b,Brooklyn-2-2-1,2,2,1,-8.087,slope,115,0.0173,log,log,eucalyptus,0,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs0_50cm,R_3NHVKFiOiQBfX9b,all_grass,117,0,generalised,standard,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"A significant negative effect of grass cover on seedlings recruitment densities was detected only in winter 2006 season suggesting land manager to allocate all efforts to restoring these ecosystems in the winter season. For example, incorporate appropriate weed management in winter season to increase recruitment of Eucalyptus spp. seedlings.",neg_q,All done in one software = R 3.6.2,R,3.6.2,R,3.6.2,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,all_grass,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Brooklyn @@ -453,7 +453,7 @@ The semi-explorative results of other included predictors show that for initial ",neg_q,R 4.0.0,R,4.0.0,R,4.0.0,NA,NA,NA,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NA,NA,NA,BareGround_cover,Litter_cover,NA,Rock_cover,NA,Distance_to_Eucalypt_canopy(m),NA,NA,NA,annual_precipitation,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Th_ppm,NA,NA,NA,NA,all_exotic_grass,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,all_exotic_herb,native_herb_fern_gram,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Capertee R_9KB5LL2E99Hqfhn,Cardwell-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,logit,logit,eucalyptus,0,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),"summed variables euc_sdlgs0_50cm, euc_sdlgs50cm-2m,euc_sdlgs>2m, and then manually converted to presence-absence data where 1 = present, 0 = absent",NA,R_9KB5LL2E99Hqfhn,NA,NA,0,generalised,standard,21,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,exclude,There was little evidence to suggest the presence or abundance of Eucalyptus spp. seedlings was influenced by exotic or native grass cover.,none_c,basic data manipulation - Microsoft Excel; assumption testing - IBM SPSS v25; ANOVA - Primer v6; DISTLM - Primer 6; binomial regression - IBM SPSS v25,Excel,NA,SPSS,25,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,ExoticAnnualHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialHerb_cover,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,ExoticShrub_cover,NativePerennialFern_cover,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NativePerennialHerb_cover,NativePerennialGraminoid_cover,NativeShrub_cover,BareGround_cover,Litter_cover,MossLichen_cover,Rock_cover,Euc_canopy_cover,Distance_to_Eucalypt_canopy(m),euc_sdlgs0_50cm,euc_sdlgs50cm-2m,euc_sdlgs>2m,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Cardwell R_AzL6RdNTHtPjxzX,Carnarvo-1-1-1,1,1,1,-9.06E-04,slope,341,0.0048042,log,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),data$total_seedlings..temp.<- data$euc_sdlgs0_50cm+data$euc_sdlgs50cm.2m+data$euc_sdlgs.2m,euc_sdlgs_all,R_AzL6RdNTHtPjxzX,all_grass,349,0,generalised,standard,2,2,1,1,1,1,0,0,retain,retain,NA,Grass cover does not significantly influence Eucalyptus spp. seedling recruitment,none_c,R version 4.0.0,R,4.0.0,R,4.0.0,NA,NA,NA,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,all_grass,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Carnarvo -R_AzL6RdNTHtPjxzX,Carrieto-1-1-2,1,1,2,NA,slope,341,0.0048042,log,log,eucalyptus,NA,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),data$total_seedlings..temp.<- data$euc_sdlgs0_50cm+data$euc_sdlgs50cm.2m+data$euc_sdlgs.2m,euc_sdlgs_all,R_AzL6RdNTHtPjxzX,NA,NA,CHECK,CHECK,standard,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,NA,CHECK,NA,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Carrieto +R_AzL6RdNTHtPjxzX,Carrieto-1-1-2,1,1,2,NA,slope,341,0.0048042,log,log,eucalyptus,NA,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),data$total_seedlings..temp.<- data$euc_sdlgs0_50cm+data$euc_sdlgs50cm.2m+data$euc_sdlgs.2m,euc_sdlgs_all,R_AzL6RdNTHtPjxzX,NA,NA,NA,NA,standard,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Carrieto R_bacYhUrFeNmgo5r,Araluen-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.05,slope,728.38,0.01,identity,identity,blue tit,0,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_bacYhUrFeNmgo5r,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,3235,1,generalised,standard,7,8,4,5,3,3,0,1,retain,retain,NA,"tarsus length is negatively associated to the number of chicks in nests with an additional number of chicks only, suggesting that clutch size is adjusted to available resources and resources acquired by chicks might be reduced by competition in such nests.",neg_q,R version 4.0.0 with RStudio version 1.1.463.,R,4.0.0,R,4.0.0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_area,rear_Box,NA,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,rear_nest_OH,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,relative_CS,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Araluen R_bacYhUrFeNmgo5r,Araluen-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.14,slope,1274.54,0.01,identity,identity,blue tit,0,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_bacYhUrFeNmgo5r,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,3235,1,generalised,standard,7,8,4,5,3,3,0,1,retain,retain,NA,"Body weight is negatively affected by the number of chicks per nest and by the day of hatching in a polynomial way, suggesting an optimal hatching day according to the phenology of resource availability and a negative effect of sibling competition in nest.",neg_q,R version 4.0.0 with RStudio version 1.1.463.,R,4.0.0,R,4.0.0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_area,rear_Box,NA,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,rear_nest_OH,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,relative_CS,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Araluen R_C7CnNaqfX71jQjL,Bundeena-1-1-1,1,1,1,0.27433,slope,331,0.10698,log,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs0_50cm,R_C7CnNaqfX71jQjL,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,NA,0,linear,standard,14,14,13,13,1,1,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"The smallest seedlings were negatively influenced by Native Perennial Grass; Native Perennial Graminoid and Exotic Perennial Grass, these seedlings were also positively influenced by Exotic Annual Grass.",mixed,R 3.6.1.,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,Season,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,ExoticAnnualGrass_cover,NA,NA,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,NA,NA,NativePerennialGrass_cover,NA,NativePerennialGraminoid_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Euc_canopy_cover,Distance_to_Eucalypt_canopy(m),NA,NA,NA,annual_precipitation,NA,NA,NA,MrVBF,K_perc,Th_ppm,U_ppm,NA,SRad_Jul,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Bundeena @@ -465,12 +465,12 @@ R_CfUlQXg434XEESd,Arltung-4-4-1,4,4,1,-3.71E-04,slope,200.2766222,4.11E-05,ident R_CfUlQXg434XEESd,Arltung-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,347.4992526,0.033978443,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),change_chick_n := rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing-d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,R_CfUlQXg434XEESd,net_rearing_manipulation,NA,0,linear,standard,8,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,"An experimental decrease in sibling competition increased chick growth and decreased chick mortality (presumably because of improved nourishment), whereas experimental increase in sibling competition decreased chick growth and increase chick mortality.",neg_c,R 4.0.2.,R,4.0.2,R,4.0.2,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_OH,NA,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,NA,NA,day14_measurer,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Arltung R_CfUlQXg434XEESd,Arltung-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.062585417,slope,163.6781411,0.005794606,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_CfUlQXg434XEESd,net_rearing_manipulation,2550,0,linear,standard,10,11,3,4,7,7,1,0,retain,retain,NA,"An experimental decrease in sibling competition increased chick growth and decreased chick mortality (presumably because of improved nourishment), whereas experimental increase in sibling competition decreased chick growth and increase chick mortality.",neg_c,R 4.0.2.,R,4.0.2,R,4.0.2,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,hatch_mom_Ring,NA,NA,NA,genetic_dad_ring_(WP_or_EP),NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_OH,NA,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,day14_measurer,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,brood_sex_ratio,Arltung R_CfUlQXg434XEESd,Arltung-3-3-1,3,3,1,-0.182253296,slope,216.021074,0.015059314,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_CfUlQXg434XEESd,net_rearing_manipulation,2550,0,linear,standard,10,10,3,3,7,7,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"An experimental decrease in sibling competition increased chick growth and decreased chick mortality (presumably because of improved nourishment), whereas experimental increase in sibling competition decreased chick growth and increase chick mortality.",neg_c,R 4.0.2.,R,4.0.2,R,4.0.2,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,hatch_mom_Ring,NA,NA,NA,genetic_dad_ring_(WP_or_EP),NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_OH,NA,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,day14_measurer,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,brood_sex_ratio,Arltung -R_DoCdsvLclGEF14Z,Armadal-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,blue tit,0,check,check,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_DoCdsvLclGEF14Z,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,0,linear,standard,16,16,16,16,0,0,0,0,retain,exclude_all,exclude,"Sibling competition seemed to be an important factor, measured both by its statistical significance but also its effect size compared to other measured variables. However, it still only explained a minority of the observed variation in growth, and there are apparently other factors associated with the chick's parents or nest that determine growth more strongly.",neg_q,I performed all analysis in Python 3.6.9. I used pandas version 1.0.5 for initial reading and processing the data and scikit-learn version 0.23.1 for all analysis (which internally relied on NumPy version 1.19.0 and SciPy version 1.5.0).,Python,3.6.9,Python,3.6.9,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,hatch_Area,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_LD,hatch_nest_CS,hatch_nest_OH,d0_hatch_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,home_or_away,rear_nest_LD,rear_nest_CS,rear_nest_OH,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,number_chicks_fledged_from_rear_nest,NA,NA,NA,NA,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Armadal +R_DoCdsvLclGEF14Z,Armadal-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,blue tit,0,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_DoCdsvLclGEF14Z,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,0,linear,standard,16,16,16,16,0,0,0,0,retain,exclude_all,exclude,"Sibling competition seemed to be an important factor, measured both by its statistical significance but also its effect size compared to other measured variables. However, it still only explained a minority of the observed variation in growth, and there are apparently other factors associated with the chick's parents or nest that determine growth more strongly.",neg_q,I performed all analysis in Python 3.6.9. I used pandas version 1.0.5 for initial reading and processing the data and scikit-learn version 0.23.1 for all analysis (which internally relied on NumPy version 1.19.0 and SciPy version 1.5.0).,Python,3.6.9,Python,3.6.9,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,hatch_Area,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_LD,hatch_nest_CS,hatch_nest_OH,d0_hatch_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,home_or_away,rear_nest_LD,rear_nest_CS,rear_nest_OH,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,number_chicks_fledged_from_rear_nest,NA,NA,NA,NA,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Armadal R_eo0tGxxndcHxDJ7,Ashford-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.29135,slope,413.85953,0.04679,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_eo0tGxxndcHxDJ7,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,0,linear,standard,7,8,4,5,3,3,1,0,retain,retain,NA,"Chicks raised with larger broods had significantly smaller body weight at 14 days post hatching, relative to chicks raised in smaller broods(F = 38.679, df = 1, 411.7, p < 0.001). With each standard deviation increase in brood size (i.e. 3.25), there is an 0.29 ± 0.05 factor decrease in chick weight. Therefore, increased sibling competition has a negative effect on the growth of nestling blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus).",neg_c,Data were analysed using R version 4.0.0 (R Development Core Team 2015).,R,4.0.0,R,4.0.0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,NA,NA,day14_measurer,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Ashford R_eqzPwjXV6eOi2zv,Babinda-2-2-1,2,2,1,-0.385,slope,75.93552,0.0547,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_tarsus_length,R_eqzPwjXV6eOi2zv,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,1,linear,standard,13,14,6,7,7,7,1,0,retain,retain,NA,"Tarsus length at day 14 was negatively affected by the number of siblings present in the nest at start of rearing (mean: -0.090, CI: -0.133 to -0.046), but positively by the number of siblings present in the nest at day 14 (mean: 0.088 CI: 0.028 to 0.148). My conclusion is that growth of nestling blue tits seem to be reduced by competition with siblings when very young, and not affected by the number of siblings as eggs. It looks as if growth is promoted by having more siblings present at a later stage, which is the opposite from the effect of competition with siblings when younger. However, it is possible that the number of chicks present at day 14 is confounded with something else affecting their growth not accounted for by the model. In terms of body mass, females seem to be more affected by this positive effect compared to males.",mixed,"The statistical analyses were done in R (R Core Team 2019, version 3.6.2.) and all models were fit using Bayesian Hamiltonian Markov chain Monte Carlo in the rstanarm package (Goodrich et al 2019, version 2.19.2",R,3.6.2,"R, Stan","3.6.2,2.19.2",NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,hatch_Area,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,d0_hatch_nest_brood_size,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,rear_d0_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,Date_of_day14,NA,NA,NA,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Babinda R_eqzPwjXV6eOi2zv,Babinda-1-1-1,1,1,1,-1.027,slope,56.60666,0.1293875,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_eqzPwjXV6eOi2zv,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,1,linear,standard,13,14,6,7,7,7,1,0,retain,retain,NA,"Body weight at day 14 was also negatively affected by the number of siblings present in the nest at start of rearing (mean: -0.250, CI: -0.342 to -0.153), and positively by the number of siblings present in the nest at day 14 (mean: 0.257, CI: 0.127 to 0.391). My conclusion is that growth of nestling blue tits seem to be reduced by competition with siblings when very young, and not affected by the number of siblings as eggs. It looks as if growth is promoted by having more siblings present at a later stage, which is the opposite from the effect of competition with siblings when younger. However, it is possible that the number of chicks present at day 14 is confounded with something else affecting their growth not accounted for by the model. In terms of body mass, females seem to be more affected by this positive effect compared to males.",mixed,"The statistical analyses were done in R (R Core Team 2019, version 3.6.2.) and all models were fit using Bayesian Hamiltonian Markov chain Monte Carlo in the rstanarm package (Goodrich et al 2019, version 2.19.2).",R,3.6.2,"R, Stan","3.6.2,2.19.2",NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,hatch_nest_breed_ID,hatch_Area,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,d0_hatch_nest_brood_size,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,rear_area,NA,NA,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,rear_d0_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,d14_rear_nest_brood_size,NA,Date_of_day14,NA,NA,NA,chick_sex_molec,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Babinda -R_es2jrrN9CTGwl5D,Balingu-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,blue tit,NA,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,NA,R_es2jrrN9CTGwl5D,NA,NA,CHECK,CHECK,CHECK,7,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,"In conclusion, according to the results obtained in our study, blue tits growth is influenced by competition with siblings as it is evidenced in the enlarged nests. In fact, bigger nestlings are most likely to survive to the first breeding season. We rejected the changes in body mass to be due to genetic characteristics of males with which the female copulated. Although males were heavier with longer tarsi than females, survival to first breeding season is not influenced by sex. This suggests that sex is not related to competition with siblings. Even though weight presented more noticeable changes related to growth, tarsus length supports our analysis as well.",neg_q,"R 4.0.0 +R_es2jrrN9CTGwl5D,Balingu-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,blue tit,NA,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,NA,R_es2jrrN9CTGwl5D,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,7,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,exclude,exclude_all,NA,"In conclusion, according to the results obtained in our study, blue tits growth is influenced by competition with siblings as it is evidenced in the enlarged nests. In fact, bigger nestlings are most likely to survive to the first breeding season. We rejected the changes in body mass to be due to genetic characteristics of males with which the female copulated. Although males were heavier with longer tarsi than females, survival to first breeding season is not influenced by sex. This suggests that sex is not related to competition with siblings. Even though weight presented more noticeable changes related to growth, tarsus length supports our analysis as well.",neg_q,"R 4.0.0 RStudio 1.2.5042",R,4.0.0,R,4.0.0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Extra-pair_paternity,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,net_rearing_manipulation,NA,NA,NA,NA,day_14_tarsus_length,day_14_weight,NA,chick_sex_molec,chick_survival_to_first_breed_season,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Balingu R_OHkieloS1B9JsC5,Ballina-1-1-1,1,1,1,-0.1666341,slope,3151.521,0.005495044,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_OHkieloS1B9JsC5,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,3189,1,linear,standard,4,4,2,2,2,2,0,0,retain,retain,exclude,"Despite model poor predictive power, there is evidence for unambiguous, if small, negative impacts of increased competition on Blue Tit chick growth.",neg_c,"Extract from full text description: “I completed all analysis in R v.3.5.3 [1] and R Studio v.1.2.1335 [2]. I used dplyr v.0.8.4 [3], stringr v.1.4.0 [4], and tidybayes v.1.0.4 [5] for data manipulation; ggplot2 v.3.2.1 [6], ggpubr v.0.2 [7], ggridges v.0.5.1 [8], reshape2 v.1.4.3 [9], and scico v.1.1.0 [10] for data visualisation; brms v.2.8.0 [11, 12], and performance v.0.4.5 [13] for modelling and analysis.”",R,3.5.3,R,3.5.3,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_year,NA,NA,NA,hatch_mom_Ring,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,home_or_away,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_Cs_at_start_of_rearing,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Ballina R_phpZePnRFCxhQFH,Cassilis-1-1-1,1,1,1,0.1374,slope,332.91,0.0316,log,log,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,euc_sdlgs0_50cm,R_phpZePnRFCxhQFH,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,349,1,generalised,standard,2,2,1,1,1,1,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"when Eucalyptus seedlings were present, their abundance increased with cover of exotic perennial grass species",pos_q,R 3.6.1,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,NA,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,ExoticPerennialGrass_cover,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Cassilis @@ -519,4 +519,4 @@ R_x9Fs6DQf26tdSRr,Childers-2-2-1,2,2,1,0.267,slope,326.95399,0.0679,log,log,euca R_XQXeN7diZLPsRVv,Chiltern-1-1-1,1,1,1,NA,NA,3.536992,0.5756016,logit,logit,eucalyptus,1,NA,NA,constructed variable (combining information from two or more original variables),"Sum of ""euc_sdlgs0-50cm"", ""euc_sdlgs50cm-2m"", and ""euc_sdlgs>2m""",euc_sdlgs_all,R_XQXeN7diZLPsRVv,all_grass,300,0,generalised,zero_inflated,3,3,2,2,1,1,0,0,retain,exclude_all,exclude,"Three properties showed a positive relationship between grass cover and recruitment. In other words, higher grass cover was correlated with greater recruitment of seedlings across these three properties. However, the other 11 properties showed no directional relationship (95% confidence intervals all crossing zero), nor did the averaged estimate. Therefore, overall, we can conclude that there is weak to no evidence that grass cover has a measurable effect on eucalyptus recruitment across these properties in the Goulburn Broken Catchment, Australia.",none_q,Data cleaning (i.e. removing three properties) occurred in Excel before uploading the database in R. All analyses were conducted in R Version 3.6.3.,Excel,NA,R,3.6.3,NA,NA,NA,Property,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,annual_precipitation,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,all_grass,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Chiltern R_yZQkQmoW6cuEO09,Beverle-1-1-1,1,1,1,-1.08,reduced-enlarged,335.4,0.08793,identity,identity,blue tit,1,NA,NA,"original variable (not transformed prior to analysis - if transformed with link function in analysis, click this option)",NA,day_14_weight,R_yZQkQmoW6cuEO09,rear_nest_trt_R.E,3720,0,linear,standard,3,3,1,1,2,2,0,0,retain,retain,NA,"I conclude that there is some evidence that growth may be influenced by competition with siblings. Larger broods and experimentally enlarged nests were associated with smaller and lighter nestlings on day 14. Furthermore, there was more variation in nestling size and mass on day 14 in nests with experimentally increased brood sizes, which may indicate that some siblings were not able to compete effectively for resources in those broods. Those effects may also underestimate competition, since nestlings were also more likely to die before fledging (or measurement) in enlarged broods. -However, most differences observed were driven by broods that were enlarged beyond the natural range of variation in brood size and there was less evidence that brood reduction resulted in a release from sibling competition. Therefore, it is somewhat unclear how big of a role sibling competition plays in driving variation in nestling growth under normal conditions and it may only be especially important at larger brood sizes or when resources are especially limited.",neg_q,R 3.6.1,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Beverle \ No newline at end of file +However, most differences observed were driven by broods that were enlarged beyond the natural range of variation in brood size and there was less evidence that brood reduction resulted in a release from sibling competition. Therefore, it is somewhat unclear how big of a role sibling competition plays in driving variation in nestling growth under normal conditions and it may only be especially important at larger brood sizes or when resources are especially limited.",neg_q,R 3.6.1,R,3.6.1,R,3.6.1,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,hatch_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_breed_ID,NA,NA,NA,NA,rear_nest_trt,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Beverle