DataPDF Available
1
Amphibia-Reptilia
Associated costs of mitigation-driven translocation in small lizards
Rafael Barrientos1,*,**,****, Rodrigo Megía-Palma2,3,*,***,****
1 - Road Ecology Lab, Department of Biodiversity, Ecology and Evolution, Faculty of Biology, Complutense
University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
2 - Universitdad de Alcalá (UAH), School of Pharmacy, Department of Biomedicine and Biotechnology,
Parasitology Area, A.P. 20 Campus Universitario, Alcalá de Henares, E-28805, Madrid, Spain
3 - Functional Biodiversity (FBIO), CIBIO Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos,
Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal
*Corresponding author; e-mail: rbarrientos@ucm.es
**ORCID 0000-0002-1677-3214
***ORCID 0000-0003-1038-0468
**** Both authors contributed equally to this work
Supplementary material
2
Table S1. The set of best models (ΔAIC ≤ 4) that best explained the distance moved.
Df
logLik
AICc
Weight
Elapsed days + Mites + Treatment
5
-10.23
32.2
0.12
Elapsed days + Treatment
4
-11.58
32.3
0.11
Elapsed days + Treatment + Area
5
-10.68
33.1
0.07
Elapsed days + Mites + Treatment + Area
6
-9.55
33.6
0.06
Body condition + Elapsed days + Treatment
5
-11.19
34.1
0.04
Body condition + Elapsed days + Mites + Treatment
6
-10.02
34.6
0.04
Date + Elapsed days + Treatment
5
-11.43
34.6
0.03
Elapsed days + Body size + Treatment
5
-11.54
34.8
0.03
Elapsed days + Mites + Body size + Treatment
6
-10.19
34.9
0.03
Date + Elapsed days + Mites + Treatment
6
-10.20
35.0
0.03
Elapsed days + Treatment + Area + Treatment:Area
6
-10.43
35.4
0.02
Body condition + Elapsed days + Treatment + Area
6
-10.43
35.4
0.02
Elapsed days + Body size + Treatment + Area
6
-10.50
35.5
0.02
Elapsed days + Mites + Treatment + Area + Treatment:Area
7
-9.08
35.7
0.02
Date + Elapsed days + Treatment + Area
6
-10.56
35.7
0.02
Mites + Treatment
4
-13.4
35.9
0.02
3
Table S2. The set of best models (ΔAIC ≤ 4) that best explained the change in body condition.
df
logLik
ΔAICc
Weight
Elapsed days + Distance moved + Treatment
5
104.2
0
0.13
Elapsed days + Treatment
4
102.2
1.40
0.06
Elapsed days + Distance moved
4
102.0
1.75
0.05
Elapsed days + Distance moved + Body size + Treatment
6
104.7
1.81
0.05
Elapsed days + Distance moved + Mites + Treatment
6
104.4
2.33
0.04
Body condition + Elapsed days + Distance moved + Treatment
6
104.2
2.65
0.03
Elapsed days + Distance moved + Treatment + Area
6
104.2
2.66
0.03
Date + Elapsed days + Distance moved + Treatment
6
104.2
2.73
0.03
Body condition + Elapsed days + Treatment
5
102.7
2.99
0.03
Elapsed days + Distance moved + Body size
5
102.6
3.19
0.03
Elapsed days + Body size + Treatment
5
102.4
3.53
0.02
Elapsed days + Treatment + Area
5
102.4
3.55
0.02
Elapsed days + Distance moved + Mites
5
102.3
3.83
0.02
4
Table S3. The set of best models (ΔAIC ≤ 4) that best explained the change in parasitization by mites.
df
logLik
ΔAICc
Distance moved + Mites
4
-164
0
Date + Distance moved + Mites
5
-163
0.71
Date + Distance moved + Mites + Treatment
6
-162
1.75
Distance moved + Mites + Treatment
5
-163
1.76
Distance moved + Mites + Area
5
-163
2.51
Body condition + Distance moved + Mites
5
-163
2.56
Distance moved + Mites + Body size
5
-164
2.60
Elapsed days + Distance moved + Mites
5
-164
2.62
Date + Elapsed days + Distance moved + Mites
6
-162
2.64
Date + Distance moved + Mites + Area
6
-162
3.23
Body condition + Date + Distance moved + Mites
6
-162
3.39
Date + Distance moved + Mites + Body size
6
-163
3.47
5
Figure S1. Effect of the translocation experiment on the distance moved and on the change in
body condition by areas. Box shows mean ± SE and whisker confidence intervals (95%).

File (1)

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.